Dear Scott Neeson
How can you, with a straight face,
declare that Charity Navigator has given the Cambodian Children’s Fund a 100%
rating in the ‘transparency and accountability’ category!
CCF
runs in a fog of secrecy. You never answer any questions at all – not just from
me but from any journalists.
As
you know, as I know, as anyone with an IQ over 100 can figure out for
themselves, Charity Navigator is a scam. Comments critical of CCF are deleted
almost immediately.
Does
Charity Navigator charge CCF to delete negative comments? If so, what a
wonderful a wonderful way to squeeze money out of NGOs eager to be at the top
of the pile and be able to publish ‘results’ such as those to be found above.
It is very easy to publish whatever
lie you like on a social network site, as is the case here on CCF’s Facebook
page. It is also very easy, thanks to Google, for any lies launched into
cyberspace to be found and exposed by anyone with the most basic of
‘Google-search’ skills.
It doesn’t take long, for instance,
to find this from the Vancouver Sun last year:
“Neeson had been travelling in
Asia in 2003 after leaving 20th Century Fox, where he had made more than 200
films in 10 years, including Titanic and Braveheart.”
This
information would, no doubt, impress many a potential donor of sponsor.
“Scott Neeson has made 200 films! Wow!”
A
little more Google research would reveal to potential donor of sponsor that you
have not, in fact, made one film. You were involved in the marketing of
Hollywood movies. Perhaps even 200 of them. A potential donor of sponsor might
feel justified, at this point, to ask:
“If Mr neeson plays fast and
loose with the truth about the 200 films he has made, can I believe anything he
says?”
A potential donor of sponsor, armed with a couple of
typing fingers and with access to Google, could also learn from the internet
that:
“…for every unit sold (by a
construction company in Canada), a new 130-square-foot home worth $2,500 will
be built in Steung Meanchey to house families who eke out a living on the
garbage dump.”
Mmmm,
very impressive. Canadian home builders donating houses to poor Cambodians who
work in a rubbish dump.
Well,
not quite. The homes given to CCF are not passed on to poor homeless Cambodians
. CCF rents these homes to the families whose children are in CCF residential
care. The land on which the houses are built belongs to you/CCF so there is no
chance that these people will ever own them. They will, for as long as they
live in them, have you as their landlord.
If potential sponsors and donors are
vigilant, they might even stumble upon this blog and learn that perhaps not
everything that appears in cyberspace about Scott Neeson and the Cambodian
Children’s Fund is necessarily true. They would also discover that the guy
writing the blog has been variously described as someone who hates Scott
Neeson, is a wanker, a nutter, a cunt, a ‘looser’, a ‘kiddie fiddler’ a slug
and many other unpleasant things. Maybe all or some of them are true?
In this new digital age our
hypothetical potential donor or sponsor is free to read as much or as little as
s/he likes of this blog and form an opinion about both the blogger and CCF.
And, of course, yourself.
This is democracy in practice.
Sometimes harsh, yes, but the aim of journalists and bloggers (and of course
documentary filmmakers) is to hold people in positions of power accountable for
how they wield that power. And it is up to other journalists, bloggers and
filmmakers to hold each other accountable. (In this instance, me.)
This is the way the system works. Or
should work. If I make statements here that are factually incorrect these
should be pointed out to me and if I persist in making false statements I
should be exposed as a liar. I should not be allowed to get away with it.
In practice the various Trolls that
espouse your cause on this blog rarely, if ever, attack me on the basis that I
have been factually incorrect and pointing out to me why. No, the abuse is
almost always personal – the belief being, I guess, that if I can be discredited
as (see list above), then all that I write becomes questionable.
This may work for some potential
sponsors and donors but the more discerning ones and, I suspect, the ones with
the deepest pockets, are going to look beyond the abuse to the facts. And, if
they wish to be careful about which charity they give their money to, they will
ask you questions. Lots of questions.
The Neeson Trolls tell me, often,
that you are too busy a man to bother reading the nonsense I write here. You
and I know that this is not true. The only way it could be true is if you
simply refuse to open any email from me; if Bob Tufts (board member) refuses to
open any email from me.
The tide of history is against you, Scott.
In the not-too-distant future running an orphanage will not be seen as an asset
but as a liability. OK, you don’t run an orphanage. You merely have 500 or 700
kids living in dormitories who have mums and dads. Call them what you will, these
kids are effectively living as orphans and being presented to potential
sponsors and donors as kids who would have no future if not rescued by you. Not
true. You could be ‘rescuing’ entire families, revitalizing communities. This
is the way of the future and it would be great if you could get on board. You
clearly have the marketing skills to take CCF in a new direction and take your
sponsors and donors with you.
The CCF scam goes on and on and on. Unfortunately what is called 'the press' in Cambodia us complicit in helping to cover up the deceptions made to well-intentioned donors. They do nothing to expose this scam and everything to publish Neeson's spin.
ReplyDeleteFrom any data that has to date been published, Neeson's claim of spending less than a penny on fund raising for every dollar it raises, is a preposterous claim that should only be considered as real in Neeson's imagination.
The lies from this organization and the extent that they will go to decieve donors sets new lows in the NGO world.
