Sanctuary Focus Group

Sanctuary Focus Group

Year 1 - Progress

http://www.ashanet.org/focusgroups/[email protected]

Hansa Shah, Princeton ([email protected])Venkata Pingali, LA/USC ([email protected])

Rohini Muthuswami, Delhi ([email protected])Sunil Laxman, Seattle ([email protected])

And many others….

Focus on What?

Children of women in prostitution and child victims of trafficking and prostitution Danger of being Trafficked and exploited – rights

violation Lack of education opportunities, further trapping

them in the vicious cycle Lack of real options Religious and societal sanction to exploitation

Why Sanctuary?

Children Role of education

Creating alternative options Socializing the issue

Lack of attention

Efforts

Focus: NGO Networking Objectives

Improve communication Conference (Dec 2003), Workshops (in progress) Quarterly Newsletter (in progress, June 2004)

Bring diverse parties together Current partners & Child-Rights Groups Current partners & educators Current partners & womens’ rights groups

Sanctuary Conference – Dec 2003 Hosted by Odanadi, Mysore 26 Groups, 10 states 3 Days, Budget: $2100

Some more…

Combination of presentations, panels and discussions

More information: http://www.ashanet.org/focusgroups/sanctuary/conf/

Key Outcomes

Groups saw the need to network Preference for non-funding based network

Groups would like a communication channel To share experiences Newsletter – preferably in hard copy

Bilateral relationships forged

Follow Up

Reports Minutes (Sanctuary Website) Articles: Patrika and Asha Annual Report

Newsletter First issue: June 2004 Editors: Rohini, Delhi and Sunil, Seattle

Workshop 2-3 In planning stage Focus being determined

Others

Exploring collaborations Asha-Mgmt (To build organizational strengths) Asha-AAPI (Health issues, peripheral) AID, IFA (Coordinated efforts)

Collecting statistics Build focus group understanding of issues

Sanctuary Focus Group

Assessment

http://www.ashanet.org/focusgroups/[email protected]

Our Take Deep rooted problem

Need to engage people and institutions Need for sustained effort Support build bottom up

NGOs vary in effectiveness Philosophical differences Broad coalition needed not formed Several past networks have failed

Sometimes goal too far into future Value vs overhead One size fits all

Current Situation NGOs

Highly motivated Limited impact (geographical, depth, range) Philosophical differences

Existing Networks ASTEC, NACSET, NATSAP, Informal None focusing on children of victims of trafficking!

Government (Weak) Legislation and (Poor) Enforcement (Poorly implemented) Schemes

Existing Networks vs Sanctuary Existing Networks

Oriented towards advocacy Focused on trafficking related issues

Sanctuary Not a formal network – free to evolve Oriented towards creating options that give

meaning to legal freedom Focused on the next generation, and younger

victims of trafficking

Facilitating NGO Interaction

Provide neutral platform for diverse groups In person (conference) and virtual (emails,

newsletters) Build bridges between diverse groups (address

fragmentation) Free to Evolve

Network “emerges” rather than be “defined” Common action items “emerge” than be “defined” Areas of cooperation “emerge” than be “define”

Near Term Goals: Capacity Building Focus: young and start-up NGOs Research vocation options and facilitate workshops as

needed Why?

Fairly local activity Encourages multiple parallel, small networks with loose

coordination NGOs participate out of self-interest

Asha Focus Groups

Cross-group coordination needed Use as resources for chapters Provide guidance in projects

Questions?

http://www.ashanet.org/focusgroups/sanctuary

[email protected]

Hansa Shah, Princeton ([email protected])Venkata Pingali, LA/USC ([email protected])

Rohini Muthuswami, Delhi ([email protected])Sunil Laxman, Seattle ([email protected])

And many others….

Sanctuary Focus Group

Documents

Transcript of Sanctuary Focus Group