Sanctuary Focus Group Year 1 - Progress Hansa Shah, Princeton Venkata Pingali, LA/USC Rohini Muthuswami, Delhi Sunil Laxman, Seattle 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:

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

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 ( s, 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? Hansa Shah, Princeton Venkata Pingali, LA/USC Rohini Muthuswami, Delhi Sunil Laxman, Seattle And many others ….