News to me that Neeson charges rent to the impovorished after World Housing has paid for these homes.
I hope the Cambodian government will take action against this criminal.
Charity navigator is such a crock of shit. Charities rating themselves! You gotta be kidding . Posting bullshit claims of success.
ReplyDeleteScott Neeson has no qualifications to be in child care but is able to put children into institutional care just because he thinks it is a good idea. An idea that makes him lots of money more like. Youd get sent to jail doing stuff like that anywhere else in the world .
I can't believe Neeson can get away with such crimes. Look at his closest team – an ex cop jailed for drug ripoffs and a former AFP officer who once served as a screw. What the hell are these people doing working with children.
This is the biggest charity scam of the twenty first century. I guess there are plenty of Cambodian government officials laughing their way to the bank.
You are a cunt Mr James fucking Ricketson. And you know it. You just want to tear down the Cambodian Childrens Fund. Youl;l be happy then wont you. When all those kids go to work back in the rubbish dump.
ReplyDeleteCalling me a ‘cunt’ is not a sensible argument in defense of either Charity Navigator or the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
DeleteNo, I would not be happy is CCF closed down. I would be happy, however, (as would many children and their parents) if Neeson were to change his modus operandi from institutionalized care to helping disadvantaged children within a family and community context. There are many good humanitarian reasons to go down this path. There are also good financial reasons. To these could be added public relations reasons. There is now so much being written about fake orphanages, orphanage scams and the breaking up of families all around the 3rd world, that it is only a matter of time (a short time, hopefully) before opening or running an orphanage will set alarm bells ringing for donors and sponsors – their first question being: “Do these ‘orphans’ have parents?”
Scott has lots of donors and sponsors who would not, I suspect, abandon CCF if he were to say, “CCF is phasing out institutional care and will now lace all its financial resources at the disposal of families and communities.”
Whilst the ‘helping’ of cute kids gives sponsors and donors a brief sense of personal satisfaction, a much more profound sense of satisfaction could be had (if properly marketed) by CCF being able to say, “We have not just helped these disadvantaged kids but have set the kids’ families on the road to self-sufficiency whilst seeing to it that the kids get a decent education and nutritious food.”
As for Charity Navitagor, Ken Stern, in a very good book entitled “With Charity for All” cites the example of “eight friends working in the financial services industry (who) decided to pool their efforts and make a common commitment for their end of year charitable giving.”
These young men had one question they wanted answered:
“Do the charitable programs effectively solve the targeted social problems?”
From “With Charity for All”
“They discovered that the Charity Navigator rankings were unhelpful, as they were based largely on ratios of overhead to programmatic spending that they quickly realized had no correlation to organizational effectiveness and impact. They also found out that even if they wanted to rely on these ratings, it was unwise to do so because Charity Navigator depended of self reports from the charities, which could easily, and frequently did, game the ratings.”
Charities rating themselves is not a good indicator of how effective charities are at achieving their stated goals.
Mr Ricketson, if you’d done a little research and stopped criticizing others for not doing it, you would have discovered that Charity Navigator is highly respected world wide as “an independent American nonprofit corporation that evaluates charities in the United States.”
ReplyDeleteCheck out Wikipedia:
“Its stated goal is "to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace in which givers and the charities they support work in tandem to overcome our nation’s and the world’s most persistent challenges. Charity Navigator was launched in spring 2001, with the mission of helping "donors make informed giving decisions and enabling well-run charities to demonstrate their commitment to proper stewardship" of donor dollars. Initially, Charity Navigator provided financial ratings for 1,100 charities. Charity Navigator currently evaluates more than 5,400 charities in the United States in addition to hundreds of organizations with international operations.”
Do your research before you launch your pathetic diatribes at others who are trying to make a difference.
Well, here is the NGO support gang again. Wikipedia is and can be edited by anyone, including the very NGO in question. With very little interest of the ordinary folks it's mostly NGO Staff editing the content of this Wikipedia info. So how credible is that ?
DeleteA few years back Unicef in Germany lost it's fundraising permit for an entire year because it used fraudulent methods to raise funds. You did not find a single word of that on the Charity Navigator and Unicef is still held high above the donor world.
It means absolutely NOTHING if Charity Navigator sends out press releases in which they claim:
Charity Navigator was launched in spring 2001, with the mission of helping "donors make informed giving decisions and enabling well-run charities to demonstrate their commitment to proper stewardship" of donor dollars.
In Cambodia you can see with your own eyes how many "well-run charities" are actually to be found.
Some time ago a popular magazine in Cambodia had this to say:
No, not all NGO are bad. There are those that live on moderate budgets and don't mind to set up their operations far away from the easy life in the cities where they can socialize among themself. They also only claim minimal wages for themself and live in low budget accommodations. THOSE 2 HAVE CLOSED SHOP 2 YEARS AGO !
I wonder how Charity Navigator rates World Vision for example or did rate the Somaly Mam Foundation. Charity Navigator is respected by it's very own NGO crowd worldwide. But not by those that can look behind the walls ! Keep dreaming.
DeleteDear Anonymous 8.56
The methodology of Charity Navigator is flawed.
