Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 1 INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND PEACE IMPACT PROGRAMME FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................4 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................10 2. Context.............................................................................................................................13 3. Overview of the PIP Programme...................................................................................19 4. What has changed...........................................................................................................27 5. Analysis of PIP................................................................................................................39 6. Key findings and recommendations..............................................................................45 Appendices Appendix 1: List of Projects funded Appendix 2: List of external people consulted Appendix 3: Personal Stories of Change questionnaire Appendix 4: Change Matrix Appendix 5: Participant Questionnaire Appendix 6:: Project Staff /Steering Group Questionnaire List of Tables Table 1 Overview of the evaluation methodology Table 2 Summary of the Peace Impact Programme Table 3 Overview of PIP: Projects in Northern Ireland Table 4 Projects in the Southern Border Counties Table 5 Overview of the Case Studies Table 6 Examples of work carried out under PIP Table 7 Summary of the Change Matrix Table 8 Benefits of PIP: Qwizdom Survey Table 9 Project Survey: Dealing with Internal Division Table 10 Project Survey: Making a Difference in this Community Table 11 Change Matrix: Current situation in Selected Communities Table 12 Reasons for Joining PIP (Qwizdom Survey) Table 13: Changes in relation to training and employment among participants Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 3 List of Abbreviations CFNI: Community Foundation for Northern Ireland CNR: Catholic Nationalist Republican CRSI: Conflict Resolution Services Ireland CRC: Community Relations Council DBMS: Designated Board Members ETBI: Education and Training Boards Ireland ESRI :Economic and Social Research Institute IFI: International Fund for Ireland IIDEA: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance LDO: Local Development Officer NFTE: Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship NI: Northern Ireland NILT: Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey OECD/DAC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee PIP: Peace Impact Programme PWP: Peace Walls Programme PUL: Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist PSNI: Police Service of Northern Ireland RCN: Rural Community Network SBCs: Southern Border Counties Strabane AYE: Strabane Access Youth Engagement TBUC: Together: Building a United Community TDDA: Tyrone Derry, Donegal Action US: United States USAID: United States Agency for International Development USDT: Upper Springfield Development Trust Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 4 Executive Summary The Peace Impact Programme (PIP) aims to build sustainable peace and prosperity within communities of greatest economic and social deprivation, where there are low levels of engagement in peace building and limited benefits from the Peace Process. It is funded by the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Programme was implemented at a time when the Peace Process in Ireland was faltering with ongoing political stalemate, growing levels of alienation in both Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist (PUL) and Catholic/Nationalist/Republican (CNR) communities, renewed outbreaks of violence on the streets linked to the flags protests combined with an economic recession and austerity programmes on both sides of the border. In this context both the overall objective of the PIP programme and the work supported to date were timely and relevant to the situation in Ireland during the period of implementation (Jan 2013 to March 2015). PIP identified three programme outcomes: 1) increased contact, dialogue, sharing and integration among project participants, 2) the development of sustainable, exemplar community organisations and 3) underpinning the Peace Process and promote economic prosperity by increasing the skills base within interface communities. PIP has made a significant and durable contribution in all three of the areas. The various PIP projects have facilitated a range of dialogue and relationship building work, particularly intra-community, but also supported inter-community work and dialogue and relationship building between communities and statutory agencies. This evaluation has found that the programme has made an important contribution to the Peace Process by targeting its resources at the right areas and communities and by supporting projects to develop appropriate and locally owned responses. PIP has supported a total of 56 projects on both sides of the border (41 in Northern Ireland and 15 in the Southern border counties) with a total spend of almost £4.4m ($7.1 and €5.5) This level of activity was particularly significant in this period given that the IFI was one of the few funders supporting peace building work of this nature at this critical time in the Peace Process. The level of funding tended to be relatively small with grants ranging from £22,000 to £189,000 Despite this, the groups managed to use their grants effectively to deliver extensive programmes of activity. PIP was administered in Northern Ireland (NI) by the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland (CFNI) and in the Southern Border Counties (SBCs) directly by the IFI‘s Local Development Officers (LDO’s). There is clear evidence that the pro-active targeting strategy adopted by PIP, the flexible approach, the scale of the funding and the level of mentoring and support provided to the projects was critical to the success of the programme. PIP provides a model of how this type of work can be facilitated with relatively modest resources and how local communities can be supported and mentored so that they can take ownership of the work. The selection of CFNI as the implementing agency in NI has been important as CFNI has the credibility and a track record of working in these communities, plus the experience, institutional memory and know-how to work effectively with the diverse groups supported under PIP. Likewise, in the southern border counties, IFI Local Development Officers have a credible track record of engaging with communities in the Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 5 successful delivery of projects over the past twenty seven years. The fact that these funds were from the IFI, and seen as independent, was also considered to be important by some projects working on sensitive issues. The evaluation found that this targeted support has been effective and has had important impacts on critical issues in PUL and CNR communities. By implication, the IFI has demonstrated that there is a need for more flexible and responsive funding mechanisms which can allow for risk taking and which provide scope for projects to be creative and respond to the context in which they operate. The areas targeted by PIP tend to feature ongoing community tensions, sectarian incidents, significant levels of ongoing or residual paramilitary control, large numbers of marginalised young people and alienation from both the political process and the Peace Process. Projects highlighted the need for programmes which respond to the local context; address these core issues and which promote local ownership and sustainability. There is strong evidence that PIP has targeted the right communities and that the approach used has facilitated and supported locally owned work which is highly relevant in these contexts. The evaluation has identified several examples of important shifts among target constituencies and there is evidence that some groups have taken important steps to heal internal division and to improve community relations. The programme has channelled funding directly to the projects on the ground, either by working through recognised groups in these areas or by supporting the establishment of new structures where necessary. Projects had scope to respond to the unique context in which they operate and were allowed to work at their own pace. This has created good working relationships and a sense of partnership between the IFI/CFNI and the projects. Overall there is a good degree of alignment between key issues impacting on local communities and project activities supported by PIP, including work with ‘at risk’ youth, efforts to develop local leadership and build capacity in areas where paramilitaries are gate keepers and exert pressure on the local communities, as well as initiatives which address contentious issues and sectarian tension. This work is particularly relevant as it reduces the sense of powerlessness, challenges existing power dynamics which sustain divisions and opens up community structures to people who have been or feel they are excluded or who self exclude. The core of this work is mediation and dialogue and opening channels of communications among these stakeholders. This low key approach has proved to be very effective in reducing the levels of violence and facilitating dialogue with individuals and groups who have not previously engaged. There is a strong undercurrent in both PUL and CNR communities that the political parties have lost touch with marginalised communities and have failed to provide the necessary leadership at critical times. A number of the PIP projects involved in this work have taken risks in this regard engaging with and mediating with armed groups who are willing to use violence and engage in punishment attacks, expulsion and murder. It is important that this work is sustained both by the PIP programme and by future peace initiatives. The work to engage with these groups is particularly relevant in the current context and is critical to the long term sustainability of the Peace Process. Efforts to engage excluded people, to give them a voice and to demonstrate that politics can work are particularly Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 6 important in light of the increased levels of alienation on the ground and are critical to the long term sustainability of the Peace Process. Research and consultations carried out as part of the evaluation indicated a consistent pattern across the projects – that there had been improvements in several key areas such as internal cohesion, the engagement of disaffected youth, engagement of those opposed to the Peace Process, and in the promotion of employment related skills. A survey of project personnel (staff and members of the steering groups) indicated that over 90% felt that the project had helped build capacity to address contentious issues while 95% agreed that it had made a difference (50% strongly agreed and a further 45% agreed). It can be difficult to identify impact in complex situations where PIP projects are being implemented and where external factors, particularly political developments, can easily set back progress on the ground. Nevertheless, the evaluation has identified important and significant changes at both personal and community levels and the work has also raised some important policy considerations and generated useful learning for the wider peace building sector. Inclusion is a key theme underpinning a lot of the PIP work with projects supporting the engagement of groups such as Protestants in the border region, women, and marginalised and at risk youth. PIP has supported a number of initiatives to strengthen the engagement of the Protestant community and there are signs that this is creating a new openness and increased dialogue both internally and on a cross community basis. There is growing awareness at a global level that women have the potential to play a much more significant role in peace building and that strategies need to be developed along the lines created by PIP to facilitate this process and to overcome the barriers which often limit their participation. PIP has supported a number of initiatives which have facilitated engagement of women in both PUL and CNR communities, who had never participated in this type of work before, and in some cases provided a platform for them to undertake valuable work with marginalised young people. Another important area of work has been the engagement of disaffected youth in both rural and urban areas on both sides of the border. While there are a range of Government and statutory initiatives targeting unemployed youth in both NI and the SBCs, there appears to be gaps in this type of provision with programmes either excluding some young people or the young people not being willing to engage with statutory services. PIP has supported a range of initiatives which specifically target this cohort of young people and there is evidence that this has had a positive impact. Projects have reported increased engagement in the community, and reductions in anti-social behaviour, levels of recruitment to paramilitary groups and the number of punishment attacks and expulsions. There is clear evidence that the communities where PIP projects are located value this approach and that the participants feel that they now have a stake in their community and a positive role to play. The work of PIP on core issues related to the conflict and in communities that are recognised as the most disadvantaged is particularly relevant and important in the current context. Projects have addressed a range of core conflict related issues including the ongoing problem of paramilitary domination in some communities, internal tensions and conflicts, sectarianism, the lack of engagement among certain groups and communities, issues around Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 7 cultural identity and disaffected youth. This evaluation has identified important progress in these areas and can conclude that the PIP programme is making a valuable contribution to peace building and is clearly underpinning the Peace Process. A central theme in many projects was providing alternatives –alternatives to unemployment, alternatives to conflict and violence, alternatives to anti-social behaviour and alternatives to political isolation and exclusion. PIP has played an important role in several areas by demonstrating that there are alternatives to enable communities themselves to play a role in this regard. The evaluation found that the support to provide alternatives is bearing fruit and has the potential to make a real difference in these communities and in some cases at a wider societal level. The interconnected problems in the communities where PIP projects were implemented is damaging community cohesion, eroding the rule of law and undermining the Peace Process. These communities feel left behind and the challenge is how to support and help them to address internal problems while moving towards reconciliation with the ‘other community’. It will be important that any future work builds on this and includes more social and political analysis which encourages communities to examine and understand the underlying issues in their communities rather than blaming the ‘other side’. However the reality is that PIP was only beginning the process of engagement in some areas/communities and that a more strategic and sustained approach is required over a three to five year period. PIP has facilitated some important groundwork and filled a critical gap in the overall peace building architecture. With the roll out of TBUC in NI and a new Peace IV programme across NI and the SBCs, there is a need for collaborative approaches to peace building at all levels: at a strategic level between policy makers and funders, at a regional/local authority level and at a grass roots community level. The IFI is strategically placed to work collaboratively with policy makers and funding bodies on both sides of the Irish border while retaining its independent role and continuing to take risks to ensure that the Peace Process is genuinely inclusive and reaching into the communities supported under this first phase of PIP. Such an approach would ensure that the IFI will continue to make a unique and complementary contribution to the peace building architecture in Ireland. A number of PIP projects are dealing with highly sensitive issues with a strong political dimension; particularly those which work in communities dominated by Loyalist paramilitaries or so called Dissident Republicans. PIP projects have effectively managed the inherent tensions in this work which is challenging dominant power structures. The projects are working to change how groups interact with the local community and to open up community structures to the wider community. Based on consultations with projects and some external stakeholders, including the PSNI, there is evidence this work is effective and beginning to bring about change. The failure by government and the statutory sector to engage these groups can lead to a growing feeling that “politics doesn’t work” and further alienation from the political and Peace Process. The onus is on policy makers and politicians to demonstrate that politics does work and to ensure people are engaged in or have access to the process and can have their voice heard. The political context on both sides of the border means that funding for work with groups opposed to or uncomfortable with the Peace Process or for work with a political angle will be difficult. The IFI has more scope to Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 8 engage in this sensitive work and can play an important role in this regard. . The cross border dimension of peace building has slipped down the agenda in recent years as there has been increased focus on internal issues and local problems in NI and the SBCs. Despite this there is recognition that the border remains an issue and that there is a cross border dimension to some of the issues on the ground. The IFI can play a valuable role in promoting cross border work and should strengthen this element in the next phase. While the work is still in its early stages, in some areas there is solid evidence that PIP is already doing important and vital work to underpin the Peace Process in these communities. However there is a need for mainstream support which provides the more long term and integrated approaches necessary to really change these deep rooted issues. The IFI should ensure this work is sustained through more long term support to projects, collaborative work with other agencies at both a local and strategic level, linkage of work to relevant policy instruments and a strategic approach to mainstreaming at a policy level where possible. Recommendations 1. The IFI should continue the successful approach of pro-actively targeting communities and areas with low levels of capacity and engagement with peace building and maintain the strong focus on engaging those who are excluded from the Peace Process. 