Supporting data and numbers for Chapter 3
Andrew Heiss
January 4, 2016
Countries receiving most aid through IGOs
##
## ----------------------
## country total
## ----------- ----------
## India 16,662,345
##
## Indonesia 14,909,683
##
## Thailand 14,632,904
##
## Brazil 12,753,006
##
## Ukraine 8,698,789
##
## Mexico 7,853,014
##
## Philippines 6,288,313
##
## Cambodia 6,212,012
##
## Tanzania 6,148,325
##
## Uganda 5,791,000
## ----------------------Actual text
The countries that have received most US aid through IGOs are India, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, and Ukraine.
US funding to NGOs
Grants given just to NGOs:
## [1] 737Number of countries receiving grants to NGOs:
## [1] 120Countries receiving the most grant money for NGOs:
##
## ----------------------------------------
## country total
## ----------------------------- ----------
## Indonesia 18,417,946
##
## Cambodia 14,928,683
##
## Philippines 12,764,782
##
## Nepal 12,565,540
##
## India 11,856,135
##
## Africa 11,328,325
##
## Mexico 10,857,275
##
## Global 10,525,540
##
## East Asia and Pacific Islands 9,087,714
##
## Haiti 7,686,850
## ----------------------------------------Surveyed NGOs that received funding from the US:
## [1] 90Actual text
Although the US funding is modest, between 2001-2014, the US funded 737 NGO projects on TIP in 120 of countries. The biggest recipient countries of NGO grants have been Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines, Nepal, and India. In the survey of NGOs worldwide, 90 reported having received some sort of funding from the US.
Stakeholders with whom NGOs discuss the TIP report
Updated Figure 3.4
This image is saved in Dropbox as figures/fig_stakeholders_discussed.pdf (and .png too).
Interactions with the US
Number of respondents that don’t work exclusively in the US:
## [1] 480Proportion of organizations that were involved with the US somehow:
## [1] 0.6833333Actual text
The global survey found that many NGOs interact extensively with the US embassy or government. More than two thirds of the 480 respondents said they’d engaged in some form with the US government over the last 10-15 years. About half said they had had direct contact with US officials, and about a fifth reported some form of direct cooperation. Another fifth reported receiving direct funding from the US government to facilitate their work.
##
## ------------------------------------------------
## Type of involvement Responses %
## ------------------------------ ----------- -----
## Direct contact (meetings) 259 48.59
##
## We have not had any contact or 188 35.27
## funding from the US
##
## Direct cooperation 110 20.64
##
## Our organization received 101 18.95
## funding
##
## Other 72 13.51
##
## Don't know 32 6
## ------------------------------------------------This image is saved in Dropbox as figures/fig_involvement_with_us.pdf (and .png too).
Awareness of TIP report
Actual text
One set of questions pertained to the awareness of the TIP report as a measure of the penetration of its message. If the US TIP report is effective in gaining attention around the world, then most TIP NGOs should have at least heard of the report. Indeed, the survey found that 87% of respondents had heard of the annual report.
TIP use by government officials
Proportion of organization-countries that heard the report used by government officials:
##
## ---------------------------
## TIP.used Freq Percent
## ---------- ------ ---------
## No 265 56.38
##
## Yes 205 43.62
## ---------------------------Actual text
To explore this, NGOs were asked if they had ever heard government officials mention the report either publically or in private and were then offered a write-in question about the connection. The results showed that 43.62% of respondents had heard government officials refer to the report in any of the countries they work in. {TODO: STUFF ABOUT REASONS MENTIONED.}
Reasons the government mentioned the report:
##
## -----------------------------------------------
## Reason for mention Responses %
## ----------------------------- ----------- -----
## Assessment purposes, general 49 29.7
##
## Unofficial comments on TIP 36 21.82
##
## Other 21 12.73
##
## Negative, against TIP 19 11.52
##
## Conferences, meetings 17 10.3
##
## Negative, general 13 7.88
##
## Official comments on TIP, 13 7.88
## government context
##
## Policy 11 6.67
##
## Efforts 9 5.45
##
## Media 9 5.45
##
## NGOs, CSOs 6 3.64
##
## Awareness 6 3.64
##
## Comment made in other context 4 2.42
##
## Research 1 0.61
## -----------------------------------------------This image is saved in Dropbox as figures/fig_reasons_for_tip_mention.pdf (and .png too).