Let me give you a simple example, to illustrate this point.
Over the years I have often tried to help poor Cambodians. I have done so as a private individual but I could, just as easily, have called myself an NGO.
A poor family lives on the street and survives through begging.
I buy the family a tuk tuk so that the father can earn a living and support his family.
The family moves into a $40 a week room whilst dad earns just enough to keep his family off the street.
A success.
No money spent on fundraising. No NGO overheads. Perfect 100% scores in two of the three categories that CCF claims to have received close to 100% scores in.
There is just one small problem with my ‘success’ story. I hadn’t bothered to find out, before I bought the tuk tuk, if the family had outstanding debts. It did. A few weeks later a money-lender called in the debt. It amounted to the cost of the tuk tuk.
The family loses the tuk tuk.
If I were an NGO I could go on Charity Navigator and confess: “I was stupid not to make sure that the family had no debts,” and get a 100% rating in the ‘accountability and transparency’ column.
So, despite my NGO having failed 100% to achieve its stated goal (to help a poor family by buying it a tuk tuk) I could get 100% ratings in all three categories.
Charity Navigator does now and cannot assess whether or not charities are effective in meeting their stated humanitarian goals.
The following, from Ken Stern’s “With Charity for All” is of interest in this context:
“The practice of turning charities in the family affairs is a familiar strategy that creates opportunities to conceal all sorts of unsavory practices. In 1979, Larry Jones founded ‘Feed the Children’, a Christian relief organization providing food and medicine to impoverished countries and disaster areas.
Jones quickly demonstrated an extraordinary ability to tell the story of ‘Fed the Children’ and the people it served.
Fuelled by moving television commercials, ‘Feed the Children’ became a fundraising powerhouse, with revenues eventually approaching 1 billion a year.
While Jones was very good at raising money for ‘Feed the Children’, he wasn't that good at feeding the children.
The majority of the funds were siphoned off by various service providers, specially marketers, long before the money ever went to the actual food delivery; in some years, a full 80% of revenues went to pay for the cost of advertisements and fundraising spots – making television stations, add creators, and advertising buyers the principal beneficiaries of the charity.
Despite these warning signs, ‘Feed the Children’ was able to maintain for much of this period of four star rating from Charity Navigator…”
Just try posting an honest comment on these sites and you'll see that they won't last a day if they even show up at all. They will be taken down and 'closed' within hours in most cases. GuideStar and Great NonProfits are more examples of this sham on well-meaning donors.
DeleteCongratulations Mr Ricketson on admitting what has been obvious for a long time to anyone reading your blog. You are stupid. There is no cure. Now why don't you just toodle off and let people who do know what they are doing get on with their jobs without you biting at their ankles?
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 11.49
ReplyDeleteIm with you. Ive read enough of Ricketsons dribble. The sooner he fucks off the better. And if someone wants to help him see the light better still.
Goodbye, you are missed already for your eloquent language and strong factual analysis. Please buy another beer for your mate, Anonymous 11:49
DeleteDear Anonymous 12.08
DeleteI think you mean ‘drivel’ not ‘dribble’.
Let me quote again from “With Charity for All”
Page 206.
"Great charities do exit exist. I've mentioned a handful in this book, and there are many others.
But in the absence of good market information, they're not easy to find, and Americans, by and large, are not working very hard to find them. Average American spend more time watching television in a single day and they do on their charitable contributions in an entire year.
Like financial investing, social investing takes work: researching charities, reviewing Websites and published reports, and sharing information among friends, peers, and other like minded givers.
But to be realistic, many people will not want to do the work.
That means that in the sprawling and confusing charitable marketplace, the role of signalers – people and organizations who do invest the time to review and analyze charities – is critical.
Historically, that role has been played on a local level by the socially prominent.
More recently, the mantle has been assumed by very different players, organisations like Charity Navigator, that evaluate and publicize reviews of thousands of charities every year.
Yet with virtually no capacity to seriously investigate and analyze charities, Charity Navigator has been forced to rely on the proxy measures of overhead and salary to construct it's much followed for star rating to guide.
These ratings have the benefit of simplicity to recommend them but little else; as this book is amply discussed, those data have little to do with charitable effectiveness.”
It is ‘charity effectiveness’ that all NGOs should be concerned with. NGOs should be assessed for their effectiveness in achieving their stated goals and not for having good intentions.
Recently, I paid $250 for a well to be dug for a family that had no regular access to water. Let’s just say I was an NGO and had paid $2,500 to have 10 such well dug in the village. Great. Good news. A successful NGO, right?
Not necessarily. If 6 out of 10 of the wells are not working in a years time because there is no money available for maintenance and repairs, how successful is my NGO?
I could still be getting 4 stars from Charity Navigator whilst failing in my stated objective – to provide water for 10 families in the village.
Let’s look at Charity Navigator from another perspective. Let’s just say it was not possible to have negative comments removed; that all comments stayed online. Clearly, the charity in question would have a vested interest in seeing to it that as many as possible positive comments are posted. A ‘competitor’, wishing to damage an NGO’s reputation, could match these with just as many negative comments. How can we ever know which comments are a reflection of the truth and which are either marketing spin or spiteful attempts at reputational damage?
