Upload
teresa-ramsey
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Why Sanctuary? Children Role of education Creating alternative options Socializing the issue Lack of attention
Citation preview
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
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/[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….