IntroductionThis paper explor es state's anti-trafficking policy using as an active analytical tool. By making visible women's voices and their specific needs within different processes of state's policy, and state's accountability to what it has done for women under policy framework, I seek to evaluate VNAP's success in terms of promoting women's empowerment, improving equality, and reducing women's vulnerability, especially those of trafficking returnees. While has been described as a proactive way to understand human trafficking within last two decades by feminist scholars like D'Cunha (2002) Heyzer (2006), and Samarasinghe (2008), inadequate attention has been given to integrating into policy evaluation of anti-human trafficking strategies. To bridge this theoretical gap, I seek to formulate a Gender Sensitive Approach as an evaluation framework for antihuman trafficking policy. Application of GSA into evaluation of VNAP will help answer research question: To what extent was VNAP a gender-sensitive policy? The paper therefore is divided into two main parts: formulation of GSA, and a brief evaluation of VNAP using GSA.A Gender Sensitive Approach to Evaluating Anti-TIP PolicyConceptualizing Gender: Gender and PowerGender has been established as a major factor in development studies. Truong, Wier inga a nd C hha chhi (2006) emphasize equa lity a nd empowerment as important tools to engender women's security. Specifically, equality and equity are central to human development and to supporting women's human rights. Further, as it has been argued by Jackson and Scott (2002), all aspects of life are gendered. It means that is present itself in all life issues; and human trafficking is no exception.Historically, has become a key social science term since rebirth of feminism in 1970s. After four decades, is still a largetheme idea and contested concept. Early, in her influential book Sex, Gender and Society, Oakley (1972) defined as a psychological and cultural concept rather than a term with biological connotations. Accordingly, is differentiated from sex. While sex is biologically constructed and refers to biologica l differ ences between male and female, r efers to sociocultural classification into masculine and feminine. In word of Oakley, is the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person (p. 159).Being emphasized as a key category that affects different aspects of our personal lives, social relations, and culture (Connell, 2002; Bradley, 2007), term gender has created burgeoning literature of both feminists and scholars. The term, today, is fully conceptualized. Jackson and Scott (2002) depict as a construction that: [D]enotes hierarchical division between women and men embedded in both social institutions and social practices. Gender is thus a socia l structural phenomenon but it is a lso pr oduced, negotiated and sustained at level of everyday interaction (p. 1).Clearly, concept of has been extended in comparison to its former defined meanings. Gender is no longer a simple basic distinction between sexes; it has become a multi-faceted structure that is socially, historically, culturally, and politically constructed and has become a crucial factor of development.To serve aim of policy evaluation in this paper, concept of is deliberately utilized as socially and politically constructed; relations are as relations of power defined by who has power and who does not. Following Gender in Development (GID) approach, gender, in this article, is conceptua lized as a socia l structure that is deeply embedded in societ y, creating opportunities or constraints to people at different levels (Risman, 2004). At individual level, denotes self-reliance, internal strength, and ability to det er mine choices. …