James, maybe you should ask this lot to take a good look at CCF and report what they find:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles
Thanks for the heads up Mr Ricketson. 'With Charity for All' a good read.
ReplyDeletePage 106 strongly recommended:
"Grifters, scammers, and charlatans have always gravitated to the nonprofit world, but technology now allows scam artists to take their schemes to new heights. After Katrina, the FBI estimated the 2400 fake charity websites many with possible names like katrinafamilies.com were set up to relieve well-meaning but careless donors of their cash. Email, Facebook and Twitter are part of the arsenal of the modern con man…Crooks gravitate to crises. The charitable world is pocked with fraud and self-enrichment…It is astonishingly easy to set up, operate, and maintain charities that principally benefit their fundraisers in managers."
Sound like any of the NGOs we have in Cambodia?
A SAFER HOME FOR CAMBODIAN GIRLS
ReplyDeleteBy Holly Burkhalter May 8
Holly Burkhalter is vice president of government relations and advocacy for International Justice Mission.
“The image of a child sex-trafficking victim that most of us carry in our minds is probably something like the blurry, black-and-white shot taken in 2003 of a 5-year-old girl in a shanty settlement called Svay Pak, just outside Phnom Penh. The girl’s name is Taevy. My organization, International Justice Mission, obtained the undercover footage while investigating the commercial sexual exploitation of children in Cambodia and collaborated with “Dateline NBC” to tell the story.
According to a recent broadcast from CNN’s “Freedom Project,” Cambodia is still ground zero for the child sex trade. The report described Svay Pak’s “big business” of selling prepubescent girls to foreign pedophiles for thousands of dollars.
This disturbing narrative was all too real a dozen years ago, but it’s not anymore…
Read the whole article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-safer-home-for-cambodias-girls/2015/05/08/549e0d40-f4e4-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html
Charity Navigator made $1.7 million in profit last year. I wonder how much of this came from CCF to have all negative comments deleted?
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone take Charity Navigator seriously!
Ken Berger, who led the country’s most prominent nonprofit watchdog, Charity Navigator, for almost seven years, abruptly left his job this week after the board decided to find a leader with more expertise in technology.
"Charity Navigator has been going through a planning process and doing a lot of thinking about where we’re headed next," Mr. Berger said in an interview. "As part of that, the organization is increasingly seeing itself as a technology company."
John (Pat) Dugan, Charity Navigator’s co-founder and board chairman, confirmed that the board is looking for new skills as the watchdog expands its work to start rating charities on how well they measure their impact, an effort known as Charity Navigator 3.0. He called Mr. Berger a "real people person" but added, "We’re on the brink of something really big with Charity Navigator 3.0, and the tech needs are going to be enormous and the sophistication needs to be there."
More coming
Am I missing something here? A not-for-profit non government organisation makes a $1.7 million profit from doing nothing more than rating charities.
ReplyDeleteOK, got that.
Now, the $1.7 million comes from 'donations'. Right!
And who makes the donations? And why?
We are in cloud cuckoo land here!
l work in Cambodia and our daily drive takes us past two CCF buildings that we guess is home for what appears to be hundreds of children, the center is surrounded with razor wire ,children can be seen playing in a small outdoor concrete play area.l wonder in fear why such beautiful children are removed from their families, and placed in so called care of western run charities, l hope and pray the khmer government puts an end to these selfish and cruel institutional care . there is now an abundance of global evidence demonstrating serious development problems associated with placement in residential care.
ReplyDeletei suggest anyone seeking more information should read Families, Not Orphanages by John Williamson and Aron Greenberg .
The razor wire is to prevent the kids from escaping and to prevent parents from rescuing their children.
DeleteFrom another blog, in reference to "Families, Not Orphanages":
DeleteThe authors state that the purpose of the report is to examine "available evidence on typical reasons why children end up in institutions, and the consequences of providing this type of care compared to other options."
Furthermore, they state that the report is "a call for governments to prevent unnecessary separation of children from their families by strengthening social services and social protection mechanisms in their countries." The authors recognize that "some residential care will be needed for some children," but that "the emphasis and priority" should be "on developing and supporting family-based care alternatives." They conclude that "Strengthening families should be the first priority, always and everywhere." But we all know that all too often it is the last priority as exemplified by the appalling dearth of available governmental, financial, and social support.
The report forms its conclusions based on evidence and statistics gathered from research and studies spanning over 100 years.
The well-researched report supports the overall premise that a reliance on orphanages and institutions is outdated and should be prevented in the first place, while family-based care should not only be the first priority but that it is actually a more cost-effective, feasible, and possible long-term alternative to the inefficient and costly drain of institutions.
I appreciate that the authors address the very real complications of the issues at hand, and yet they don't make excuses. For example, they acknowledge that although "institutional care remains the default option for children without adequate family care...inadequate imagination and resources have thus far been directed to developing [better family-based alternatives] (emphasis mine)." They also acknowledge that even though conflict and disease also contribute to family separation, "Neither AIDS, poverty nor conflict makes institutional care inevitable nor appropriate."