2. The IFI should continue to support and mentor these communities by developing new initiatives where necessary or by working through existing structures where capacity is low. 3. There is a clear need for independent funding which is flexible and targeted at the critical issues on the ground and the IFI should continue to take calculated risks to support these efforts. 4. There is increasing need for collaboration at all levels: strategic, regional and community. The IFI should engage strategically with other funders and policy makers to ensure there is a good level of collaboration while, at the same time, maintaining its independence and unique risk taking approach which targets resources at those who are excluded from the political and the Peace Process. 5. The IFI should disseminate the learning from PIP and engage in a consultation process with other key agencies to ensure effective collaboration. 6. The IFI should work with all stakeholders to help PIP projects transition from ‘stand alone projects’ to a situation where their work becomes mainstreamed. 7. The IFI should consider strengthening the capacity of any new PIP to enable cluster-work between groups and communities as this was a very successful aspect of the current programme. 8. The Peace Process is located within a wider context of Anglo Irish and cross border relationships and the IFI should work to strengthen the cross border dimension of any future PIP programme. 9. PIP should continue to incorporate training and employment elements but should ensure this is not duplicating the range of training support available on both sides of the border and maintain a specific focus on those at risk of Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 9 becoming engaged in conflict related issues (sectarian/interface conflict or engagement with paramilitaries). 10. The IFI should continue to be flexible in their approach to project delivery to enable those funded to be responsive to changing and emerging local circumstances within agreed programme framework/objectives and on a longer term intervention basis. 11. The IFI should review/rationalise the monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure consistency on a cross border basis in order to capture the key quantitative and qualitative aspects, the unique nature of the work and the learning emerging. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 10 1. Introduction The Peace Impact Programme (PIP) aims to build sustainable peace and prosperity within communities of greatest economic and social deprivation, where there are low levels of engagement in peace building and limited benefits from the Peace Process. It is funded by the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The IFI was established by agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland in 1986 with the objective of “promoting economic and social advance and to encourage contact, dialogue and reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland”. From 1986 to 2014 the United States (US) provided over $500m in assistance through the IFI to Northern Ireland (NI) and the southern border counties (SBCs) to support a wide range of peace building, community and economic development projects. In more recent years the IFI has placed increased emphasis on reconciliation and the Sharing this Space Strategic Framework for Action 2006-2010 supported a range of reconciliation initiatives. Research carried out by the IFI in 20101 highlighted the fact that much more work was still required on the ground in communities in NI and the SBCs, despite the progress made over recent years. This resulted in the development of two focused programmes of work: the Peace Walls Programme (PWP) and the Peace Impact Programme (PIP) targeting areas and communities suffering from very high levels of economic and social deprivation in NI and the SBCs. The PIP programme commenced in early 2013 and has supported 56 projects to date operating in the most disadvantaged and disaffected areas where there is limited evidence the Peace Process has had a positive impact on communities or individuals. It delivers a range of interventions aimed at tackling the sectarian attitudes, fears and mistrust within and between communities, which continues to limit progress towards a lasting peace and shared future. The overall goal of the PIP programme is "To build sustainable peace and prosperity within communities of greatest economic and social deprivation, where there are low levels of engagement in peace building and limited benefits from the Peace Process”. The strategic objectives are to:  Engage with individuals and groups that have not previously, or only partially, participated in community development and peace building activities.  Increase contact, dialogue, sharing and integration within and between communities and support creative and innovative approaches to dealing with contentious issues.  Build cohesion within and between communities to deliver improved relationships.  Promote greater understanding and acceptance of diversity between communities, thereby reducing sectarianism.  Target the engagement and participation of disaffected young people.  Underpin the Peace Process and promote economic prosperity by increasing the skills base within interface communities. 1 Tony Macaulay: Report of a Consultation on Pilot Interventions in Low Peace Impact Areas for the International Fund for Ireland (November 2010) Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 11  Encourage the involvement and participation of all residents from the target areas. PIP targeted areas and communities which were characterised by a combination of economic and social deprivation, low levels of engagement in peace building and limited benefits from the Peace Process. These areas tend to feature inter alia: ongoing community tensions, threats, sectarian incidents, significant levels of ongoing or residual paramilitary control and violence, embedded sectarian attitudes, large numbers of marginalised young people and alienation from the political process and government agencies, particularly the police/Gardaí. In order to address the range of challenges in these target areas on both sides of the border PIP was designed to be responsive and to deliver a range of sustainable reconciliation, integration, community development and economic interventions. The specific programme outcomes were: 1. An increase in contact, dialogue, sharing and integration among project participants. 2. The development of sustainable, exemplar community organisations and disseminate best practice to other communities. 3. Underpinning the Peace Process and promoting economic prosperity by increasing the skills base within interface communities. PIP is administered separately in NI and Ireland. In NI the programme is administered by a Management Agent, the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland (CFNI) while in the SBCs it is administered directly by the IFI‘s Local Development Officers (LDOs). Applications to PIP are considered by the Review Group made up of CFNI, LDOs, IFI Secretariat and some Government Departments. They are then reviewed by Designated Board Members (DBMS), a sub committee of the IFI Board, and by the Advisory Group made up of senior Government Officials north and south before being presented for decision at a full board meeting at which Observers from all the donor countries are present. Overview of the Evaluation The purpose of the evaluation was to develop an independent story of the PIP programme and to contribute to, and improve, future programme implementation. The specific objectives included: measuring the impact of the overall programme, identifying the learning at both project and programme level, developing recommendations to improve the quality of the work and to identify how the outcomes of the programme could influence future policy. An interim evaluation was carried out over a three month period (July￾September 2014) and involved an in-depth review of 15 projects which were supported under the earlier rounds of PIP as well as a desk review of the other projects. The evaluation applied the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development /Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) valuation criteria2 as the primary mechanism to review the PIP programme. It focused on four core criteria: relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation team carried out an extensive data collection process over a seven month period (Oct 2014-April 2015) which included surveys, focus groups and interviews. The evaluation team used a ‘mixed methods approach’ and 2 OECD (2012), Evaluating Peacebuilding Activities in Settings of Conflict and Fragility: Improving Learning for Results, DAC Guidelines and References Series, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264106802-en Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 12 applied a number of data collection tools to capture the perspective of all stakeholders with the focus on participatory methods and the engagement of the projects and project participants. Table 1: Overview of the evaluation methodology Activity Details No. of participants Data collection methods used Cluster events 3 cluster events for projects Cookstown (all projects): 24 October 2014 Belfast (Women’s projects): 04 December 2014 Monaghan (Youth projects): 04 March 2015 300 Project staff and project steering group members questionnaire. 180 completed surveys: (See Appendix 6) Most significant change exercise3 : Over 100 stories of change recorded. A Qwizdom4 questionnaire (used in the Youth cluster event in Monaghan). 131 responses Focus groups 18 projects across Northern Ireland and the SBCs plus focus groups with IFI/CFNI personnel 200 The change matrix (used in focus groups with project staff/advisory group members in 10 projects: (See Appendix 4) A participant questionnaire (used with youth projects). 88 completed surveys. (See Appendix 5) Interviews Interviews with informed third parties and local independent analysts 20 List of people consulted: (See Appendix 2) Personal stories of change Individual stories of project participants. 8 Questionnaire and consent forms (See Appendix 3) Desk Research Project reports and other programme documents, e.g. evaluation and relevant contextual reports Footnote: Whilst every effort was made to ensure there was no duplication, there is likely a small element of ‘doubling up’ as some people who participated in the focus groups also attended the cluster events and within the cluster events some individuals attended them all. However the evaluators are confident that, within the above data collection processes, they have captured the perspectives of up to 500 people. 3 Most Significant Change is a participative evaluation process which involves the collection of significant change stories emanating from projects and the selection of the most significant of these stories by project personnel (staff and members of the steering groups). 4 Qwizdom is an interactive audience response voting system that uses powerpoint presentations to pose questions or gather views on a range of matters. Participants use a clicker (which resembles a TV remote control) to interact with the presentation. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 13 2. Context The PIP programme is being implemented at an important stage in the wider and evolving Political/ Peace Process in Ireland and Northern Ireland. On the one hand there has been important progress on several fronts: the political structures remain in place and the levels of violence have steadily decreased. However major challenges lie ahead and there is awareness of the need for long term strategies to address the deep issues which have emerged and ongoing residual violence in both main communities. “There has been significant progress since the Good Friday Agreement in building peace on this island, but this progress cannot be taken for granted. There is still important reconciliation work to be done, work that may take generations”.5 On both sides of the border, there are concerns within communities over the lack of real progress on the political front with recurring periods of political instability, combined with economic recession, increased levels of unemployment and poverty and a growing sense of alienation among people (especially young people) in disadvantaged Protestant Unionist Loyalist (PUL) and Catholic Nationalist Republican (CNR) communities and the ongoing role and position of paramilitary groups in this context. The influence of these groups (both republican and loyalist) has been sustained and in some cases increased through a complex mix of local issues and wider failures in the political process. There are ongoing concerns that the instability and complex situation on the ground in communities will create fertile ground for those opposed to the Peace Process and provide opportunities for armed groups to build their profile and increase their influence in deprived communities in both Northern Ireland and the SBCs: “At the level of political leadership, the 2011 election returned a stable administration intent on a wide-range of agreed programmes; that promise, however, went unfulfilled. A high level political dispute about (ironically) a conflict resolution Centre on the Maze/Long Kesh site, plus others over education, health, teacher training, a Bill of Rights, welfare reform and an Irish language Act began to silt up the political process even prior to severe budgetary cutbacks. Although it came after a period of significant and symbolic progress in community relations, the flag protest from the end of 2012 was the moment at which forward movement at the ground level also faltered”. 6 A key challenge in peace processes is to create and maintain an inclusive process where all groups feel a sense of ownership and are broadly committed to sustaining the process: this has been a problem from the outset and one which has increased over the years with elements in both the PUL and CNR communities feeling increasingly marginalised from the mainstream political process. In CNR communities on both sides of the Irish border, the so called Dissident Republican groups have been a focal point for those who are alienated or opposed to the current Political and Peace Processes and willing to maintain the use of violence. In PUL communities the lack of political leadership and the failure to develop real political representation has resulted in a growing sense of alienation from the Political and Peace Processes. In some of these areas Loyalist paramilitaries are still dominant and in 5 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Reconciliation Fund Strategy 2014 -2020 6 The Flag Dispute: Anatomy of a Protest: Institute for Conflict Transformation and Social Justice, Queens University (December 2014) Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 14 control of community groups and activities and are actively recruiting. There is an urgent need to change how these groups interact with the local community, to alter the power balance in these areas and to open up community structures to the wider community. A recent report by the Institute for Conflict Transformation and Social Justice7 suggests that: “Loyalists had come to see the Peace Process as a zero sum game in which nationalist gains and unionist losses are part of the same equation. Interviews with protestors also showed a lack of trust and confidence in the unionist political elite to represent them”. The PIP programme is dealing with a range of socio-economic, political and cultural factors and issues in communities across NI and the six SBCs. These areas have experienced a deepening recession with increased levels of poverty and social exclusion and ongoing tensions and, on occasions, violence on the streets in NI. At the same time there has been a steady and deepening decline in the funding available for good relations, peace building and reconciliation work. The economies of both Ireland and NI have experienced significant declines as a result of the economic crash and the effects are still being felt most acutely in socially disadvantaged urban areas and isolated rural communities. Unemployment levels in both urban and rural areas have risen sharply and there has been an ongoing decline and erosion of social supports for disadvantaged communities, particularly impacting young people at risk: rural areas on both sides of the border have also suffered with ongoing emigration among young people. Northern Ireland The contrasting faces of NI were highlighted in the 2014 Peace Monitoring report: “Twenty years on from the paramilitary ceasefires, Northern Ireland remains a very deeply divided society. A fault line runs through education, housing and many other aspects of daily existence. These facts however do not provide the complete picture. There is another side to the balance sheet. In some ways huge progress has been made. Levels of violence are at their lowest for forty years. In the past year no British soldier has been killed, no police officer has been killed, no prison officer has been killed, and there was not one sectarian killing. In fact Northern Ireland is emerging as one of the safest places to live in these islands”.8 Reflecting on the nature of living in a deeply divided society, there are indications of a continuing decline