General Info

[QUOTE=David_33;1204993]The NGOs love it. Notice how they morph the subject into focusing on "slavery" and child prostitution, using the terms "used and exploited". It reminds me of the NGO organized raids on the nightclubs in Cebu searching for under-aged and trafficked girls and coming up empty handed. The sour faced guy in London who was pushing NGOs as a replacement for "faulty Philippine institutions" was using a teleprompter.[/QUOTE]The reporter and at least one of the "experts" interviewed in the story that RK linked did play very loosely with terminology, moving carelessly from "slavery" to child exploitation, to trafficking, "people being held against their will," and "dehumanization." Unfortunately, it's difficult for those of us on our side of the equation to be able to draw attention to the overblown aspects of the script--because in doing so we draw undesirable attention to our participation in the hobby. But it's also important not to throw all NGOs under the bus. In general, NGOs attract people who want to make a difference, and, like people everywhere, including on ISG, many of them end up buying into overly simplistic explanations of how things work in the world. And then some of them become passionate cheerleaders for these overly simplistic narratives. But I hold out some hope. I will try to attach a story here that showed up in The Economist last November that cites some very thoughtful observations from Human Rights Watch-to the effect that cracking down on "trafficking" both ignores the underlying causal dynamics (e.g., poverty) and often leads to police brutality against prostitutes and forcing sex work underground, where prostitutes are much more vulnerable. Human Rights Watch is, as I recall, an NGO.

Meanwhile, an article in the current Utne Reader cites a BBC poll that found "71% in favor of greater social acceptance" (of prostitution) and an online CNBC poll that "found 85 percent in favor of decriminalization." Maybe better days are coming.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost;1205959]But it's also important not to throw all NGOs under the bus.[/QUOTE]I would prefer to throw them under their four wheel drive vehicles, after they leave a five star restaurant on their way to their 5 star hotel. A brief visit to Haiti will prove my point.

I would cynically postulate that they wouldn't want to end trafficking because it would end their salaries and 5 star lifestyle. But that's just MHO.

Now that doesn't sound very nice D 33.

But it does bring back memories of Puerto o Prince. At the tender age of 18 it was revealed to me that my American poverty was actually not so bad at all, had my first good black lovin', and took a tour of a rum factory up on the hill.

I need a calendar and notes to know what I did last week and what I have to do in the coming week, but I remember so much of that trip some thirty years ago. X.

[QUOTE=David_33; 1205979]I would prefer to throw them under their four wheel drive vehicles, after they leave a five star restaurant on their way to their 5 star hotel. A brief visit to Haiti will prove my point.

I would cynically postulate that they wouldn't want to end trafficking because it would end their salaries and 5 star lifestyle. But that's just MHO.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David_33;1205979]I would prefer to throw them under their four wheel drive vehicles, after they leave a five star restaurant on their way to their 5 star hotel. A brief visit to Haiti will prove my point. I would cynically postulate that they wouldn't want to end trafficking because it would end their salaries and 5 star lifestyle. But that's just MHO.[/QUOTE]David,

You make two good points: first, that NGO executive salaries—and the lifestyles they purchase-are often an irritant when displayed in the developing countries they propose to serve; second, that NGOs contributed to the mess in Haiti. I agree on both points, but both also need to be qualified.

Haiti has been characterized as NGOs and the UN run amok. The new Haitian president claims that the post-disaster philanthropic outpouring is all spent. It's not clear how he knows that, but we can take him at his word. It seems to me, however, that it's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem: no functional government, too many NGOs working with haphazard regard for each others' activities. Both are part of the problem, but which one is the 'cause' of the mess? Some are now insisting that the NGOs need to get out of the way and let government play the role it's supposed to play. Right! Just like it's been doing since the sugar plantation slaves revolted against the plantation owners in the late 18th Century. How's that worked out over the ensuing 200 plus years?

Regarding CEO salaries, I found one source, whose legitimacy I can't substantiate, reporting that the 'average' NGO CEO's salary is $97,000. Seems like a lot of money, but I'd be willing to bet that's a mean salary—calculated by dividing the sum of all salaries by the number of salaries. Mean salaries are notoriously skewed toward the few huge salaries at the top end. Median salary—the point at which 50% of salaries are larger and 50% are smaller—is most certainly less than $97K. In addition, the data for high end salaries are necessarily more reliable than for low end salaries, since the latter come from the odds and ends of little organizations operating on shoestring budgets, voluntary labor, and unreliable records.