I appreciate that they view the current issues with a proactive responsibility, acknowledging that the problems at hand are complex and massive yet still reformable and manageable, if people and governments are simply willing to do the hard work. They can take this stance in part because through their experience and research they have encountered situations in which reform and hopeful outcomes have been made possible--because others were willing to do the hard work, politically, socially, and financially.
They site countries such as Italy, Spain, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and America as examples of successful transitions from relying predominantly on institutionalized care to developing and supporting family-based alternatives. These countries were able to do so by "addressing the underlying causes of family separation, including poverty and lack of access to basic services (emphasis mine)," and hence were "able to better provide targeted, community-based alternatives to children in need." Orphanages were then transformed and repurposed into family centers and/or treatment facilities for children with severe emotional and behavioral issues.
http://yoonsblur.blogspot.com/2010/10/families-not-orphanages.html
The more i read about the NGO Business Scams the more i pity the donors that give to feed this evil. Like pimps or leeches they seem to suck on the pity of those in "real need". I'm not surprised that the charity navigator wants to become a "tech company" because they've learned it from facebook to google that once you can manipulate the information your wallet will be full.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be not a single NGO in Cambodia that is free from this desease. From the Cambodian NGO Forum via APLE to the humanitarian protectors = NOT of Licado. They all play in the hands of those that are only interested in one thing: MONEY !! The same is pretty much true with the Media which keeps reporting child abuse from 12 years ago and make it look like it happened today. (CNN-Freedom Project)
Licado - the hypocrite
ReplyDeleteLicadho yesterday urged the National Assembly to “reject any legislation that seeks to impose severe restriction on fundamental rights to freedom of expression”. If such legislation goes ahead, it says, “for the freedom to speak openly online, time is running out”.
Well, i guess they would support any move to shut down James Ricketson's online blog cambodia440.blogspot.com immediately. While they are unable to do this just yet they rather stick to the old way and stay "mute" on burning questions concerning Human Rights.
Anyone who stays in Cambodia long enough knows that Licado is a puppet of the American Government and will sing to any tune that will trigger Regime Change. Most young Khmer can easily be fooled as some recent CNRP Hate Campaigns against Vietnamese has shown.
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/rights-group-decries-govt-anti-net-arsenal
I wish to comment, below, on this article from the Phnom Penh Post:
ReplyDeleteIn a strongly worded article, outgoing US Ambassador William Todd has called on the Cambodian government to properly consider controversial new legislation governing NGOs, trade unions and the internet, a call welcomed by civil society representatives yesterday.
In the piece, published on Sunday and written during an ongoing trade mission to the United States, Todd expressed his pleasure at the interest in Cambodia he has encountered from businesses there, but warned: “To take advantage of this interest, Cambodia must project an image that attracts foreign investment, technology and human resources.”
“Cambodia’s image is affected” by the controversial legislation, he cautioned, backing a “call to action” from the 27-nation Community of Democracies – an intergovernmental coalition – which has urged the Cambodian government to release a copy of the proposed NGO law and implement it thorough consultation with civil society.
“As the Cambodian government considers the next steps, it is important to realise that the world is watching,” he writes.
The plea comes after years of wrangling over the draft NGO law, and less than two weeks after 272 local and international NGOs released a joint statement demanding the government immediately suspend plans to adopt it, fearing it will curb organisations’ freedom of movement.
Speaking yesterday, local rights groups welcomed Todd’s message.
“Every voice in this movement is important,” said Adhoc technical assistant Stella Anastasia. “We hope the international attention will push the government to move towards the right direction.”
That message was reinforced by Cooperation Committee for Cambodia’s head of communications Sin Putheary, who demanded “a meaningful consultation with civil society”.
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch – which published its own strongly worded rebuke of the draft NGO law last month – highlighted the fears that continue to swirl around the legislation.
“All of these draft laws purportedly contain highly problematic, rights abusing provisions that raise questions about whether they should be passed at all,” said Asia division deputy director Phil Robertson.
In April, Prime Minister Hun Sen said the NGO law could be passed this month, despite the fact consultation with civil society representatives only took place during a previous draft.
But speaking yesterday, government spokesman Phay Siphan insisted the most recent draft would be made available to NGOs, but must first be reviewed by the Council of Ministers and signed off on by the prime minister.
“When it becomes an official draft law it goes to the National Assembly,” he said. “Then there will be some consultation with NGOs.”
Siphan also defended the cybercrime law, insisting it would only bring the country’s laws up to speed with legislation seen elsewhere in the world.
“It’s aimed at hackers, not at freedom of expression,” he said.
NGO Law
ReplyDeleteOther than the ever present US Government, through it's outgoing Ambassador William Todd, not a single Nation has objected to the NGO draft law even though Ambassador Todd claims that: “Cambodia’s image is affected” by the controversial legislation.
Ambassador Todd is backing a “call to action” from the 27-nation Community of Democracies – an intergovernmental coalition. He did not elaborate who runs the Community of Democracies intergovernmental coalition and who's part of it.
Perhaps the 'Community of Democracies' is another "creation" of his Government.