in how people perceive the state of community relations. Results from the 2013 Northern Ireland Life and Times (NILT) Survey show the proportion of respondents who believe that relations between Protestants and Catholics are better now than five years ago has fallen to 45 per cent: this represents a drop of seven percentage points on the 2012 figure. When looking towards the future, respondents are also less optimistic about community relations than in previous years. While nearly two thirds of respondents in 2007 (64%) felt that relations between Protestants and Catholics will be better in five years’ time, this figure fell to 48 per cent in 2012 and 40 per cent in 2013. The levels of alienation and disaffection among young people present particular challenges to policy makers and those involved in efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. There are increasing levels of 7 The Flag Dispute: Anatomy of a Protest: Institute for Conflict Transformation and Social Justice, Queens University (December 2014) 8 Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report: Number Three: Paul Nolan March 2014 Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 15 polarisation among young people across the board with particularly sharp divisions in more socially deprived areas. The most recent evidence from the NILT survey suggests that the ‘flags dispute’ heightened the temperature with a sharp drop in Protestants and Catholics expressing a preference for mixed religion workplaces and neighbourhoods, particularly among young people. In her commentary on the NILT findings Grainne Kelly concluded that: “The NILT survey results for community relations since 2013 do not make for easy reading. The deterioration in respondents’ optimism for the future of relations between Catholics and Protestants is cause for serious concern. While unwise to make direct correlations between attitudes and events, it appears clear that the impact of the motion passed at Belfast City Council, and the subsequent flag protests and widespread unrest, has had a negative impact far beyond people’s attitudes to, and tolerance of, markers of identity of the ‘other’ community9 ”. These levels of segregation and division are reflected in the conclusions from the Peace Monitoring Report: “Despite some movement in terms of residential segregation and shared schooling, the fundamental divisions remain unchanged. Over 93 per cent of children are educated in separate schools, interface walls still divide communities and sectarian riots are accepted as routine annual events. Twenty years on from the first ceasefires the terms of trade have been set by deals and side-deals. These have prevented the return of large-scale violence but the model on offer from the top is peace without reconciliation. A culture of endless negotiation has become embedded and, without a vision of a shared society to sustain it, the peace process has lost the power to inspire”.10 The situation in socially deprived communities where PIP projects are located presents a challenging picture in relation to crime, anti-social behaviour and the influence of paramilitaries, the latter a major issue as they continue to hold considerable power. There is still a real and visible threat from dissident Republicans and the influence of Loyalist paramilitaries is strong in many disadvantaged PUL communities where it would appear that their power has increased as a result of the ‘flags protest’ which gave them a renewed sense of purpose and increased credibility, especially among disaffected young men. These underlying trends came to the fore during the flags controversy and provided Loyalist paramilitary groups with an opening to reassert their position in some communities. “Twenty years after the Combined Loyalist Military Command declared the loyalist ceasefires in 1994 the two main paramilitary organisations, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) are still very much in existence. In fact the past year has seen a revival of their fortunes, and the attainment of a new respectability ..... while the paramilitary groups were ostensibly in the process of winding down, both the UDA and the UVF were continuing to recruit young people into their ranks”. 11 9 Flying the Flag? An update on attitudes to markers of identity in public space: Grainne Kelly ARK Research Update June 2014 10 Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report: Number Three: Paul Nolan March 2014 11 Ibid. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 16 The current difficulties in NI have been well documented and commented on by researchers and politicians. However, the reality of life was presented more sharply by a local teenager: “Many seem to think that because we have a peace settlement it’s almost like we should have peace but we do not have true peace. The troubles rage on in the hearts and minds of our communities … our schooling system is still divided along religious lines and each summer we still bite our lips praying that the yearly marching season does not erupt into violence.... Northern Ireland is still mired in sectarianism and by sectarianism I mean the reciprocal bigotry and mistrust felt towards each other. A great deal more is to be done if Northern Ireland is to become a truly stable society”.12 It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that no progress has been made. The Peace Process has broadly stayed on track, the political structures remain in place, the levels of terrorist attacks continue to decline, the 2014 parading ‘season’ was largely peaceful and the flying of flags has been respectfully managed in certain areas. In May 2013 the Northern Ireland Executive launched the long awaited Together: Building a United Community (TBUC) Strategy. While some commentators and strategists consider that the document is quite light on detail and progress towards implementation is slow, it does however outline specific measures that go to the heart of contributing to building a ‘shared society’. In the foreword the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly acknowledged this valuable work: “We recognise and value the range of important and often challenging work that has been taken forward by individuals and groups at local level to build a more united and shared society. This Strategy aims to build on what has gone before, and provide the framework for best practice to be developed and shared. Throughout society from local community level to the Executive, we have seen people coming together, and often working together, to build a better future. It is this type of approach which is at the heart of this Strategy”. In December 2014 the Stormont House Agreement was produced: the Agreement was the result of an intensive talks’ process which started as a result of the failure between the political parties in Northern Ireland to reach consensus on the Agreement produced by the Haass Talks. The key elements of the ‘Stormont House Agreement’ are designed to deal with the range of outstanding issues related to finance, welfare reform and institutional reform. This included the establishment of Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition, new legislation to deal with parading disputes and measures designed to deal with the legacy of the past. Specific actions which were identified were the establishment of an Oral History Archive , an Historical Investigations Unit, an Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and an Implementation and Reconciliation Group. Despite this progress, there remain tensions and stalemates between the parties including current difficulties with the Stormont House Agreement and a failure to move towards a more collaborative approach and genuine power sharing. The absence of a shared vision for the future and lack of political leadership have contributed to the current situation. “Those who study and practise conflict transformation are quick to realise that many aspects of the NI process represent negative peace. That is a context where political violence has decreased but the underlying issues that fuel conflicts have not been 12 Alan Polkey (Co. Down) speaking at the One Young World Summit: Dublin, October 2014 Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 17 addressed. When asked why this is the case, I respond that a more vigorous policy move towards integration has not taken place because there is no commonality of vision in terms of the type of society we are ultimately working towards”. 13 Southern Border Counties While the political context in the SBCs is quite different from that in NI, there are many similarities on the economic front as a result of the recession. In recent years the economic collapse has dominated the agenda and impacted on all aspects of life. The SBC’s have suffered heavily with high levels of unemployment and emigration and there are concerns the border region will suffer ongoing decline despite signs of improvement at the national level. Industrial development is becoming concentrated in the greater Dublin region and weaknesses in infrastructure, transport links and broadband access will continue to hamper development across the border region and limit opportunities for sustainable growth. Recent statistics from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI )show unemployment levels in the SBCs are the highest in the country and this, combined with the loss of a generation of educated young people, is a major issue which will have a negative impact on the social and economic life. One of the most serious impacts of the recession is the cutback to services in social welfare, health, education and training. The impact of the recession and resulting cutback is felt most acutely in disadvantaged urban areas such as Drogheda, Dundalk, Lifford, Letterkenny and Sligo resulting in high levels of dependence on social welfare payments. These areas experience ongoing problems of drug and alcohol abuse and anti-social behaviour with risks of some young people becoming involved in dissident republican groups. The social context in Dundalk and Drogheda, but also in other areas of the SBCs, is impacted by the high levels of people displaced by the NI conflict and more recently by increasing numbers of immigrants. Considerable work has been carried out in recent years to improve community relations in the SBCs and there have been significant improvements with a breaking down of barriers and a move away from the “culture of silence” which had pervaded the region for generations. This is recognised in research by Community Relations Council (CRC) and the Rural Community Network (RCN) “There were positive indicators of the Protestant community becoming, in the last ten years, less isolated and more engaged with its neighbours and the political administrative system, with good participation rates in national, non-Church associated voluntary organisations. On the whole, indicators for the quality of community relations were more positive than on the northern side of the border. All these had the effects of ‘softening’ the earlier hard edges of segregation of the southern border areas”. 14 However divisions remain and the Protestant community is still somewhat isolated in the border region with religious segregation remaining in areas such as education. Sporadic attacks on Orange Halls continue to damage relationships as they are seen as not just an attack on the building but on a community. The voluntary/community and equality sectors 13 Brandon Hamber IFI’s Newsletter, Fund Focus (June2015) 14 Bell, J, Jarman, N, Harvey, B. Beyond Belfast – Contested Spaces in Urban, Rural and Cross Border Settings, Nov. 2010 Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 18 have played a key role in peace building in the SBCs and have provided a solid platform for this work. It should be noted that this sector has been eroded in recent years with continuous reductions in support to projects involved in community development and integration work. This dismantling of the equality and peace building infrastructure reduces the capacity to sustain peace building in the SBCs. Funding context Against the above backdrop, there has been a gradual winding down of a number of important sources of funding for social, economic and community development and, in particular, for peace building. For example, whilst the Peace III programme closed at the end of 2014 and there were limited new projects initiated or supported under this programme since 2012, the reality was that many of the communities targeted by PIP and the individual projects supported under this programme were unable to access Peace III funds or any kind of previous funding (62% of NI PIP projects were started from scratch). The projects were often not sufficiently organised or structured to meet the requirements of the Peace III programme which had the effect of further isolating these communities from the Peace Process and contributed to a sense of frustration in some communities. Atlantic Philanthropies, who supported many peace building initiatives over recent years, has now closed its Ireland/Northern Ireland office so is no longer accessible to new peace building initiatives and, at this stage, there are no clear indications of the total funds which will be available to support the TBUC Strategy. It is likely to be early 2016 before funding under the Peace IV programme opens for applications although community sector expectations from it are very low as the new funding criteria make it inaccessible to most community groups due to the requirement to finance upfront 15% of any grant award to ensure cash flow. It is widely expected that most Peace IV funding will go towards government programmes. Funding for local peace building and community relations work through the 11 new ‘Super Councils’ remains minimal with decisions on new programmes and strategies low down their list of new priorities. Similarly in the SBCs there have been changes as a result of funding being channelled through new council structures, rationalisation measures and the establishment of Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI). These factors, on both sides of the Irish border, have left a major gap in support at a time when tensions are increasing and difficulties are emerging with the need for resources actually growing. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 19 3. Overview of the PIP Programme This section provides an overview of the PIP programme and gives a brief description of the projects supported and the types of activities delivered over the last 3 years. PIP was launched at the end of 2012 and the first two tranches of funding were provided in February and June 2013 when 12 groups were supported (8 in NI and 4 in the SBCs). Over the next 18 months a further 41 projects were supported (30 in NI and 11 in the SBCs) bringing the total to 53. While PIP was due to be completed in August 2015 it has been extended to December. A further 3 projects in NI were awarded funding in February 2015 with a further 4 extended with an additional budget (total 56). Many of the communities targeted by PIP and the individual projects supported under this programme had not received any kind of previous funding (62% of NI PIP projects were started from scratch). In some circumstances, PIP worked through local projects and key people with experience and a track record in peace building/community relations and a comprehensive understanding of the situation on the ground in order to build trust and capacity. Table 2: Summary of PIP Funded projects Commitments as at 30/4/2015 Commitments as at 30/4/2015 $ Northern Ireland 41 £3,306,383 $5,290,213 Southern Border Counties 15 €1,314,818 $1,709,263 Total 56 $7.1m ($7,070,689)$7.1m Exchange rates used: GB £1 = $1.6 and Euro €1 = $1.3 Table 3: Overview of PIP: Projects in Northern Ireland Community background Funded as of 30/4/2015 PUL communities 18 CNR communities 13 Mixed projects 10 Total 41 Table 4: Projects in the Southern Border Counties County Funded as of 30/4/2015 Louth 6 Monaghan 3 Leitrim 3 Sligo 1 Donegal 2 Total 15 Projects in SBC are primarily mixed but three projects dealt specifically with minority protestant groups. Most single identity projects had a cross-community aspect but the key beneficiaries were from either PUL or CNR backgrounds. The ‘mixed’ projects were those that made cross- community commitments as their starting point. The funded projects represent a diverse mix of groups, constituencies and types of work. 23 of the projects were urban while the balance, 33 are rural. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 20 Programme outputs (Activities supported) PIP has facilitated a range of activities across these 56 projects ranging from private mediation interventions and local dialogue work to larger public events and processes which engaged whole communities. One of the key aspects of PIP which was repeatedly highlighted by the projects was the level of flexibility and the fact that they had the scope and were encouraged to be creative and to respond to the context in which they were operating. This is reflected in the types of work undertaken and the nature and scale of the interventions which have happened through PIP. In ways it is difficult to categorise some of the work as it is unique to the context and reflects what people felt was needed at that particular time in that community. The nature of the work supported under PIP is analysed in this report. Additional information is also provided in the separate case studies component of the evaluation. These case studies examine the work of PIP under 5 thematic headings and include the work of 18 projects with a specific focus on these thematic areas. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 21 Table 5: Overview of the Case studies Theme Projects Some key points emerging Supporting the engagement of women in peace building Unheard Voices (Derry/Londonderry) Queens Park Women’s Group (Glengormley) Grace Women’s Development Project (Ardoyne Belfast)  In PUL and CNR communities where there are high levels of exclusion and marginalisation women are likely to be even more excluded from decision-making and from playing an active role in peace building.  