US embassy activity
Which countries or embassies have been the most active?
## Source: local data frame [40 x 4]
##
## clean total prop prop.nice
## (chr) (int) (dbl) (chr)
## 1 United States 188 0.70149254 70.1%
## 2 None 16 0.05970149 6.0%
## 3 European Union 14 0.05223881 5.2%
## 4 All 12 0.04477612 4.5%
## 5 Switzerland 8 0.02985075 3.0%
## 6 Australia 7 0.02611940 2.6%
## 7 Italy 7 0.02611940 2.6%
## 8 United Kingdom 7 0.02611940 2.6%
## 9 Netherlands 6 0.02238806 2.2%
## 10 Norway 6 0.02238806 2.2%
## .. ... ... ... ...## [1] 39Over the last 10–15 years, has the United States or its embassy been active in the fight against human trafficking in X?
## .
## No Yes Don't know
## 39 344 150## .
## No Yes Don't know
## 0.07317073 0.64540338 0.28142589Side-by-side graph of active countries + most active countries (this image is saved in Dropbox as figures/fig_embassies_mentioned.pdf (and .png too)).
Actual text
The rate at which the US embassy was mentioned as active was far greater than that of any other embassy mentioned. (TODO: There’s a paragraph about these exact numbers in the article…).
US embassy importance
Raw counts, percents, and sum of “Most important” and “Somewhat important” percents:
## .
## Most important actor Somewhat important actor Not an important actor Don't know
## 139 182 68 133
## .
## Most important actor Somewhat important actor Not an important actor Don't know
## 0.2662835 0.3486590 0.1302682 0.2547893## [1] 0.6149425Percent of countries where at least one NGO said the US was important:
## [1] 0.8270677Actual text
Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of NGOs said that the US had played a very important or a somewhat important role in their country. If the responses are instead broken down by country, the share of countries in which at least one NGOs attributed an important or a somewhat important role was 82.71%. (TODO: fill in other way of breaking down this data by country and whether US funding recipients (lots of this kind of stuff is in the article)).
US embassy positivity
##
## -------------------------------------
## Q3.25 num prop prop.nice
## ---------- ----- -------- -----------
## Don't know 36 0.1139 11.4%
##
## Mixed 64 0.2025 20.3%
##
## Negative 2 0.006329 0.6%
##
## Positive 214 0.6772 67.7%
## -------------------------------------Actual text
Finally, if respondents indicated that the US had played an important role in their countires, the survey asked about whether the influence of the US had been positive, negative or mixed. What was most astounding was the extremely low frequency of negative replies. The vast majority was positive (214) and some were mixed (64), but only (2) said the US had played a negative role. (TODO: fill in other way of breaking down this data, by country and whether US funding recipients (lots of this kind of stuff is in the article)).
General survey details
##
## ------------------
## Countries Freq
## ----------- ------
## 1 415
##
## 2 52
##
## 3 10
##
## 4 3
## ------------------##
## ---------------------
## survey.method num
## --------------- -----
## LinkedIn 3
##
## Online 463
##
## Phone 14
## ---------------------Actual text
Most organizations (415) chose to fill out the survey for just one country, the primary country of their advocacy work. The survey was assembled in Qualtrics and can be obtained in its entirety from the author (or is available in online appendix). To minimize frustration that might lead respondents to quit prematurely, they were free to skip any question and could move back and forth in the survey. The survey was administered via email, with the option for respondents to have a phone survey in lieu of answering it online or having a conversation in addition to the survey. Most responses (463) were obtained directly in response to the email inquiry. 14 were conducted via phone. An invitation to participate in the survey was also posted to a LinkedIn discussion group used by anti-trafficking NGOs, which yielded 3 complete responses. Each NGO in the database received two reminder emails, including respondents who started but did not finish the survey, and were provided with a link to resume their response. Additional efforts were made to reach non-responding NGOs by phone if we had very low participation from their countries.