While not giving a fiddlers fart about David Fletcher and Matt Harlands Human Rights, Adhoc-Human Rights technical Assistant Stella Anastasia said she hopes that intl. attention will push the government into the "right" (meaning NGO) direction.
It's interesting to note that merely a minority of 272 local and international NGOs released a joint statement demanding the government immediately suspend plans to adopt it, fearing it will curb organisations’ freedom of movement.' The rest of the estimated 3500 NGO had no such fears and did not threaten the Cambodian Government to ask Donors to whithold urgently needed funds.
I call on the Cambodian Government to stay it's ground and regulate the NGO Sector for once and for all. It's good for the Khmer people - under threat of being alienated from their own culture and values by NGO colonials.
Give these foreign creeps the boot and leave Cambodia to sort out its problems in its own way without these rich foreigners seeking to control Cambodia's destiny to suit their own ends
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/all-eyes-ngo-law-us-ambassador-todd
The truth about 'orphanages'
ReplyDeleteSIEM REAP, Cambodia — Just before the sun sets over the enchanting Angkor temples in northern Cambodia, a group of children gets ready for their big show. Every day, according to fliers at restaurants and hotels around town, the children perform an hour-long “charity show” for tourists visiting the ACODO orphanage.
The spectacle makes ACODO, which stands for Assisting Cambodian Orphans and Disabled Organization, one of the most visited orphanages around Siem Reap, where more than 2 million tourists arrive annually to see the ancient temples.
Onstage the children, aged between 7 and 14, dance and sing. The girls are adorned like dolls, with heavy jewelry and fake eyelashes. The boys wear traditional costumes and face masks resembling monkeys.
The show, the fliers say, is “the children's life.”
But none of them look happy. Instead, the children do what they were trained to do: generate profits for the orphanage’s owner.
“We are solely funded by kind donations from passionate foreigners ... of course, the show is very good for that.
The foreigners donate after the show, or more when they get home via bank transfer,” said Long Veasna, a manager at ACODO.
What he usually doesn't tell tourists is that the vast majority of the children aren’t really orphans. “Most of them are from poor or divorced families. Orphanages here are different, the children don't have to be orphans.”
In fact, the orphanage business is booming, and for curious reasons. Despite economic growth and slow but steady alleviation of poverty and disease, more and more children are living in these surrogate homes.
...to be continued
...
ReplyDeleteBetween 2005 and 2010, the number of orphanages in Cambodia increased by 75 percent, according to a study by the UN children's fund (UNICEF) and the Cambodian government. More than 270 are now registered. What's even more startling is that nationwide, only about 23 percent of the children advertised as orphans are, in fact, orphans.
More than 9,000 children living in orphanages have at least one remaining parent. By advertising them as orphans and showcasing their plight, however, good money is to be made. In Cambodia, orphanages can be lucrative, multi-million dollar businesses, according to major rights group Licadho and other Cambodian rights watchdogs.
The UNICEF study quoted foreign volunteers as being somewhat mystified regarding orphanage finances. “We got thousands of dollars ... but I don’t know where the money went,” a former residential care staff member told UNICEF.
Another said, “We had a falling out when I asked a question about where the donors' money went. This resulted in the entire orphanage being called into a two-and-a-half-hour denunciation of me.” Money flows in from tourists who feel compelled to help after seeing the squalor the children live in.
In the belief that they are doing a good deed, foreign visitors donate anywhere from $10 to several thousand dollars after touring the institutions. Some even set up charity events to collect donations upon their return home.
And while disadvantaged children certainly deserve attention and donations, aid workers doubt that the orphanages benefit them. Several child protection NGOs, including UNICEF, have launched campaigns to end orphanage tourism, and to better inform unwitting tourists of the harm they could cause by visiting them.
Children brought up in orphanages, they say, are more likely to suffer from personality disorders, growth and speech delays, and impaired ability to become part of society in their adult life. Experts also say that children are often kept in poor conditions to attract more donations, and are generally more at risk of physical and sexual abuse.
...to be continued
...
ReplyDeleteThat's not the impression you get at ACODO's entrance, where a list of rules states how seriously the safety of children is being taken.
Tourists, it says, must bring their passports and register at the front desk, where they are handed a visitor's pass and put under the watch of one of ACODO's staff members “at all times,” and “under no circumstances” will visitors be left alone with children.
Reality, it turns out, doesn’t always obey these rules.
During a recent visit, no staff or any adults were to be found. GlobalPost was greeted by a group of children directly, and we were able to roam the premises freely. Asked where their supervisors were, the children shrugged their shoulders.
Toward the end of the charity show, the orphanage's cook showed up to applaud.
Contacted by phone, Veasna said that the staff was often too busy to take care of the children.
“But it's no problem, the cook is always there,” he said.
Documents indicate that the orphanage, which houses 30 children, takes in about $250,000 in donations annually. That’s a tidy sum in a country where the per capita income is less than $1,000 a year. UNICEF and other NGOs contend that the children are being exploited, and advocate for them to be reintegrated with their families.
In the United States and Europe, orphanages are a relic of the past. Cases of double orphans, children who lost both parents, are rare, and it is even rarer that no other family member, godparent or family friend will become the child's guardian.