These projects have demonstrated the need to include women who have been excluded so far and the important benefits of this to the women themselves and to their families.  Given the necessary support and confidence women can play an important bridging role and build relationships in deeply divided communities.  These projects have also shown that women’s groups can play an important role in working with disaffected youth and can successfully intervene to engage these young people and reduce the levels of sectarian and interface violence. Engaging disaffected youth Strabane AYE (Access Youth Engagement) Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project (Lurgan) Sligo Young Enterprise Inter Estates Partnership, Antrim  The projects tackled sectarianism, fears and mistrust within and between communities, which continues to limit progress towards a lasting peace and shared future.  The work of the projects has impacted on the three desired PIP changes or transformations: personal, community and economic.  This work also contributed to meeting other objectives of increased dialogue and building cohesion within and between communities, greater understanding and acceptance of diversity and promoting economic prosperity through increasing skills.  The financial, personnel and training investment was grounded in the community and outcomes and impacts stayed within these communities. There is a clear need to support longer-term interventions in communities that will engage with and impact a wider group of participants and those opposed to the Peace Process.  Projects deployed effective methods and approaches to their work with disaffected young people who felt alienated from the Peace Process, focused on the needs of the actual individuals and were effective both in getting the initial engagement and in maintaining involvement for the duration of the project. The inclusion of the Protestant community Leitrim Orange Order  The importance of recognising difference in communities and creating space for internal dialogue and the value of working internally with key people who have the credibility and Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 22 in the border region Fermanagh Sports and Cultural Association. Drum Village Dev. Association, Monaghan Border Arts (Castlederg) insights to influence the wider community and open up discussion on the difficult issues.  The PIP programme has been delivered at a time that was right for these communities and the pace of the programme has given them time to have the necessary internal discussions and develop a plan of action. Communities need to be nurtured and facilitated in order to engage in new peace building processes. Building an inclusive peace process Time2Choose (Derry/Londonderry) Conflict Resolution Services (Ardoyne Belfast) Sperrin Cultural Awareness (Magherafelt) Shankill Parish/Mourneview (Lurgan)  While young people are most likely to be alienated and excluded there are also men, women and ex-prisoners who are excluded or feel that they are being excluded from the peace and political processes. This points to the need for more holistic approaches which work with wider sections of the community.  There is a need for more long term approaches which apply more holistic community development approaches (rather than project based) and which address the full spectrum of issues affecting these communities such as equality, social justice and human rights.  The projects are providing alternatives at several levels: to political exclusion, to the ongoing problem of punishment attacks and expulsions, to the sense of social and cultural alienation and to some of the economic problems facing these communities through training and mentoring support.  A core element of the work is mediation and addressing the many issues which emerge along the fractures in these communities, between the communities and statutory agencies and on a cross community basis. Inter-community work Springboard Opportunities Limited (Belfast) Roe Valley Residents Association (Limavady) Donegal Youth Service  The importance of engaging young people as active citizens and in positive community activity and promoting the positive contribution they made to community life and ensuring those engaged with the project had a positive standing and relationship with the young people, the community and statutory agencies.  The importance of working where young people/communities were at and at their pace.  These interventions were only a starting point, the beginning of a process or a stepping stone on the journey for participants, organisations and communities.  Longer-term interventions need to be supported in communities to engage with and impact a wider group of participants and those opposed to the Peace Process. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 23 The case studies provide a summary of the work supported by PIP in these five themes. In addition PIP has facilitated a range of other initiatives across NI and the SBCs which are contributing to peace in different ways. The table below provides a snapshot of some of this work supported under PIP and a few examples of how the projects have addressed these issues and promoted peace in their areas/communities. It should be noted that many projects delivered on more than one key theme under which they are classified. Table 6: Examples of work carried out under PIP Type of work Examples Dealing with contentious issues  Strabane Access Youth Engagement (AYE): provided training and support services to assist large numbers of disaffected young people, their families and the wider community address issues that negatively impact on society including threats from armed groups and anti-social behaviour.  Inter Estates Partnership, Antrim: worked with housing estates and groups to tackle social issues such as anti￾social behaviour, isolation and intra/inter-community tensions and offer a range of practical employment-related training.  Time2Choose, Derry/Londonderry: supported and offered new opportunities to young people facing intimidation and at risk of violent attack and intervened to enable them to take control of the situation and to resolve difficult issues with solutions agreeable to communities and statutory authorities. Facilitating the engagement of women in peace building  Unheard Voices, Derry/Londonderry: promoted the engagement of marginalised women in PUL and CNR communities enabling them to articulate experiences and resolve difficult issues related to conflict and division and created space for alternative voices to be heard.  Grace Women’s Group, Ardoyne: delivered a collaborative project between the predominantly Republican Ardoyne area and largely Loyalist Glenbyrn area to engage women and young people in activities that focused on improving employability, community development and everyday living.  Sparkle Project, Louth Leader Partnership: worked to help women from Cox’s Demesne and Muirhevnamor in Dundalk develop new personal and creative skills through a twelve-week course focusing on personal development.  Women in Violence: as part of the wider Louth Leader Partnership programme, this project supported and facilitated isolated women, whose lives had been affected by violence, in local communities in Dundalk to build their confidence and skills and to develop relationships. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 24 Inter-community and interface work  Charter NI, East Belfast: delivered a 14-month cross-community project with the Short Strand area to engage groups of older youths in a Cultural Similarities initiative that offered different approaches to discussing issues of division.  Roe Valley Residents Association, Limavady: delivered a peace building programme that developed partnerships between community groups and young people across all the social housing areas in the town.  Stoneyford Community Association: delivered an 18-month programme that built community cohesion and good relations in the Killultagh ward of Lisburn, including the development of a new community forum.  Conflict Resolution Services Ireland (Belfast) delivered a community engagement and consultation project in North Belfast with young people, ex-prisoners/combatants and others. Dealing with internal divisions and community tensions  Sperrin Cultural Awareness Association: opened new discussions on sensitive and divisive issues with 7 new PUL groups across counties Londonderry/Derry and Antrim and improved development and employability options for young people who were at risk of engaging in antisocial, unlawful or paramilitary behaviour.  Sperrin & Glens Teach Na Failte: opened an office/training facility, delivered employability/other training courses and built capacity for peace building within the Republican/Republican Socialist and wider communities who felt excluded or voiceless. This project helped people move away from the support of physical force Republicanism.  Ulidia Training, Ballymoney: engaged with the young people, former combatants and ex-prisoners from the PUL community in order to build cohesion, address tensions and promote training related to culture/heritage and economic prosperity.  Ultoniae Cultural & Heritage Society (North Antrim): provided a 10-month community engagement, training, education and peace building project in the greater North Antrim area.  The Leitrim Grand Orange Lodge: Project focused on breaking down barriers within the greater Protestant community and through inclusive education and training they physically ‘opened their doors’ enabling a more transparent and inclusive attitude to the Order within the greater community, both on an intra and cross community basis.  Cox’s Demesne, Dundalk: their football training project brought together a steering group of clubs and organisations, who had not previously worked together, building long term sustainable relationships. Training and employment related activities  Republican ex-prisoners and their families in the SBCs: Clones Fáilte delivered a programme of accredited training and development in counties Cavan, Monaghan and adjoining cross border areas in NI; Lá Nua delivered a programme of accredited training and development work in counties Leitrim and Donegal and Fáilte Abhaile in Dundalk provided job related training and support, facilitating access to education and employment.  Rathfern Community Regeneration Group, Newtownabbey: offered new opportunities to young people with low Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 25 educational attainment to increase their access to employment or training for employment opportunities.  Shankhill Parish, Lurgan: worked with Mourneview / Grey / Hospital estates in South Lurgan to build capacity and develop employment related skills and qualifications as well as developing confidence in PUL community and identity.  Leitrim County Councils Driving Forward: project provided innovative training solutions to young people faced with literacy challenges in a geographic area recently witnessing an upsurge in dissident activity. The qualifications attained enabled them to act as football coaches in local schools and sports clubs assisting their integration into the local community. This project is heralded as a model for best practice for interagency collaboration.  Newtownbutler Together (Fermanagh): administered by Youth Work Ireland in Monaghan, delivered a ‘whole town’ peace building project to address community division, unemployment and limited opportunities for young people in the border area and provided new training courses and cross-community events to engage a range of age groups. Cox’s Demesne, Dundalk: their training project targeted young men who were due before the courts or had served custodial sentences and provided them with job related training and skills resulting in employment opportunities for these marginalised young men. Youth diversion initiatives  Leafair Carson Project, Mid Antrim: worked with three distinct groups of young people in the Mid-Antrim area where the Loyalist community felt totally disengaged with the Peace and Political Processes and where “Dissident” Loyalist groups were recruiting. It worked to build leadership and capacity, employment related training and skills development and a young women’s development programme.  Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project, Craigavon: worked with at risk young people from Meadowbrook and Drumbeg engaging them in accredited training in Good Relations and Community Development and delivery of community projects.  Queenspark Women’s Group, Glengormley: built the capacity of the women’s group to enable them to contribute to the development of good relations and civic engagement and to develop a 50/50 cross-community youth project.  Sligo Young Enterprise: Recruited at risk young people. Promoted tolerance and understanding by bringing young people (aged 16-25) together from local communities and delivered an innovative youth training project providing accredited training in soccer coaching and provided pathways to employment  Cox’s Demesne, Dundalk: delivered 2 projects for at risk young people: an early intervention drama project to promote tolerance, understanding and self expression and a football training project to up-skill young people isolated from traditional education, early school leavers or involved in Garda diversion projects. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 26 Developing Leadership capacity  Upper Springfield Development Trust (USDT), Belfast: delivered a Youth Leadership apprenticeship initiative for a group of six young people in the area and these young people are training to become youth leaders in this interface area.  Black Mountain Shared Space Project, Belfast: delivered an 11-month apprenticeship youth project in the Highfield and Springmartin areas of north and west Belfast.  Muirhevnamor Community Council, Dundalk: delivered a number of training programmes aimed at identifying and developing positive local youth leaders.  PIP Cluster Events: three large PIP cluster events were held to share learning and develop leadership: two of these were themed events ‘Youth’ and ‘Women’ and the third explored personal, community and economic transformation initiatives. Dealing with the legacy of the conflict  NIAMH, Belfast: organised a series of cross-community ‘Journey Towards Healing’ dialogues on issues related to the conflict e.g. community reconciliation, sectarianism, etc. and JIU workshops with young people on key issues e.g. victims, parades, etc.  Border Arts, Castlederg: enabled new discussions on the history and impact of the Troubles and sought to establish new ways to resolve tensions and unrest around bands and community parades in and around the Castlederg area.  Londonderry Bands Forum: drew together 14 bands from across the city to collectively improve leadership, upgrade constitutions and policies and offer training and accreditation that can support Bands Masters and young band members to have a broader positive influence in their communities: this contributed to the drawing up of the Maiden City Accord, an agreement on parading protocol for PUL groups, bands and Loyal Orders.  The La Nua project in Ballinamore, offered the platform for new discussions on the legacy of the conflict with at risk young people who are exposed to violence and anti-social activity in a marginalised rural area. The project has enabled them to discuss issues related to the conflict with both ex-British Army personnel and ex-prisoners and explore the realm of forgiveness and healing. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 27 4. What has changed This section provides an overview of the change that has occurred as a result of the PIP programme focusing on the three priority areas identified in the PIP strategy – personal, community and employment related changes. It explores the views and perceptions of the projects and examines the extent of change on these issues over the last two years (covering the approximate period in which PIP has been implemented). This is based on a combination of the different data collection tools outlined above. Attitudes and perceptions on issues such as community cohesion, cross community relations, trust and reconciliation are shaped by a complex interplay of factors including local issues, trends and events and by the wider political context in Northern Ireland and Ireland. The evaluation focused on the nature and extent of change in the communities with PIP projects from the perspective of those directly involved in projects – project participants, project staff and members of advisory groups. The evaluation team is conscious of the risk of bias in the perspectives of those directly involved in the projects and, where possible, local external perspectives were sought to provide a more independent assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the work. Overall the evaluation team found that there is a high level of frankness and honesty among stakeholders about the reality on the ground, the challenges they faced and the progress (or lack of progress) in their work. Mapping the Change Overall there are consistent patterns in the findings emerging from the review of the projects with clear indications that they are making a difference at all three levels: personal change, community change, and economic/employment related change. At a personal level, there is consistent evidence of change from the perspectives of the participants themselves and from staff / steering groups. The Change Matrix15 attempts to measure change at community level along 10 different axis corresponding to the main issues being addressed by PIP projects. The matrix was used with 10 projects (9 in Northern Ireland and 1 in the SBCs) in focus groups with members of the advisory group and/or discussion with project staff. Respondents retrospectively assessed the situation at the start of the project, where they felt it was now and the level of change which has taken place over the lifetime of the project. The scale was from -5 to +5 with minus five representing a very negative and crisis situation and plus five meaning there were little or no problems around this issue. Zero represented a tolerable situation where significant problems remained but the situation was manageable. Not all this change can be attributed to the PIP project as there are often other 15 The Change Matrix was developed by CFNI and modified by Consensus Research for the purpose of the PIP evaluation. Many of the young people particularly those from the CNR background had never met or spent time with people from the “other side”. As a result of these interactions, stereotypes and prejudice have been broken down and the young people view each other as just that, young people not Protestant, not Catholic or a label. This element of the project has been highly successful in that young people communicate and even meet outside the project framework. Communities and Youth Together Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 28 external factors at play. Likewise the efforts of the projects are sometimes limited or negated by other external factors and influences. The key points to emerge from the matrix are:  The scale of the problems in these communities with groups regularly scoring -4 and -5 to describe the situation and the level of division, exclusion and sectarianism in their community at the start of the project.  