Please consider the range of organizations that fall under the vague definition of nongovernmental organization. The World Bank characterizes NGOs as private organizations that pursue principally humanitarian or cooperative, rather than commercial, objectives, such as relieving suffering, alleviating poverty, protecting the environment, providing basic social services, or promoting community development—primarily in developing countries. They run the gamut from World Vision, ostensibly the largest international NGO ($1.03 billion annual revenues in their latest tax return), down to little community-based organizations with one or two feebly-paid, mostly voluntary, leaders. I have no particular truck with World Vision; they're a Christian organization and I've been an avowed agnostic for more than 40 years. But their annual report brochure claims that they delivered disaster relief for 80 international emergencies, developed clean water sources in Africa, provided thousands of small business loans, promoted HIV / AIDS prevention education, and provided 4 million child sponsorships. Their annual report brochure contains not a single whisper about [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908][CodeWord908][/url] or sexual exploitation. And this is the biggest NGO in the world. They paid their CEO, Richard Stearns, $391K: a lot of money, but not when compared to for-profit corporations with similar revenues. Admittedly, if Richard Stearns came to Manila, he'd stay at Shangri-La in Makati or Ortigas, but his ostentatious comings and goings make him look like just another rich Kano to the few Filipinos who'd see him.

At the other end of the scale is the little community-based NGO I know in a municipality just outside metro Manila. It operates on a shoestring, with four poorly paid employees, trying to create disaster readiness for squatter communities built in the low-lying flood plains of two rivers. They also promote sustainable small-scale business and maintain a revolving micro-finance loan program. They live on small government grants and money infused from a couple of large international NGOs. Their CEO is becoming known as an expert on the impact of disasters on informal settlements, and he knows how to do community organizing, but he's seen as a threatening irritant to corrupt local politicians who regard the squatters as collateral damage that's unavoidable in their continued pursuit of public financial largesse. He is not our enemy, any more than Richard Stearns is.

So why this chocolate-hearted rant from Skip about NGOs? Because it matters what we do with our annoyance about the efforts of some to attack sex trafficking in the most simplistic and misguided fashion. Sex trafficking does exist in the Philippines, but the careless characterizations of some zealots make it appear that all sex for pay here is synonymous with exploited women and children. It matters how we respond to them.

Not all NGOs are the enemy; in fact, most are not. And even in an NGO like Human Rights Watch, there appears to be a growing awareness that the dynamics are more complicated than what's often conveyed in the popular press. Surely much of the anti-trafficking passion is fomented by a segment of feminists and by fundamentalist religious do-gooders. And then there are the many others who ride along on the wave of passionate rhetoric without really reflecting on its inconsistencies. There is also a mass of journalists who have had little incentive to think critically about the complex dynamics of sexuality, pay for play, and world poverty.

I will shut up now and let others offer their critique and suggestions, but I think that branding NGOs as the generic enemy is not a particularly helpful course of action.

X, even those of us for whom chocolate flows through our hearts and heads like to get a little flowing over the little head as well from time to time. You helped me bring back fond memories of my own first chocolate.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost; 1206316]. < SNIP

I will shut up now and let others offer their critique and suggestions, but I think that branding NGOs as the generic enemy is not a particularly helpful course of action.[/QUOTE]Way too much eloquent analysis for a monger board Skip. You should send it to the Letters section of the NY Times.

It will go way over the head of 99. (something) % of readers here.

Cheers and see you soon, but let's talk about less serious things

[QUOTE=Red Kilt; 1206325]Way too much eloquent analysis for a monger board Skip. You should send it to the Letters section of the NY Times.

It will go way over the head of 99. (something) % of readers here.

Cheers and see you soon, but let's talk about less serious things[/QUOTE]Did some work in the past for a NGO as a freelancer. Most of the people working for this organization were making long hours for little money, but were very happy with their job since they were convinced their actions were helping the world moving forward. However, the people who managed the finances of this NGO were a little bit different, they were having hard times raising funds and they were aware that as soon as the income dries up, the future of the NGO is at stake, Most NGO's can go bankrupt like any other organization.

The financial guy once told me at diner after a couple of drinks that they were competing with other NGO's for the same funds. To improve their position in line they were "pimping" data. Overdoing the data when it came to the problems and also overdoing the results of their efforts. Once there is a cake to be shared, people will be fighting for it. Compare the brochures and websites of NGO's active in the same area. A lot of them are attributing the same success to their efforts.

In my opinion, NGO's are overall doing a nice job. Of course, there are some people taking advantage of them. Sleeping in a hotel where the rate is equivalent to the budget of the local organization does not feel very nice if you are working there or are sponsoring the club.