That's also the case for Cambodia. Here, in one of the world's poorest countries — where 80 percent of the population lives without electricity — many orphanages serve as an odd form of boarding school, said Savourn Morn, the founder of Children and Development Organization (CDO).
She admits that only a minority of children under her care have lost a parent, and says almost all were from a remote village about three hours from Siem Reap city.
“I opened this to help the poor children because if they stay with their families, they have no education and health care,” Morn said. For the children, visiting home is difficult, via a two-hour ride from Siem Reap, on an unpaved dirt road littered with potholes, before a one-hour hike through the jungle. In the rainy season the path becomes flooded and impassable.
In the UNICEF study, 99 percent of parents said that they agreed to place their child in an orphanage because they would receive better education — or any education — while 47 percent cited general poverty.
Even if the families had the means to pay for their children's education, the closest elementary school is often a several-hour hike. Like most orphanage directors, Morn portrays herself as a humanitarian, who, confronted with the destitution in the village, decided to help.
Donations, she said, make up more than expenses, but are saved to establish a school and a health care center closer to the children's families.
“This is all to help the children and their families — nothing here is for myself,” she said.
Tax report for 2014 isn't posted anywhere yet. Where is it. How can they give 100% transparency to an organization that is hiding their financial results?
ReplyDeleteAs I have explained above, it would be possible for a charity to fail 100% to achieve its stated goals and still achieve close to 100% scores in all categories. You can be sure that no-one at Charity Navigator looks at CCF's latest IRS tax-return and asks: "How come it costs CCF $4,000 a year to take care of one child in an institution in a country like Cambodia where the average family earns less than half that a year? Either the figures you gave to the IRS are wrong or you are wasting money at a frightening rate. Please explain!"
ReplyDeleteHerein lies the problem. Charity Navigator is not going to ask questions such as this. Human rights organisations are not going to ask these kinds of questions. Nor is the media or the cambodian government. This is the problem with totally unregulated NGOs. They can (and do)do as they please. ANd then, having turned a blind eye to the scammers and crooks amongst them (fellow NGOs) the community kicks and squeals when the government declares that it wishes to regulate their activities. The NGO community (such as there is such a thing) has had years to self-regulate,make unwelcome scammers, people who run fake orphanages and a rich variety of crooks. It has done nothing. ANd now, unfortunately, some good NGOs are probably going to suffer as a result of the actions of bad NGOs.
C'est la vie!
Charity Navigator rates CCF Cambodian Childrens Fund close to 100% so even if they did look close at their IRS tax-return which would uncover just how bad this charity really is . What about the fact they are a registered charity in many other countries with millions of funds following in and yet its never to be seen again. scammers like Scott Neeson use children to make money and lots of it. what goes on behind closed doors l fear will be the horror stories of tomorrow .
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Neeson . Show us the money your fronts of success might fool many but not us . while you scramble to cover your sins of child abuse with your endless media trickery on every front that vents just how vile you really are .
ReplyDeleteWatchful Eye
It is good to see that the Nepali government is taking the business of fake orphanages seriousy:
ReplyDelete"Ban on new orphanages in Nepal
Wary of child trafficking in the wake of the 25 April earthquake that left scores of children orphans and homeless, the government has imposed a ban on the registration of new orphanages in Nepal.
The Central Child Welfare Board (CCWB), a government body that monitors children’s homes, says the ban will be revoked – or extended – only after carrying out an assessment for the need of new orphanages.
“The ban will minimise the risk of child trafficking,” said the CCWB’s Executive Director Tarak Dhital. “Some people are already getting to the earthquake-hit villages and getting children together – mostly not orphans – to open new orphanages, we want to stop them with this ban.The CCWB has also made it mandatory for all orphanages to seek its consent before transferring children out of orphanages damaged by the earthquake. “Relocation gives child traffickers an opportunity,” says Dhital.
Many orphanages damaged by the earthquake are now moving their children out of Kathmandu Valley, which Dhital admits has not been monitored at all. “We don’t know who are relocating how many children and where,” he says. “We’re afraid some of the children might be trafficked while being moved.”
Dhital says there are already ‘more than enough’ orphanages in Kathmandu Valley. The latest data shows 9,968 children living in 560 orphanages in Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur districts.
Officials say the number of children ending up in orphanages is bound to rise dramatically after the earthquake. They are also aware of some traffickers separating children from parents by exploiting the misery inflicted upon the families by the earthquake.
The CCWB has already sent back 45 children, who were brought from Dhading to Kathmandu after the earthquake, to their families. “They all have families but were separated and brought to Kathmandu as orphans,” says Namuna Bhushal of the CCWB. “Their parents’ informed consent was not secured and the local authorities were not informed.”
The Maoist war led to a surge in the number of orphans and orphanages. Child rights activists now fear that the earthquake might cause a similar flow. Nearly 16,000 children are now living in 585 orphanages across Nepal.
Om Astha Ra
So Nepal, even as they face this emergency, have the good sense to not 'make more orphans', but Cambodia and Scott Neeson, do not have this good sense. Oh, I almost forgot, the POVERTY PIMP does it for money!