The projects are unanimous that there were improvements along all axis in the matrix but the current situation is still serious with many scoring around -1 to +1 on issues such as the level of internal division, levels of sectarianism and relationships with the police.  Despite the negative context in which they are operating and the range of challenges these communities face, the projects feel there have been important changes as a result of their work.  They identified significant improvements in relation to the engagement of young people and communities/groups who feel excluded, increased skills and confidence around training and employment and in respect for other cultures, identity and traditions.  A number of projects gave a particularly low score for the level of engagement of both youth and groups/communities at the start of the project with Time2 Choose, Queens Park Women’s Group and Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project all scoring -5. All three have reported important changes despite persistent problems.  There are still significant problems related to internal tension and division in several areas with Time2Choose currently rating this at -4 and Border Arts (Castlederg) and Grace Women’s Group (Ardoyne) both rating this at -3 a small change from the position at the start of the projects.  There have been improvements in many areas in terms of relationships with statutory agencies but there are still significant problems with regard to relations with the PSNI in some areas. Despite improvement it is still perceived as very low in the case of Grace Women’s Group, Drumgor and Time2Choose. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 29 Table 7: Summary of the Change matrix Indicator Average Start Now Change The level of engagement of young people who feel excluded -3.8 1.25 5.05 The level of engagement of communities/groups who feel alienated -4 1 5 The level of internal division, conflict and community cohesion -3.7 0.05 3.75 The level of understanding of our own identity, history, culture and community -2.8 0.6 3.4 The quality of life and sense of safety in the community -3.4 0.9 4.3 The readiness of people to deal with other communities -3.6 0.5 4.1 The level of respect for others culture, identity and traditions -3.8 0.9 4.7 The levels of sectarianism, fear and mistrust in the area -4.1 0 4.1 The readiness of people to deal with the legacy of conflict -3.4 0.2 3.6 The relationships with Government agencies -3.3 0.6 3.9 The skills and confidence to undertake training and/or gain employment -3.5 1.7 5.2 Scoring range: -5 to +5 with -5 representing a serious problem related to this issue and +5 representing a positive situation. Zero represents a tolerable situation but with ongoing serious challenges and issues. A copy of the change matrix is provided in Appendix 4. Personal Change There is a strong evidence base that PIP has generated real personal change among participants. The data collected through participant surveys, focus groups and the Most Significant Change exercise all point to important changes in attitudes and behaviour among adult and youth participants. The young people surveyed at the Youth cluster event in Monaghan identified a number of important benefits for them including getting a qualification (22%), having a more positive outlook about their role in the community (26%) and engaging with people from other communities (28%). Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 30 Table 8: Benefits of PIP (Qwizdom Survey) This type of change among young people is also reflected in the survey carried out with project participants where 86% of respondents stated that they “now feel more involved in their own community” and 85% stated that they were “more positive about the contribution they can make to their own community”. A key issue in disadvantaged communities is around a lack of confidence and this gap emerges strongly among project participants and some of the committees. A combination of social, economic and political factors has created a whole segment of society in both PUL and CNR communities who feel excluded and lack the confidence to engage with and contribute to their own community. A key building block of any process is to build the confidence of these people and open up opportunities for them to participate and contribute. One of the key changes identified by PIP projects is around confidence for individual participants and project staff and committees. This emerges in very different contexts: in projects working with the Protestant community in the border region, in youth projects on both sides of the border and in projects working in both PUL and CNR communities which are dominated by paramilitary elements. The combination of a lack of confidence and a sense of alienation from the political process combined with high level of unemployment has led to a growing sense of anger among young people. A number of those involved in PIP projects have highlighted 22% 10% 9% 26% 28% 5% Benefits of PIP I got a qualification which will help me get a job I got a job or into education I now feel safer in my own community/local area/town I am more positive about the contribution I make to my community I have engaged with people from other communities I have better relations with PSNI/Garda/Youth Justice Agency “I can feel change in my thinking. I have learnt to listen and accept people who have different views and opinions “its ok to be different” I feel that the challenges which arise from disturbances within the community can be just a set back, always be ready to start again” Project participant (Most significant change) “Woodburn and Castlemara youth have very negative experiences of police officers. For me as a neighbourhood office Sport Changes lives has provided an opportunity to develop relationships with young people. Playing sport breaks down initial barriers and allows young people to have craic and banter. Young people have changed from not wanting to be seen talking to police to now arguing over who will sit beside us on bus”. Sport Changes Lives “To me the programme will have a ripple effect. As mothers we are educationalists and mothers will change attitudes in the home. Their children will see and learn more tolerance and understanding”. Unheard Voices “Many of the young people particularly those from the CNR background had never met or spent time with people from the “other side”. As a result of these interactions stereotypes and prejudice have been broken down and the young people view each other as just that, young people not protestant, not catholic or a label, This element of the project has been highly successful in that young people communicate and even meet outside the project framework” People (women) can mix freely without fear and condemnation. Speak about their dream and ambitions as well as the feeling or events that have prohibited them from reaching their life aims. It is important for women to speak about their feelings to aid self progression and self advancement. To feel full of worth as opposed to feeling worthless. Project participant Project Survey “The project has addressed sectarian attitudes, fear and mistrust and improved cross community relationships”  29% strongly agreed  62% agreed  8% were unsure “During the flags protest the kids remained in the centre and stayed together–they didn’t join in the protests and rioting just around the corner” Queens Park Women’s Group participant “Important for youth to build confidence in themselves that they can talk about themselves and about Loyalism and realise it is more than sticking a flag on a pole.” Sperrin Cultural Awareness The Positive attitude to others from other religions: This is significant because these young people were heavily involved with paramilitary activity/recruitment. The young people have completed good relations courses and are now respectful, open to dialogue, opinion and now see that other religions have the same issues as themselves. Some of these young people had very strong opinions about other religions. This programme has opened up their attitudes and gave them the knowledge to oversee their mind set. DDYWP (Most Significant Change) Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 31 the need for structures and processes which allow these people to channel their anger, to have their voices heard and to feel they have a role in their own communities. Examples of this are the work of the Fermanagh Cultural Awareness Project, the Sperrin Cultural Awareness Project, Strabane AYE, CRSI in Ardoyne, Cox’s Demesne and Sligo Young Enterprise. The Fermanagh project provides a network and a structure for young working class Loyalists in Fermanagh who previously felt isolated but now have the confidence to open an office with a shop front in Ballinamallard and are putting in place plans to engage with the wider PUL community. “We now have visibility and are not in the shadows. It has allowed us to show our faces and be part of the community – a platform to say who we are and what we are” Member of Fermanagh Cultural committee The Strabane Aye Project worked with 130 young people many of whom are at risk and a number were under threat from paramilitaries. The project provided a range of supports to help the young people with various aspects of their life: linking them with agencies and structures, including the housing executive, health centres and banks. They have also been able to reverse decisions of armed groups to execute young people or subject them to punishment style attacks and have mediated in community issues for young people. The project has also helped young people through raising their awareness of legal highs and helping them to handle situations and anger better as well as providing accredited training / qualifications / licenses to enhance employability which has helped some participants to secure full or part time employment. As a result of this support there has been increased ‘buy in’ to the programme as young people see the benefits that participating can bring to their lives as well as learning about their own history and cultures and that of others. Several projects have focused on education and awareness raising around cultural identity and worked to reduce the levels of overt cultural expression which have frequently created tension and conflict. Projects such as Sperrin Cultural Awareness, Border Arts, Schomberg Society (Kilkeel), Inter-Estates Partnership (Antrim), Fermanagh Cultural Awareness, Ulidia Training and Ultoniae Cultural Society have worked to promote a more positive and inclusive expression of identity and culture. In the case of the Drum Village and Leitrim Orange Order projects the focus has been on encouraging and facilitating these minority communities in the SBCs to have the confidence to engage more actively in community activities and to express their culture. Projects have organised a range of activities on these issues including visits to various sites, public meetings, drama and festivals. Participants have stated that as a result of these programmes they have more awareness and increased confidence in their own culture and are more willing to accept other different cultures and traditions. Other projects have provided opportunities for people to begin to deal with the legacy of the conflict. Unheard Voices developed a cross-community story telling project which has enabled women to tell their stories, often for the first time. Forkhill & District Development Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 32 Association is working to transform the abandoned army barracks and has built a link with neighbouring Markethill. Springboard Opportunities Limited worked in with Carrick Hill and Lower Ravenhill to address interface and parade and protest related matters. Several projects in the SBCs have a specific focus on political ex-prisoners and those displaced by the conflict (La Nua, Ballinamore, Clones Failte and Failte Abhaile Dundalk). These projects aimed to work with new constituencies in their catchment areas. Community level change A key element of the evaluation was to gauge and assess the level of change which has taken place in the communities where PIP projects are located. This is a challenge given the complex nature of change at community level when dealing with issues related to community cohesion, sectarianism and community relations. In addition there are difficulties with the sensitive nature of some of this work and with attribution given the multiplicity of factors which are at play in these communities. Despite this, there is evidence that there have been important changes at community level in some of these areas and indications that a considerable element of this can be attributed to PIP projects. A key point which was repeatedly highlighted by PIP projects in both PUL and CNR communities is the levels of internal division, tension and fear. In many areas it is these internal tensions, fears and conflicts which are most pressing and which are damaging communities and limiting efforts to build a stable and peaceful community in NI. In PUL communities there are divisions among communities aligned or dominated by different paramilitary groups, along class lines, between Loyalist and more traditional Loyal Order and Churches as well as competition and division between bands. In CNR communities there is increasing tension between those aligned with Sinn Féin and those who hold different political views ranging from those who disagree with the current political /peace process to armed dissident groups. In both PUL and CNR communities the situation is exacerbated by increasing levels of drug related crime and anti-social behaviour. Several projects worked to reduce these internal divisions, tensions and fears and created platforms for future work including: Causeway Rural Urban Network (CRUN) facilitated the establishment of a PUL Forum in Coleraine, Sperrin Cultural Awareness worked with 7 new PUL groups, Sperrin & Glens Teach Na Failte opened an office and worked across several CNR communities, Cox’s Demesne brought together clubs and organisations who had not previously worked together and Foróige in Drogheda also developed a collaborative approach to project delivery. A second issue which emerges across these areas is the role of “gate keepers” and the power which these individuals and groups hold over communities. Many of the PIP projects Key learning Engagement is a slow process – we spent 3 months working in each area/community meeting with churches, youth, communities, Loyal orders, bands etc. You can only move at the pace of the people. You have to listen to people’s fears, needs and concerns and build on their values. It’s a long road. Sperrin Cultural Awareness Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 33 referred to the need to challenge or circumvent the power which these people wield in communities or to work with those in this gate-keeping role in order to shift their power and influence towards a more positive and constructive role. This is sensitive and difficult work as it involves altering the power dynamics at local level and giving a voice to those who have been excluded. For example, at the start of the Shankill Parish PIP project working with the Mourneview estate in Lurgan the local community structures were experiencing issues in this regard: as a result of the mentoring support provided through PIP, this dynamic has changed enabling the excluded to be included and to enable the group to take on new initiatives, develop links with local agencies and to build the profile of the group in the community. Additionally, the group has opened a community house (supported by the Council), started an interface project with Teghnavan (a neighbouring CNR community) and initiated a number of community activities and training events that have led to the establishment of a new women’s group in the area. PIP project stakeholders (participants, staff, advisory group members) are clear that there has been significant change in critical areas, particularly in relation to the inclusion of disaffected youth, increased community cohesion and a reduction in internal tension and conflict. Table 9: Project Survey: Dealing with internal tension There are several examples of important work carried out in PUL and CNR communities which have increased the levels of engagement among “hard to reach” groups and has helped to reduce the levels of alienation and in a number of areas it has had a direct impact on young people under threat from paramilitaries and/or those who are at risk of being recruited by paramilitaries. The Inter Estates Partnership in Antrim has been working in several estates in Antrim where there is ongoing tension between different Loyalist paramilitary groups, high levels of unemployment and increasing levels of alienation. As a result of the work of the project 27% 63% 10% The project has been very effective in dealing with internal tension and division Strongly agree Agree Unsure “Change in leadership within community association leading to women having a more active role. Formation of a women’s group making for more inclusive society where sometimes women can feel left out” Most significant change: Mourneview and Grey Estates One of the most significant changes has been the change in the young people’s views and perceptions of the other community and their building and sustaining of relationships with young people from the opposite side of the political divide. Both groups of young people are from 2 of the most isolated communities in Belfast often engaging in riots and both receiving negative media attention. This project has totally transformed these young people and helped them become positive leaders in their communities. (CYT project) Project survey The project has helped build confidence and capacity at the local level to deal with contentious issues. Strongly Agree 35% Agree 54% Unsure: 11% Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 34 recruitment into paramilitary groups is reducing and twelve young people on the fringes of involvement with one of the Loyalist Paramilitary groups are now engaging positively in their community and working with the local council on a good relations programme. Inter estate rivalries and tensions between the paramilitary groupings has reduced considerably and there is an increased sense of cohesion in these areas. The project has enabled re-skilling and up-skilling, raised confidence and self-esteem and demonstrated that there are alternatives to the sense of hopelessness which some people feel in these areas. The project also had a focus on learning about people’s own history and culture as well as that of others. The Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project is also working with a group of young people from the 14+ age range who have been actively engaged with armed groups in so called punishment beatings and attacks. These youth can be easily mobilized on the streets by the dissidents during contentious issues or civil disorder. The project has worked to steer them away through a range of programmes focusing on community relations and employment related training. “These young people have developed pride in themselves and in the estate and are now positive role models for the younger ones. This is the way to break the cycle which exists in the area: with this project money / training / outcomes stayed in the community.” Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project Table 10: Project survey: Making a Difference in this Community Overall it is clear that those on the ground in these areas see important benefits from PIP and are strongly of the view that it has addressed some of the key issues and has made a difference. The key differences identified by the projects themselves are:  Dealing with conflict and division. 58% of young people felt the community was better able to do this.  Improved cross-community relationships. Project personnel felt the work had achieved this with 29% strongly agreeing and a further 62% agreeing. 81% of young people stated that they had improved relationships with people from different communities/backgrounds.  The engagement of the community in peace building. 92% of project personnel felt it had: 44% strongly agreed and 52% agreed. 50% 46% 4% The project has made a difference in this community. Strongly agree Agree Unsure Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 35  Promoting dialogue at local level. 91% of project personnel felt the projects had achieved this with 39% strongly agreeing and a further 52% agreeing. 75% of young people felt it had improved relationships in their community. While there is consistent evidence from the project that the situation has improved in several key areas there are however a number of significant challenges which remain. This is evidenced from scoring in the Change Matrix and various other statistics from the participant surveys and Qwizdom. For example: Table 11: Change Matrix - The current situation in selected communities Indicator The level of internal division, conflict and community cohesion Time to Choose (Creggan) -4, Border Arts (Castelderg) -3, Grace Women’s Project (Ardoyne) -3, Drumgor (Craigavon) -1 The quality of life and sense of safety in the community Time to Choose -2 ,Grace Women’s Project -2 The readiness of people to deal with other communities Sperrin Cultural Awareness -3, Border Arts -2 The level of respect for others culture, identity and traditions Sperrin Cultural Awareness-2, Border Arts -2, Drumgor 0 The readiness of people to deal with the legacy of conflict Strabane Aye 0, Antrim IEP 0, Sperrin Cultural Awareness -1 The relationships with Government agencies Drumgor -3, Grace Women’s Project -4, Time to Choose -3 When questioned about their relationships with police and statutory agencies, around 60% of young people do not see any change in these relationships. In the case of relationships with the police, 23% felt it had not improved while a further 35% were unsure. 19% stated that relationships with Government agencies had not improved while a further 41% were unsure. When asked what hadn’t worked well, a quarter of young people in the Qwizdom survey identified “being pushed to engage with PSNI/Gardaí”. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 36 Economic /enterprise transformation Unemployment is recognised as a key factor causing marginalisation and exclusion in many urban areas where PIP projects are located and therefore one of the drivers of both internal tension and conflict in these communities and of division and conflict. The PIP has identified this as a critical issue to address and many of the projects provided employment related training as a central component of their work. Getting training /help with getting a job was an important motivator for young people joining PIP projects with a quarter of participants giving this as the reason they joined. Getting employment related training or a job was also identified as one of the main benefits of taking part in PIP with one third of those surveyed giving these as the main benefit. In the survey of participants over two thirds (69%) stated that they had got a qualification which will help them get a job (or got a job/into education). Table 12: Reasons for joining PIP (Qwizdom survey) PIP projects have used employment related training as a mechanism to identify and engage with young people who would not engage with a good relations or personal development programme. The projects have used this as a platform to work with young people on a range of related issues including self confidence, drug and alcohol awareness, youth leadership and community development. This has also been a central element of the work with young people under threat of punishment attacks. The projects dealing with these issues try to get the individual into programmes which provide alternatives and offer them a pathway out of the cycle they are in. The fact that the young person is engaging in a programme of this nature is often sufficient for the threat to be lifted. This has significant knock on benefits for the family and the wider community. The biggest change identified in the change Matrix exercise carried out with 10 projects was around “the skills and confidence to undertake training and/or gain 24% 24% 4% 11% 23% 14% Reason for joining PIP To get training / help get a job To get off the streets / just to do something Because I was in trouble My friends were doing it To make my community a better more peaceful place I was already involved in an earlier project Employment of some 16 -24) Interaction with PSNI Confidence in our Youth . Our community is still quite wary of the PSNI. The programme we do involves police officers who engage with the youth. They attend University of Ulster each week with other youth and this is building up confidence within our community. The first programme 12 out of 14 are in full time employment Most significant change: Sport Changes Lives Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 37 employment”. Table 13: Changes in relation to training and employment among participants The skills and confidence to undertake training and/or gain employment Start Now Change Time to Choose -5 -2 3 Sperrin Cultural Awareness -4 1 5 Border Arts 0 3 3 Queens Park Womens Group -2 3 5 Grace Womens Group -5 3 8 Antrim IEP -4 1 5 Roe Valley -3 2 5 Strabane Aye -4 2 6 Drogheda Foroige -3 3 6 Drumgor Detached Youth Project -5 1 6 The average change was over 5 points moving from a score of -3.5 at the start of the project to an average score of 1.7. A number of the projects gave a particularly high score on this index: Grace Women’s project (+8: a move from -5 to +3) and Strabane Aye, Foróige (Drogheda) and Drumgor all scoring it at +6. There appears to be a strong link between “skills and confidence to undertake training and employment” and improvements in the engagement of young people. The four projects above also scored very highly on this index with changes of + 5 and +6 featuring. During the focus groups and in a number of the one to one interviews for the longitudinal study there were many examples given of how both young people and adults had participated in training programmes and progressed on to further training and/or employment. Some examples of this are:  Roe Valley Residents Association: participants were involved in a range of training programmes and as a result the project reported on various participants completing essential skills courses, going back to continue in education, completing access to university courses  Inter Estates Partnership, Antrim: reported that 160 people received accredited training certificates and that 40 people had progressed to gain employment  Strabane AYE: reported that 40 young people gained officially recognised accredited training and qualifications and 12 gained part-time or full time employment  Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project reported that 24 young people had gained OCN qualifications and enabled them to gain qualifications which have enabled some of them to go on and get jobs.  Foróige, Drogheda: delivered the internationally acclaimed ‘Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE) which trained teachers and youth workers and as a result they delivered a community based programme to 5 young people and a school based programme with 22 transition year students, a mini-enterprise programme with students which culminated in a trade fair to raise funds for charitable groups. The young people, teachers and project facilitators/staff all reported the positive Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 38 learning from this initiative.  Sligo Young Enterprises: Enabled young people with low educational attainment to gain certification in Soccer Coaching (Kick Start 1) (18); First Aid (20); and Child Protection (13) and some went on to become trained referees and gain employment opportunities.  Donegal Youth Service: reported that young people gained qualifications e.g. Level 1 and 2 in Community Development which improved their chances of employment or access to further education.  Fáilte Abhaile, Dundalk: highlighted that over 120 participants received qualifications with the project providing practical skills and training based on individuals’ own requirements ranging from basic training, such as Safe Pass (health and safety in construction) and car/van/truck driving lessons.  The Cox’s Demesne training project worked with 15 marginalised young men most of whomwere due before the courts or had served custodial sentences and provided them with job related training and skills resulting in employment opportunities. There are also examples of how training for employment has been used to build relationships: for example the Rathfern project was an employability based community intervention which enabled relationships to be built with young people and neighbouring communities; Queen’s Park Women’s Group delivered training in order to build relations across the interface in Glengormley; Newry Sports Partnership delivered single identity education/peer mentoring in order to build relations between young people in South Armagh and Kilkeel; Roe Valley Residents Association delivered focused training to build relationships between people/groups from 4 social housing areas in Limavady; the Forkhill group delivered joint training with their Markethill based community partner; Sligo Young Enterprises enabled marginalised at risk young people with low educational attainment to gain accredited certification including Kick Start Coaching; First Aid and Child Protection. A number are now trained referees and gained employment opportunities including being employed by the Football Association of Ireland on their summer schemes. They also delivered football coaching which involved their cross border partner club in Ballinamallard and Donegal Youth Service delivered accredited training and worked with different groups of young people in order to build relationships. “It’s turned my life around. I’ve gained qualifications and training and it’s made me think more positively than negatively about my life. I’ve learnt so much and had so many opportunities like the different courses, the trip to Scotland, learnt how to Ceili dance, glass painting and all. It’s all been good and something which will shape my future.” Roe Valley participant “I’m hoping to go to tech in September to do my level 3 now. I wouldn’t be even thinking about this if it wasn’t for Andy. So thanks a lot for everything and I really hope the AYE project can run as long as possible as their work is exceptionally good.” Strabane AYE participant “The project is an excellent example of how sport can be used to help break down traditional barriers. At a time of high unemployment, this project has given an important boost to local communities by providing valuable training that will enhance the employment prospects of young people.” Project Manager, Sligo Young Enterprises Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 39 5. Analysis of PIP This section applies the OECD/DAC criteria to provide an analysis of PIP and assesses the relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the work supported. Relevance PIP has been implemented during a difficult time in the Peace Process which was characterised by political wrangling and stalemate, the flags protest which led to outbreaks of violence on the streets, an increase in the levels of alienation in PUL and CNR communities as well as ongoing dissident Republican activity. As outlined above PIP provided support to a range of projects working to deal with these issues on the ground. This period has also been marked by economic problems on both sides of the border with high unemployment levels and austerity measures undermining many of the social supports available to marginalised communities. The combination of political and economic factors has led to increased levels of alienation from the peace and political processes in PUL and CNR communities with an increased number of people feeling left behind and excluded politically, socially and economically. At the same time there has been a major fall in funding for peace building and other social and community programmes on both sides of the border. PIP has specifically targeted its support to areas and communities which “have low levels of engagement in peace building” and the evaluation found that funds have been channelled to these communities. In this context, it is clear PIP is highly relevant to the current situation in NI and the SBCs and both its strategic objectives and specific activities supported are appropriate and timely given the projects are designed to address core issues of alienation, internal tension and conflict and sectarianism. The PIP programme is also very timely given the context over the last few years and the scarcity of funding to support peace building and has, as a result, been the main source of support for targeted programmes in these areas. There is good alignment between key issues impacting local communities and project activities supported by PIP. Through PIP there has been considerable investment in training for ‘at risk’ young people in an effort to provide them with more positive alternatives and progression routes to employment and/or further training. PIP projects have also worked to develop local leadership and build capacity in areas where paramilitaries are influential and where there are low levels of community development or peace building. A key issue to emerge from the evaluation relates to the level of internal division and conflict in PUL and CNR communities and the damage this causes personally, to community cohesion and to the wider Peace Process. PIP has provided critical support to projects working on the ground to reduce these tensions and stabilise these communities. This work is particularly relevant as it reduces the sense of powerlessness, challenges existing power dynamics which sustain divisions and opens up community structures to people who have been (or feel) excluded. Effectiveness PIP was designed to support peace building in disadvantaged communities with low levels of engagement in peace building and aimed to increase cohesion, improve relationships, reduce sectarianism, help communities to deal with contentious issues and increase the skills base in target communities. There is significant evidence from the projects that PIP has been effective and has made a valuable contribution, despite the scale of the problems in these areas and the fact that projects tend to be small scale and relatively short term. There Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 40 is clear evidence PIP projects have been targeted at the right areas in rural and urban settings and, in general, these initiatives have engaged with the target audience i.e. those who have had limited or no involvement in peace building or community development. PIP has been particularly effective in demonstrating that targeted support which is directed to the communities on the ground can make a significant difference and generate real momentum in these areas. The evaluation has identified a number of approaches which