But OK, let's go back to pussy business. For me so far, girls in the Philippines are top of the bill when it comes to a real GFE. I moved around the world quite a bit but so far never experienced "dating" like here in the Philippines, actually I am seriously considering moving here for at least 6 months of the year. If any NGO is still looking for a CEO who is willing to do some field work himself, let me know!

[QUOTE=Red Kilt;1206325]You should send it to the Letters section of the NY Times.[/QUOTE]Not imaginative enough to know how to do that without exposing my naughty hobby.

Nicely done Skip. I think the portrayal of NGOs as "the enemy" is as simplistic (and inaccurate) as most of the pontificating typically appearing in the press regarding human trafficing. The fact is that trafficing covers a huge range of deplorable human activity, with root causes that are far too complex, and too interactive to permit simplistic explanations or solutions. Further, as you so eloquently point out, not all-and probably not even most-sex workers are victims of trafficing. However, with those caveats in mind, it does appear to me that those whose shrill voices are most often raised about the subject seem obsessed with attacking the symptoms, rather than the etiology of the disase. In the Philippines, the major causes of trafficing in most spheres; sex workers, child laborers, child soliders, for example, is overwhelming poverty, government indifference to expanding economic opportunities, a wretched education system, and pervasive government corruption coupled with weak, ineffective institutions run by poorly trained people. Unless and until these conditions-which interact with each other-are alleviated, the problem will persist no matter how many bars are raided, and no matter how many factories are shut down.

Attacking causess rather than symptoms however, is a long, difficult job that requires political will, focus and commitment. It doesn't garner flashy headlines or snippets of broadcast time and it's not glamorous or made for television. It will not happen here in the near future. Sound bites overlaid against footage of heavily armed police battering down the doors of some bar in Angeles or Manila are much easier, and the fact that such actions have zero impact on the problem is irrelevant to the self-serving poliiticians who underwrite such made-for-televesion dramas. It's important to remember that this is a country in which form triumphs over substance every time. Finally, let's not forget that this is a country that survives on the kindness of strangers, whether via the jobs provided by foreign countries overseas allowing the Philippines to export 10% of its population, or though the grants, programs and loans provided by donors. There's lots of money around now to support anti-trafficing efforts, and if nothing else politicians here are experts in capturing whatever funds are available at the moment. If trafficing is the flavor du jour, then the politicians here will become avid anti-trafficing proponents until the next big thing somes along.

GE

[quote=skip kost;1206316]you make two good points: first, that ngo executive salaries—and the lifestyles they purchase-are often an irritant when displayed in the developing countries they propose to serve.[/quote]looked this up online:

[quote=http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm]

the worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, unicef. ceo, receives $1, 200, 000 per year, (plus use of a royal royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumored to be well over $150, 000.) only pennies from the actual donations goes to the unicef cause (less than $0. 14 per dollar of income).

the second worst offender this year is marsha j. evans, president and ceo of the american red cross. for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651, 957 plus expenses. enjoys 6 weeks. fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. this means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0. 39 goes to related charity causes.

the third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, brian gallagher, president of the united way receives a $375, 000 base salary (usa funds) , plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in canada, and 1 in the usa) .2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership. 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses. and so on. this equates to about $0. 51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

fourth worst offender who was also again in the fourth spot, for every year since this information has been made available from the start 1998 is amazingly yet again, world vision president (canada) receives $300, 000 base salary, (plus supplied. a home valued in the $700, 000. $800, 000 dollar value range, completely furnished, completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water / sewer, telephone / fax, hd / high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool / yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55, 000 personal expense account for clothing / food, with a $125, 000 business expense account). get this, because it is a "religious based" charity, it pays, little to no taxes, can receive government assistance and does not have to declare were the money goes. only about $0. 52 of earned income per dollar is available for charity causes.

of the sixty some odd "charities" we looked at, the lowest paid (president / c. e. o / commissioner) was heading up a charity group right here in canada. we found, believe it or not, it was.

the salvation army's commissioner todd bassett receives a salary of only $13, 000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. which means about $0. 93 per dollar earned, is readily available and goes back out to local charity causes. truly amazing. and well done "sally anne"
[quote]

makes you wonder why so many give to charities.

slim

In all of the froth and bubbles created about trafficking, there is one very big taboo about the subject.

Arab slavery and islamic slavery.

A simple Google search will get you started.

It is still going on today, Africans taken as slaves by Arabs, and sold as chattels.

However much the NGO's waffle about stopping the trafficking business, none of them will even talk about this cruel trade.