DeleteI think that the Cambodian government is well aware of what is going on here. And, I hear, the government wants to close down fake orphanages. I hope this is true. Unfortunately, I heard the same thing two years ago and it amounted to nothing. NGOs have a lot of money. Government officials have little. Join the dots!
DeleteYeah, talk about vile.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder that c*nt needs bodyguards. someone's going to sort him out sooner or later. He better be looking over his shoulder all the time because when legal avenues are shut down the only way left is to put him in hospital or worse - I can't wait! the fusker deserves it
Oh dear, another drunk!
ReplyDeleteDoes Scott need bodyguards? First I've heard of it.
Thinly veiled (and not so thinly veiled) threats against Scott are just plain stupid.
Why does the world hate American NGOs?
ReplyDelete"For anyone trying to understand why this anger is welling up in those countries, it might be helpful to contemplate how Americans would feel if similar organizations from China or Russia or India were to pop up in Washington, with hundreds of millions of dollars given to them by those governments, bent on influencing our politics. One supposes it would generate substantial anger among Americans if these groups tried to tilt our elections toward one party or another. But suppose they were trying to upend our very system of government, as U.S.-financed NGOs are trying to do these days in various countries--and have done in recent years in numerous locations."
and
"Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative commentator (and member of the TNI advisory council), who argues that such activity is not only wrong but harmful to American interests. He asks: "Does the United States interfere in the internal affairs of nations to subvert regimes by using NGOs to funnel cash to the opposition to foment uprisings or affect elections? Are we using Cold War methods in countries with which we are not at war--to advance our New World Order?" He replies: "So it would seem."
http://www.theatlantic.co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
and by the way the US has the very NGO law in place that calls it FARA or Foreign Agents REgistration Act. So why be upset if Russia calls these NGO creeps "undesirable" ?
Tonight I received the following anonymously. It provides confirmation, if any confirmation, if any further confirmation is needed, that the UK's Foreign & Commonwealth Office is both incompetent and corrupt:
ReplyDelete"Mum of murdered backpacker Kirsty Jones accuses Foreign Office of putting diplomacy ahead of her quest for answers
But Sue Jones insists she hasn't given up hope her daughter's killer can be found
BY DARREN DEVINE
LLANFILO: -- The mum of murdered Welsh backpacker Kirsty Jones says the Foreign Office has refused to release all the documents they hold about her death.
Sue Jones, from Llanfilo, near Brecon, in Powys, says officials have consistently prioritised good relations with authorities in Thailand where Kirsty was murdered, over her quest for answers.
She made a Freedom of Information request to the Foreign Office in 2013 for all documents relating to her daughter’s death.
Mrs Jones says she was told when she applied they would not release material that could jeopardise or hurt relations with Thailand.
And the documents that eventually came back saw names deleted.
Full story: http://www.walesonli...y-jones-9312696"
Should include the name, 'Scott Neeson' to this from the PPP: Vuthy was also keen to point out that the extremely high number of children in such institutions with living relatives was unacceptable, and that major changes are needed to make sure children remain with family members whenever possible. She said many impoverished families choose to place their children in orphanages because they believe they will get a better education. Sometimes, Vuthy said, that notion is fed by unscrupulous administrators eager for extra funding.
ReplyDeleteLink to a recent study in Canada of taking children from their families for education: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/world/americas/canadas-forced-schooling-of-aboriginal-children-was-cultural-genocide-report-finds.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteWAKE UP CAMBODIA!!
No posts from Ricketson since May 14 - with any luck the idiot fell off his moto and permanently hurt himself!
ReplyDeleteSo quiet from the idiot Ricketson followers when he isn't leading from the front.
Dear Anonymous 2.12
DeleteSorry to disappoint you but I have not fallen off a moto and nor has any other form of misfortune befallen me.
I do have another life other than this blog (a very full one, actually) but will be back again to annoy you soon. Be patient.
cheers
James
Does the WSJ actually do any research or only post what someone tells them?
ReplyDeleteDo you really support and organization that has taken over 700 children from their families? Please follow the link below to see how CCF really treats the impoverished.
This organization has taken over 700 children from their families, to be raised in institutional care. If you think that is such a good idea, then please send your own children to institutional care. In 2013, they raised over $10.6M or nearly $30,000 per DAY 365 days a year.
This organization has as the head of its child protection unit (CPU), a convicted felon who stole drugs and money while he worked in drug enforcement for the Australian Crime Commission. According to 'The Australian', he fled to Cambodia after the PIC hearings and was informally extradited back to Australia to stand trial last year (2007). The full article is here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/ex-nca-cops-plea-deal-over-drug-sting/story-e6frg6o6-1111116525996
If you'd like to see how CCF actually deals with the impoverished, check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Does anyone think that this is a great example of management that you want to give your hard earned money to??
Learn the real story, follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
Here is the link to the WSJ article: Sure sounds like another sound bite written by Neeson where some reporter just wrote it verbatim in the same way many fell for for Neeson's 'grooming' lies about Fletcher. http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-neeson-from-hollywood-executive-to-philanthropist-1434134269
ReplyDelete