Evaluation Findings
Final for Phase I Peace III
Evaluation Methodology
 Formative Evaluation – overarching evaluation of all programmes




together and ongoing throughout lifetime of the Co Sligo Peace III
Action Plan – Phase I.
External evaluators working with internal project evaluators - objectivity
Using Aid for Peace Approach Framework – required by SEUPB and
comprising the key elements of:
 Peace Building Needs Analysis – mapping the Conflict in Co Sligo (inc
peace/conflict stakeholders)
 Conflict External Risk Assessment
 Peace and Conflict Effects Assessment
Quantitative and qualitative measurement – quarterly progress reports
and participants’ evaluation – through bespoke designed evaluation
forms, focus groups and case studies – to give a 360º evaluation.
Ongoing support to deliverers throughout their project delivery
Purpose of Presentation
 Final Presentation of Findings from Phase I
 Strategic and programmatic issues – Learning
 Moving forward to Phase II – Recommendations
Aid for Peace Approach
 Peace Building Needs Analysis - analysed the conflict
dynamics and peace building processes in the county.
 Peace Building Relevance Assessment which considered
how relevant the Peace Programme was to the peace
building needs in Co Sligo.
 Conflict Risk Assessment - assessed the effects of the
conflict on the peace building project actions being
implemented by the various project action promoters.
 The Peace and Conflict Effects Assessment - examined the
effects of the various project actions in having an impact on
the conflict and peace situation in the county.
The AfP Approach in Practice
 Stage 1 - meeting on a one-to-one basis with each of the
project action leads and delivery partners
 Stage 2 - creating an overarching evaluation framework
including data collection methods for all projects
 Stage 3 - facilitating an Aid for Peace workshop in the early
stages of the programme with programme implementers
and small grants
 Stage 4 - convening meetings (interim and final) of the
Peace III Partnership to discuss the findings of the
evaluation and take on board their issues, concerns,
challenges and views on the overall project and its
constituent project actions
Findings – Key Achievements
 Baseline and Interim Stages – already described
 Final Stage – Key Achievements - outputs
Participants have far exceeded the targets set – due to:
 recruitment efforts of project action promoters
 creative ways in which many project actions appealed to
the communities
 not forcing people into peace building but rather taking
the approach of where their interests lay
Findings - Balances
 By age group - good overall balance at project level in
terms of the various age groups
 By gender, overall women did outnumber men and
whilst this would be expected in the women-focused
project action, nonetheless in all of the programmes
with the exception of the Travellers and Urban
Peace building, women’s participation was greater.
 Men attracted to the practically-focused work – focus on
good role models for young men
 Religious background – participation of minority
Protestant community in line with population size.
 Cross Border – 29% participation from North
Capacity Building for Peace
 Continuous emergence of new target groups –minority
faith communities, victims of the Conflict,
immigrants, young people, women
 Need for continued up-skilling, awareness raising and
support for communities to address issues to do with
understanding and taking action on sectarianism,
racism and prejudice
 Need for ongoing training – e.g. Good Relations – to raise
awareness of new contexts of peace building; up-skill
people in current peace building practices; providing
valuable networking opportunities for staff and volunteers,
particularly if they are working in isolation.
Accessing Target Groups
 Fear of engagement by some target groups (despite
successive peace programmes)
 Designing and implementing programmes – need for
sensitive approaches, need to take time to do this
 Accessing ethnic minority and minority faith groups
 difficulties which competition for groups’ participation
 ethnic minority groups are not so readily available
 minority faith communities - legacy of the past – polite
silence
 difficulty in project actions recruiting from the displaced
people/Republican community
Enabling Understanding and Capacity to
Engage – Sectarianism and Racism
 Tackling the silence
 how minority communities raise the issue;
 how the majority community acknowledges that it exists
 established steering groups to guide and support the
work of the project action
 peace building is not a core priority and some groups are
‘switched off’ by the term
 Creative and innovative methods to challenge participants
 Building sectarianism and racism into the mainstream
 Addressing associated issues including anti-social behaviour
Cross Border Issues
 Sometimes need for developmental phase - time-
consuming and at times was a ‘stop-start’ process
 Requires careful logistical planning and good
communication
 presented ongoing challenges:
 seeing the North as being ‘separate’ and with few
common issues
 Need for definite cross-border partner and agreed/predetermined specific areas of co-operation
 Can be difficult to fund suitable partners, activities and a
programme of work
 Visa restrictions (asylum seekers and certain work
permits)
Operational and Administration Issues
 Time taken to undertake particular activities - research,
design and developmental phases of project actions
 Additional supports and requirements of the Phase I
programme - Good Relations Training and the Aid for
Peace Evaluation Framework
 Publicity - ensuring good attendance at events
 Administration of the project actions
Sustaining Peace Building
 Creative in the engagement of communities
 Projects supported - not operating in isolation
 Projects to be enabled to see how they are
contributing to a bigger and wider movement – e.g.