Shame.

G

did you even bother reading the entire article that you linked to? the information that you quoted is bogus.

makes me wonder about the reading comprehension of some people on here.

[quote=nvslim; 1206567]looked this up online:

[quote=[url]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm[/url]]

the worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, unicef. ceo, receives $1, 200, 000 per year, (plus use of a royal royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumored to be well over $150, 000.) only pennies from the actual donations goes to the unicef cause (less than $0. 14 per dollar of income).

the second worst offender this year is marsha j. evans, president and ceo of the american red cross. for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651, 957 plus expenses. enjoys 6 weeks. fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. this means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0. 39 goes to related charity causes.

the third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, brian gallagher, president of the united way receives a $375, 000 base salary (usa funds) , plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in canada, and 1 in the usa).2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership. 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses. and so on. this equates to about $0. 51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

fourth worst offender who was also again in the fourth spot, for every year since this information has been made available from the start 1998 is amazingly yet again, world vision president (canada) receives $300, 000 base salary, (plus supplied. a home valued in the $700, 000. $800, 000 dollar value range, completely furnished, completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water / sewer, telephone / fax, hd / high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool / yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55, 000 personal expense account for clothing / food, with a $125, 000 business expense account). get this, because it is a "religious based" charity, it pays, little to no taxes, can receive government assistance and does not have to declare were the money goes. only about $0. 52 of earned income per dollar is available for charity causes.

of the sixty some odd "charities" we looked at, the lowest paid (president / c. e. o / commissioner) was heading up a charity group right here in canada. we found, believe it or not, it was.

the salvation army's commissioner todd bassett receives a salary of only $13, 000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. which means about $0. 93 per dollar earned, is readily available and goes back out to local charity causes. truly amazing. and well done "sally anne"[/quote]makes you wonder why so many give to charities.

slim[/quote]

Dan's point is correct. This story was being reported as an urban legend that has been around for five or six years. Many of the names are incorrect, as are the salary amounts. Snopes. Com confirms the inaccuracy of the information and adds a little more detail about the charities involved:

[url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp[/url]

I cannot for the life of me understand why somebody would create such a myth in the first place. The mentality is sort of like pulling a fire alarm when there's no fire, except that most false fire alarms get resolved fairly quickly. These things stick around to do harm for years.

Rule of thumb for potential urban legends on the internet: if a story sounds too incredible, it probably isn't true. Check snopes or one of the other urban legend busting sites before you pass it on to others.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost; 1206820][url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp[/url]

Rule of thumb for potential urban legends on the internet: if a story sounds too incredible, it probably isn't true. Check snopes or one of the other urban legend busting sites before you pass it on to others.[/QUOTE]OK, so according to this Snopes, the american red cross ceo gets 500K instead of 650K as claimed by Charity Navigator. Is this a really important difference? The point is that the managers of these organisations are running them as a for-profit business (and should be Taxed and Advertised accordingly! Thats the point). In the Philippines I observed the same type of behaviour as David is reporting from Haiti. After the floods a group of 20 american charitymen jetted in to the 5 star hotel I was staying at, and were enjoying a posh lunch downstairs while chatting about their fully-paid international travels. They flew in about 5 days after the actual flood. Now what do you think the "efficiency" is for these gentlemens sponsors? The charity probably counts every dollar spent by these guys as a dollar gone to the charity cause. But is it?

Some of this money trickles down no doubt, even if all they did was pork out on 50 dollar steaks and 100 dollar hookers, the guy cooking the steak could have a nephew affected by the flood, or the hooker might be coming from Marikina and needs a room to stay overnight.

I have also encountered some genuinely non-profit charities, where about 80% goes to a good cause, you have to know who runs the operation and how before writing them a check.

Check out this rather heart-warming story about a strategy to teach Mindanao indigenous people about health, and particularly contraception.

I think it might help those guys who persist in calling filipinas "stupid" and uneducated. I prefer to accept that they have simply not been given the opportunities that we have been given.

[url]http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/76889/tree-bark-brew-sleeping-with-daughters-other-[/url]%E2%80%98safe-sex%E2%80%99-tips-on-ride-to-good-health

[QUOTE=Gangles;1206704]It is still going on today, Africans taken as slaves by Arabs, and sold as chattels.[/QUOTE]You forgot to say what happens to most of the children: they are used as jockeys in Camel racing, and it is common to see one or two child die during the races.

Oh, does such a thing happen? If you believe the mainstream media, even the kidnapping and forced slavery of Eastern Europeans too don't happen.