Enabling Effective & Conflict-Sensitive Responses to COVID-19 to Protect Social Cohesion in Fragile Contexts: A multi-country, regional & global final evaluation

April 2022

In August 2021, Ecorys UK was commissioned to carry out an independent evaluation of Search for Common Ground’s (Search) programme Enabling Effective and Conflict-Sensitive Responses to COVID-19 to Protect Social Cohesion in Fragile Contexts (hereby referred to as Working Together Against Corona). The programme comprises of two ‘sister’ interventions funded by the EU Instrument Contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), implemented in six countries across Africa and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Implementation commenced in July 2020 and concluded in April 2022. The evaluation aimed to capture the results of the IcSP’s investment as well as lessons and recommendations to inform future Search programming around effective peacebuilding approaches during pandemics and contribute to the evidence base within the wider peacebuilding sector.

The evaluation team was comprised of international and local researchers with expertise in assessing the impacts of COVID-19; evaluating vertical and horizontal social cohesion programmes; and carrying out surveys, interviews, and focus groups across target countries.

Lead Evaluator: Emily Grant

Evaluation Team: Amy Dwyer, Nisrine Mansour, Beatriz Amaral, Lucia Soldà, and Morgan Fairless

Methodology

This evaluation of the Enabling Effective and Conflict-Sensitive Responses to COVID-19 to Protect Social Cohesion in Fragile Contexts programme aims to address the key evaluation objectives outlined by Search in the evaluation Terms of Reference:

1. Map key findings
2. Measure the extent to which the programme achieved its planned goals
3. Understand how programming contributed to behaviour change and trusting COVID-19 measures
4. Define the main recommendations for programme and policy stakeholders
5. Gather evidence against a selection of ‘conceptual questions’ to understand how norms, behaviour, conflict contexts and activities have interacted to inform future programming.

Primary data collection was undertaken between October 2021-April 2022. This included online self-completion and phone-based surveys delivered across all targeted countries in conjunction with three deep-dive case studies: two country-level case studies (Kenya and Palestine) and one global level case study exploring ConnexUs and the Influencers for Chance network. Community-level data from Search’s Conflict Scan surveys as well as additional secondary data (project documentation, social media analytics, etc.) were also analysed to support and qualify data collected for this evaluation. Additionally, an Engagement Group including a diverse cross-section of programme stakeholders was engaged at key points to verify findings and improve the evaluation’s relevance, utility, and impact.

Key Findings

The evaluation questions outlined by Search are structured around the OECD criteria of relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability. Key findings in relation to those areas are:

Relevance:

• Generally, the programme identified relevant target groups and defined the most
  pertinent social cohesion challenges exacerbated by the pandemic.
• Significant flexibility was built into its design to ensure activities could be tailored across complex contexts and respond to both new data and the evolving pandemic.
• There is also strong evidence of activities being adapted to strengthen reach and relevance.
• Survey data shows that the programme generally targeted the groups least trusting of COVID-19 messaging and responses across contexts. However, several vulnerable groups could also have benefited from activities despite not being targeted in this phase.
• The programme generally ensured accessibility to different groups; however, there were opportunities to broaden representation in some of the MENA social media campaign products.

Effectiveness:

• Overall, the programme delivered on its objectives to increase the effectiveness and conflict-sensitivity of COVID-19 responses and mitigate potential harmful effects on social cohesion.
• However, the programme appears to have had overly ambitious objectives given the project timeframe and scale, as well as the complexity of issues like trust and social cohesion.
• Positive examples of attitudinal change transforming into more conflict-sensitive behaviour and engagement with response efforts were found. This had some ‘immediate’ benefits in terms of social cohesion, but it was challenging to determine any longer-term indications of social cohesion or benefits to wider communities.
• Deep dive case studies identified evidence of transformed attitudes resulting in more inclusive behaviour at the horizontal level and we found evidence of more conflict-sensitive behaviour from authorities, which in turn increased trust in COVID-19 response measures.
• There is strong evidence of the programme bringing groups together to exchange information and support conflict-sensitive responses. However, in most cases, it is too early to identify examples of this translating to improvement all contexts, and the evidence of effects on secondary beneficiaries is weak.

Sustainability

• Sustainability emerged as the most challenging aspect across the deep dive contexts, but it is important to recognize that this is more a reflection of the programme’s overly ambitious aims in a rapid timeframe.
• Where there are indications of potential sustainability, these largely rely on the ongoing momentum of participants and risk collapsing without additional funding.

Acknowledgments

The research team gratefully acknowledges inputs from all stakeholders who provided their support, data, and insights for this evaluation. This includes the support we have received for this evaluation from Search for Common Ground – especially the in-country teams in Kenya, Nigeria, Palestine, Tanzania, Uganda, and Yemen – throughout the evaluation process. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the in-country consultants in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Yemen who supported the main evaluation team with phone-based and in-person data collection, especially Nicholas Oloo.