 billboard campaign - RAPID Urban Collective
 good relations training, mediation training aimed at
project action promoters
 Civil society level - various peace building events
weaved into specific public events
Added Value of Project
 Enhanced the chances of peace building becoming a
core part of community cohesion, integration and anti
poverty work of council and its structures
 collective workshops - creating relationships
 local organisations - gained new skills and have
considered embedding the concept of peace building
into their mainstream activities.
 ongoing support through the support and workshop
series initiative – sounding board for risks and
difficulties
 Bringing out the hidden and hard to discuss issues and
unlocking
Added Value of Project cont’d
 unlocking of a more silent Protestant
minority community
 expertise (sometimes external) and marry
this with local knowledge thereby creating
partnerships
 opening up of discussions around practical
cross border actions
 time to heal wounds and rebuild
relationships and create new relationships
Capacity Building for Peace
• Appropriate level of ‘capacity building’ is built into the terms
of reference for the work – this gives credibility to the
importance of the concept of capacity building for
sustainable peace
• Geared not only at local communities but also throughout
the various sectors including private sector, elected
representatives and statutory bodies
Supports for Peace Building
• Continue awareness, training and mentoring
supports for peace building
• Communicate the opportunities for people in
regard of peace building supports to boost
volunteering potential for peace building
• More creative use of the Co Sligo Peace
website
Tools for Peace Building
• Creative means - target groups which are fearful of; perhaps
do not see peace building as relevant to; and those who are
most difficult to reach
• Build on what has been achieved in Phase I and reach back
to those who accessed training - engaging their continued
support for sustaining the peace building effort in the
county
• Provide accessible information on peace building
• Peace website as a measure to provide support to
communities
Cross Border Collaboration
 At individual level- research and develop relationships
with cross border partners before formal engagement;
make sure they match the requirements of the project
action
 Build on special relationship with the CAN
(Carrickfergus, Antrim and Newtownabbey) Peace III
 Ensure that cross border partnerships are working to
maximum effect - challenge themselves and their
partners
Networking and Communication
 Peace Partnership Committee and Secretariat
 provide networking opportunities to maximise
opportunities for learning, sharing of practice and avoiding
duplication/competition among project actions
 continue to spearhead role as peace building leaders in
providing and stimulating debate on ‘hard’ issues
 embed the learning from peace building into the structures
within the county
 Peace Project Promoters – collaborate to create
progression opportunities for target groups and areas
Leadership in Peace Building
 Highlight the learning from experiences (peace building
sectarianism, racism and prejudice) with a view to
embedding the issues at the heart of local governance
and decision making
 Engage more fully with the decision-makers in the
county - elected representatives to enable greater all
round understanding of the relevance of peace building
to the county
 Continuation of ‘challenge events’ which create wider
public awareness
Resources for Phase II
 Upload resources onto the Co Sligo Peace website and
promote their use for future peace building work
 Build the use of these resources into the Terms of
Reference for tenders in Phase II
Operations for Peace Building
 Bring together all new deliverers of Phase II to learn
from the experiences of Phase I
 Centralised recruitment process for the project - menu
basis what is on offer and engage new people as well as
Phase I participants
 Identify advocates from each of the previous
programme to write a testimonial on the differences
that the project made to them and their communities
Discussion
 Response to Findings
 Any issues to be discussed?