are considered to be effective in dealing with the issues and challenges which are excluding (or perceived to be excluding) sizable sections of these communities from the political and peace processes and often from engagement in community life and activities. The credibility and record which IFI have in the above communities was important given IFI funding is considered to be more ‘independent’ and comes with a greater degree of flexibility than other funds and is therefore more acceptable. The strategies used by IFI/CFNI to proactively work and provide pre-development support to new projects were crucial to efforts to reach into these areas. In some cases it worked through an existing organisation with a track record and profile and supported them to undertake new work, for example: Rosemount Resource Centre (Time2Choose) and Creggan Enterprises Limited (Unheard Voices) in Derry/Londonderry, Charter NI, the Jethro Centre in Lurgan, CRSI in Ardoyne, Springboard Opportunities Limited, Sport Changes Lives (Carrickfergus), Donegal Youth Service and Foróige in Drogheda. In other cases where there were gaps, it supported the establishment of new groups and provided them with mentoring support. Examples of this are Sperrin Cultural Awareness Association, Fermanagh Sports and Cultural Association, Sperrin Glens/Teach na Failte and Moygashel Community and Cultural Association. Both approaches were effective in getting funding into areas and communities where it was needed. In some projects local steering groups were established to engage a wider cross section of the community and to bring in representatives of statutory agencies: again, this was effective in linking the work of projects with other local structures and initiatives. Overall PIP projects have effectively engaged with individuals and groups with limited or no involvement in peace building or in some cases have been actively working against the Peace Process. The work of Time2Choose in Derry/Londonderry, CRSI in Ardoyne and the Sperrin Cultural Awareness Project are examples of important work in communities still dominated by paramilitary groups. It is also clear that the nature and scale of PIP funding is appropriate to the target groups and communities. Smaller and more flexible grants are important in these situations and enable new and inexperienced groups to gain confidence and credibility in their areas. This is one of the most important aspects of PIP as many of these groups have been excluded from Peace III funding as the requirements were too onerous for new and/or inexperienced groups. The hands on nature of the support provided through PIP by LDOs and CFNI personnel is also very important for these groups and has enabled some relatively new and inexperienced groups to take on difficult work. The nature of the funding has enabled projects to respond to changes in the local context and to develop new areas of work as appropriate. This flexibility is considered key as it gives projects scope to deal with the reality on the ground, to keep pace with changes and to respond more effectively. Examples of this are the funding to: CRSI for a scoping exercise and then to develop a project in Ardoyne and Shankill Parish for a cross community initiative with Teghnavan following some initial steps to develop relations. However the short term nature of a lot of the funding to PIP projects was a problem and has limited their capacity to make more long term and Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 41 strategic plans. Another critical factor is the investment in time by CFNI and the IFI programme team to firstly get these projects established and then to mentor them through the inevitable challenges they face as they take on the difficult task of building peace in communities that have been recently affected by tension and violence. In some cases this has involved considerable animation work, the development of new structures or partnerships and then ongoing mentoring. The nature and extent of this support was repeatedly highlighted by project personnel during the evaluation as being critical to what has been achieved. There are good examples of work which has been effective in promoting dialogue within and between communities. The CRUN project in Coleraine has facilitated dialogue within the PUL community to address contentious issues. The support to Mourneview has facilitated engagement with key actors linked to Loyalist paramilitary groups and enabled them to play a more positive role in their areas. The Londonderry Bands Forum has helped develop leadership capacity among band members and promoted a more outward looking approach by the bands community. The Roe Valley Residents Association developed partnerships between 4 social housing estates: Roe Valley, The Glens, Coolessan and Bovalley. As a result of the work delivered in Stoneyford, a new community forum was established and in Forkhill relations have been developed between the village and neighbouring Markethill. The strategy of providing skills and employment related training to disaffected young people is effective as it demonstrates to these young people that there are alternatives and opportunities for progression. It also provides a structure around which other work can be delivered and starts to link them in with statutory bodies. Examples of this type of work with young people includes the projects in Upper Springfield, North Lurgan, Queen‘s Park and Rathfern, Antrim and Galbally. In the southern border counties the work carried out by political ex-prisoner projects, La Nua, Failte Abhaile and Clones Failte as well as work by Sligo Young Enterprise, Coxs Demense in Dundalk and Foróige in Drogheda has engaged disaffected young people in a range of personal development and employment related training and these have produced positive results. Impact There is strong evidence that PIP is having a positive impact and making a real difference in a number of important respects. There is a consistent pattern emerging from the projects themselves that those involved see improvements in key areas and feel that PIP is a significant factor in bringing about this change. Where possible the evaluation team has consulted local external sources to triangulate and validate these findings (including local PSNI and Gardaí) and in general these sources confirm there have been important improvements on the ground. However it is important to note that many of these are still small scale and local initiatives and that these changes are still fragile and can be undone by a range of external factors and influences. Nevertheless there are significant achievements in several key areas, some of which have already had a wider impact and some which have real potential to generate more substantial change and impact on the wider Peace Process. Probably the most significant impact of the work has been around building internal cohesion in both PUL and CNR communities, engaging with those who are outside the political and peace processes and demonstrating that there are alternatives. As outlined above, there are Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 42 serious internal tensions and conflict in many communities and a failure to address this has created a spiral of fear and violence which is destabilising the communities and posing a real threat to wider peace with the potential to further undermine the Peace Process. These fractured communities are characterised by ongoing paramilitary control and the threat of violence, punishment attacks, overt cultural displays and anti-social behaviour. PIP projects have used a range of approaches to mitigate these problems working with all stakeholders, the young people who are at risk, the paramilitary groups, statutory agencies including the PSNI and other influential groups such as the Churches, the Loyal Orders and political parties. The core of this work is mediation and dialogue and opening channels of communications among these stakeholders. This low key approach has proved to be very effective in reducing the levels of violence and facilitating dialogue with individuals and groups who have not previously engaged. Examples of this are the work of Time2Choose in Derry/Londonderry, CRSI in Ardoyne and the Sperrin Cultural Awareness Project. The levels of disaffection and alienation among young people across NI and urban areas in the SBCs are recognised as a major challenge to peace building and a potential threat to the Peace Process. Many of these young people are alienated from the system and unwilling or unable to engage with statutory services. PIP has supported a range of initiatives which specifically target this cohort of young people and there is evidence that this has had a positive impact. Projects have reported increased engagement in the community, and reductions in anti-social behaviour, levels of recruitment to paramilitary groups and the number of punishment attacks. Examples of this are the Inter Estate Partnership in Antrim and Shankill Parish in Lurgan. A number of projects including Queens Park Women’s Group, Grace Women’s Group, Rathfern, Annadale and Haywood, Stoneyford, Roe Valley and Springboard Opportunities have pointed to a reduction in violence at contested parades and interfaces and attribute this to the work with the young people. There is clear evidence that these communities value this approach and that the participants feel that they now have a stake in their community and a role to play in dealing with the core issues which affect their community. Some of the most significant changes at community level are changes in the power structures within communities, an increased sense of community pride and the development of more open and inclusive community structures. In the border counties there are still challenges around the engagement of the Protestant community and the reluctance among some of the smaller and more isolated communities to participate fully in wider community activities. PIP has supported a number of initiatives to address this issue and there are signs that this is creating small but important impact on these communities. Support for Drum, Leitrim Grand Orange Lodge and Tyrone Derry Donegal Action Group has built confidence and supported these groups to become more outward looking. For example the TDDA project has given the group the confidence and capacity to speak out on issues of concern such as the proposed closure of Protestant schools across Donegal. The work through the Donegal Youth Service project also enhanced understanding about the Orange Order and the impact of the recent spate of attacks on Orange Halls. Disputes related to contested parades and overt cultural displays have continued to drive communities apart and slow the process of reconciliation. PIP has supported projects in communities where there has been tension and conflict in recent years including Castlederg, Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 43 Newtownbutler, Kilkeel, Coleraine, Lurgan, Antrim, Belfast and Derry/Londonderry. In many cases the projects are working in collaboration with other local groups, the PSNI and the local authorities and there are indications that PIP projects are having a positive impact on several of these issues. Examples of this are the work of the Londonderry Bands Forum which led to the Maiden City Accord, the development of a strategy by CRUN to manage bonfires in Coleraine, agreements reached in Antrim with regard to bonfires in the various estates and issues related to parades, the work through the Springboard project which impacted young people’s engagement in parade/protest disputes and the organising of a cross community bands festival in Castlederg and a local community festival in Limavady. The Maiden City Accord is a good example of how PIP has supported strategic initiatives with the potential to have a wider impact across NI with the Londonderry Bands Forum playing a key role in its development which aims to build a more positive image of the bands community through effective management and promotion of parades and demonstrations. Some of the most significant impacts have been in the area of personal change where individuals have been supported to undertake training and to identify alternative routes and options to improve their life situation. In many cases the young people were at risk and/or under threat from paramilitaries. By providing alternatives the PIP projects are not only supporting the young person but are supporting the family and helping the communities to address these issues in a more constructive fashion. This has important wider impacts particularly the opening up of dialogue with the armed groups and providing some alternatives to both the potential victim and the paramilitaries themselves. The skills and employment training courses have provided opportunities for young people to gain employment in areas where there are high levels of unemployment such as Lurgan, Antrim, Strabane, Belfast, Dundalk and Sligo. Communities have reported improvements in their areas including a reduction in anti-social behaviour and interface/inter-estate disputes. Sustainability The nature of the problems in the target communities and the relatively short term nature of PIP support present some questions over the sustainability of the work. It will be important that the work of these projects is sustained particularly in the case of new projects that have received funding for the first time and are still building experience and credibility and developing their approach. The evaluation has identified a number of ingredients which have strengthened the likelihood of the work being sustained.  Working with organisations with credibility in their communities. Rosemount Resource Centre, Creggan Enterprises, Queen‘s Park Women’s Group, Springboard, USDT and CRSI have good track records and can take on difficult/contentious work.  Supporting internal change processes and changing the power structures in these communities have the potential to generate deeper and more sustainable change.  Building Leadership capacity: Developing new leaders in key areas and building internal leadership capacity is a critical element in the sustainability of the work. This could have far reaching impacts well beyond the actual project as it promotes change from the inside. Work with Bands Forum in Derry/Londonderry and supporting new leaders in areas dominated by Loyalist paramilitaries in Coleraine and Lurgan will change the dynamic in these communities and creates a foundation for future work. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 44  The short term nature of some of the projects (6 -12 months), however, limited the sustainability of projects and reduced their potential to achieve even more and this aspect should be reviewed in the next phase of the programme Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 45 6. Key findings and recommendations The key issue to emerge is the real concern, despite recent progress, that the Peace Process has stalled with deepening levels of alienation on the ground in PUL and CNR communities. Despite the high levels of investment in peace building there are significant problems in many areas and a combination of this growing alienation, the lack of political leadership and further cutbacks in services creates a real danger that the situation can deteriorate further. The evaluation found that PIP targeted the right communities and that the projects were located in “communities of greatest economic and social deprivation, where there are low levels of engagement in peace building and limited benefits from the Peace Process”. There is clear evidence that the approach used by the IFI and CFNI project teams in NI and the SBCs has enabled PIP to reach into the communities most in need of support and has led to the establishment of a number of innovative projects which are highly relevant in these contexts. The fact these communities have not been engaged in peace building means that attitudes are entrenched, even among young people. Nevertheless, there is some evidence of attitudinal change in several of the projects with people reporting increased openness and tolerance, more acceptance of difference and an increased willingness to engage with the ‘other community’. The evaluation identified several examples of important shifts among target constituencies and there is evidence some groups have taken important first steps. PIP has demonstrated the value of supporting projects which are working directly to address peace building and community relations issues and has made significant progress in several important areas. The projects have addressed a range of core conflict related issues including the ongoing problem of paramilitary domination in some communities, internal tensions and conflicts in PUL and CNR communities, sectarianism and inter-community tensions, the lack of engagement among the Protestant community in the border region, issues around cultural identity and overt displays of cultural expression, unemployed and disaffected youth and the exclusion of women. The programme has been implemented in a flexible manner and has channelled funding directly to the projects on the ground, either directly or working through recognised groups. Projects had scope to respond to the unique context in which they work and were allowed to work at their own pace. This has created a good working relationship and a sense of partnership between the IFI/CFNI and the projects. The work of PIP on core issues related to the conflict and in communities that are recognised as the most disadvantaged is particularly relevant and important in the current context. This evaluation has identified important progress in these areas and can conclude that the PIP programme is making a valuable contribution to peace building and is clearly underpinning the Peace Process. PIP provides a model of how this process can be achieved and how local communities can be supported and mentored so that they can take ownership of the work. The selection of CFNI as the implementing agency in NI has been important as CFNI has the credibility and a track record of working in these communities, plus the experience, institutional memory and know how to work effectively with the diverse groups supported under PIP. Likewise, in the southern border counties, IFI has a credible track record of engaging with communities in the successful delivery of projects over the past twenty seven years. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 46 While the level of funding provided to PIP projects has been relatively small the evaluation found that this targeted support has been effective and has had important impacts on critical issues in PUL and CNR communities in NI and in the SBCs. The PIP delivery of the programme and some of the local initiatives undertaken by projects provide models of how this type of work can be achieved with limited resources. By implication, there is a need for a new approach to genuinely support work of this nature and for more flexible and responsive funding mechanisms which can allow for risk taking and which provide scope for the projects to be creative and respond to the context in which they are operating. The over emphasis on predetermined outputs can limit the scope of projects to respond creatively and prevent them from dealing with priority issues as they emerge in communities. The flexible and supportive way PIP works with projects was repeatedly highlighted and considered critical to their success, especially when they encountered the inevitable difficulties and challenges. This gives the group a strong sense that they are valued and being supported and that they can take risks. The limitation of the funding structures is recognised across the board but there is a sense that the scope for flexibility is limited: in this scenario the IFI has more scope to be flexible and responsive and can therefore play a critical role over the next 5 years. The interconnected problems of internal tension and division, the influence of paramilitaries, the role of gate keepers, punishment attacks and anti-social behaviour are common in PUL and CNR communities and are damaging community cohesion, eroding the rule of law and undermining the Peace Process. These communities feel left behind and the challenge is how to support and help them to address internal problems while moving towards reconciliation with the ‘other community’. It is clear there is a need for specialised projects which address internal tension and conflicts however there is also a need to ensure this internal or single identity work is part of a strategy to move communities towards engagement and reconciliation. The report on the Flags Protest highlighted the risks of single identity work in PUL communities reinforcing identity in a negative fashion: it recommended “a review of the efficacy of single identity work - not its success in attracting numbers, but its success in moving people towards a reconciliation with those of the other tradition”.16 PIP has supported important and valuable work in areas which is enabling PUL communities to begin to address their own internal issues. A number of the projects have managed to keep these two agendas on track and ensure that there is sufficient focus on the reconciliation agenda. It will be important that any future work builds on this and includes more social and political analysis which encourages communities to examine and understand the underlying issues in their communities rather than blaming the ‘other side’. Linked to this is a need for community development work which applies an assets or strengths based approach to counter the persistent negative messages about the deficits and what communities don’t have. There is a risk that community development activists and some in the ‘peace sector’ are reinforcing the negativity by focusing too much on the gaps and deficits rather than on commonalities and shared perspectives. However the reality is the PIP was only scratching the surface in some areas/communities 16 16 The Flag Dispute: Anatomy of a Protest: Institute for Conflict Transformation and Social Justice, Queens University (December 2014) Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 47 and that a more sustained approach is required over a three to five year period. PIP has facilitated some important groundwork and filled a critical gap in the overall peace building architecture. With the roll out of TBUC in NI and a new Peace IV programme, there is a need for collaborative approaches to peace building at all levels: at a strategic level between policy makers and funders, at a regional/local authority level and at a grass roots community level. IFI is strategically placed to work collaboratively with policy makers and funding bodies on both sides of the Irish border and such an approach would ensure the Fund will continue to make a unique and complementary contribution to the peace building architecture. There will be increased focus on area based approaches under TBUC, through the new Council structures in NI and through the Peace IV Partnerships in the SBCs whereas the focus to date has been on one year or short term funding. PIP funded a number of wider structures and these projects, and the outcomes of the work, now need to be integrated into new Council strategies and structures. At local level there appears to have been a good degree of collaboration and the steering groups which were established in some projects were useful in facilitating this. The evaluation was focusing on the work of the projects and how this contributed to the overall PIP objective and has witnessed evidence of integrated approaches at local level. However it was beyond the scope of this evaluation to review all projects or to fully investigate this aspect of the work. It would be important that any new or extended PIP projects undertake a comprehensive consultation process to raise awareness about their work and to ensure that there is sufficient co-ordination at local level. There are questions about the effectiveness of a project based approach to peace building and how the multiplicity of projects has fragmented the work and that some stand alone projects can create division and reinforce the power of gate keepers. On the other hand there is a need for locally led and targeted interventions in order to reach into areas and communities that have been excluded or perceive themselves to be excluded. There may be some lessons therefore in PIPs approach which was about providing resources to support the work rather than developing buildings, projects and structures. The key is to sustain the work, ensure local ownership is maintained and the momentum created is sustained. There has been an issue with the levels of engagement of women in peace building, particularly in marginalised communities. PIP has worked to redress this by supporting a number of women’s projects and by encouraging projects to engage women in this work. These projects made significant progress in engaging new women, building cross community relationships, engaging disaffected young people and reducing the levels of conflict in their communities. The women’s cluster event in Belfast brought together over 120 women from both sides of the border and provided a valuable opportunity for these women to network, learn from each other and develop wider relationships with other projects: this type of work needs to be developed further and more women brought into these processes. The training and employment element was highlighted by projects as a very valuable effective mechanism to engage at risk youth and to provide them with a progression route. Despite the focus by statutory agencies on youth training on both sides of the border, there still appears to be gaps in provision and a lot of alienated young people who will not engage with these statutory providers. The work supported under PIP has managed to target some of these young people and this points to the value of community based initiatives which Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 48 have the flexibility to respond and to recruit young people who need this type of support. A number of PIP projects highlighted the importance of building and managing relationships and the value of local mediation and dialogue and viewed this as one of the key roles played by PIP. Having a credible organisation and individuals with knowledge and skills to play a third party role has been key to some of the most effective work carried out. PIP projects have mediated and facilitated dialogue within communities where there are tensions and conflicts, at interface areas and between communities and agencies including the PSNI and the Parades Commission. Having this resource available in the community itself can promote a more interest based and problem solving approach which can build relationships. A central theme in many projects was providing alternatives –alternatives to unemployment, alternatives to conflict and violence, alternatives to anti-social behaviour and alternatives to political isolation and exclusion. The lack of options available and/or a reluctance to engage with some agencies/programmes often means communities and individuals cannot see any way out leading to increased alienation, a sense of being left behind and increased potential for conflict. PIP has played an important role in several areas by demonstrating there are alternatives and that communities themselves can play a role in this regard. A good example of this is the work done by projects in both PUL and CNR communities to prevent punishment attacks and expulsions. The projects worked with all stakeholders (the person at risk, the paramilitary group, the PSNI and other stakeholders) to generate alternatives and to manage a process where there were satisfactory outcomes and the threat was lifted. The evaluation found that the support to provide alternatives is bearing fruit and has the potential to make a real difference in these communities and in some cases at a wider societal level. The support is welcomed and valued by the groups who feel they have a voice and should have a role in both peace building and local development. Unlocking this potential and providing real alternatives to these communities is a vital piece of the overall process of building cohesive communities and PIP is clearly making a valuable contribution at a critical stage in the Peace Process. It is clear that PIP is working with the right people and doing so at a critical time in both the Peace Process and the political process. A number of PIP projects are dealing with highly sensitive issues with a strong political dimension, particularly those which interact with Loyalist paramilitaries or dissident Republicans. PIP projects have effectively managed the inherent tensions in this work which is challenging dominant power structures. The projects are working to change how the groups interact with the local community and to open up community structures to the wider community. This work offers alternatives and has a wider role in facilitating dialogue, encouraging engagement and ultimately reducing tension and violence. Based on consultations with projects and some external stakeholders, including the PSNI, there is evidence this work is effective and beginning to bring about change. Creating alternatives to exclusion from the political and peace processes is difficult and risky but vital to making them more inclusive and sustainable. A number of PIP projects worked to engage those defined as “hard to reach” or on the margins politically and unhappy with or opposed to the current Peace Process. There are risks in working with those perceived to be politically aligned, opposed to the Peace Process, engaged in violence and with potential opposition at political level and in communities on the ground. However it is the failure to Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 49 engage these groups which creates tension and problems leading to a growing feeling that “politics doesn’t work”. The onus is on policy makers to demonstrate politics does work and to ensure people are engaged in the process and can have their voice heard. In post conflict societies, this is a recognised challenge and also a key plank of UN programmes: the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA) highlighted that “innovative measures to increase participation and representation well beyond the voting booth need to be developed as they constitute essential ingredients of democracy”17 While the context in Northern Ireland is somewhat different with a functioning democracy, the levels of alienation from the political system and the increasing disillusionment with the Peace Process point to the need for new thinking and real alternatives which facilitate engagement. The political context on both sides of the border means that funding for work with groups opposed to the Peace Process or for work with a political angle will be difficult. The IFI has more scope to engage in this sensitive work and can play an important role in this regard while remaining cautious about the purpose of the work and who it works with. The cross border dimension has slipped down the agenda in recent years as there has been increased focus on internal issues and local problems in NI and the SBCs. The level of cross border activity in civil society has declined and does not appear to be a priority. Despite this there is recognition that the border remains an issue and that there is an all Ireland dimension to some of the legacy issues such as dealing with the past and identity. There have been calls for the British and Irish Governments to become more engaged and play a more active role in the Peace Process. A number of PIP projects in PUL communities have built in a cross border visits to sites of interest such as Kilmainham gaol and some projects in the SBCs have developed links across the border, however there are only 2 with structured links. There is a need for more systematic work on a cross border and all Ireland basis and for funding to support this work. The Peace IV programme will be limited to the six SBCs but the IFI may have scope to widen any future PIP work to allow for strategic all Ireland work. PIP identified three programme outcomes: increased contact, dialogue, sharing and integration among project participants, the development of sustainable, exemplar community organisations and underpinning the Peace Process. PIP has made a significant and durable contribution in all three areas. The various projects have facilitated a range of dialogue and relationship building work, particularly intra-community, but also supported inter-community work and dialogue and relationship building between communities and statutory agencies. While the work is still in its early stages there is solid evidence that PIP is already doing important work to underpin the Peace Process in these communities. Some of the work supported under PIP has the potential to break these cycles however there is a need for mainstream support which provides the more long term and integrated approaches necessary to really change these deep rooted issues. For many projects it is clear that considerable work is required to develop an exit strategy that ensures sustainability of the work on the ground and, as funding sources decline, they pay more attention to the post funding era thereby breaking the continuous short term funding cycle that has become so common. The IFI should ensure this work is sustained through: more long term support to projects, collaborative work with other agencies, linkage of work to relevant policy instruments and a strategic approach to mainstreaming at a policy level. 17 The UN and Democratisation – Towards Sustainable Peace: IDEA –The International Institute for Democracy and Peace. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 50 Recommendations 12. The IFI should continue the successful approach of pro-actively targeting communities and areas with low levels of capacity and engagement with peace building and maintain the strong focus on engaging those who are excluded from the Peace Process. 13. The IFI should continue to support and mentor these communities by developing new initiatives where necessary or by working through existing structures where capacity is low. 14. There is a clear need for independent funding which is flexible and targeted at the critical issues on the ground and the IFI should continue to take calculated risks to support these efforts. 15. There is increasing need for collaboration at all levels: strategic, regional and community. The IFI should engage strategically with other funders and policy makers to ensure there is a good level of collaboration while, at the same time, maintaining its independence and unique risk taking approach which targets resources at those who are excluded from the political and the Peace Process. 16. The IFI should disseminate the learning from PIP and engage in a consultation process with other key agencies to ensure effective collaboration. 17. The IFI should work with all stakeholders to help PIP projects transition from ‘stand alone projects’ to a situation where their work becomes mainstreamed. 18. The IFI should consider strengthening the capacity of any new PIP to enable cluster-work between groups and communities as this was a very successful aspect of the current programme. 19. The Peace Process is located within a wider context of Anglo Irish and cross border relationships and the IFI should work to strengthen the cross border dimension of any future PIP programme. 20. PIP should continue to incorporate training and employment elements but should ensure this is not duplicating the range of training support available on both sides of the border and maintain a specific focus on those at risk of becoming engaged in conflict related issues (sectarian/interface conflict or engagement with paramilitaries). 21. The IFI should continue to be flexible in their approach to project delivery to enable those funded to be responsive to changing and emerging local circumstances within agreed programme framework/objectives and on a longer term intervention basis. 22. The IFI should review/rationalise the monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure consistency on a cross border basis in order to capture the key quantitative and qualitative aspects, the unique nature of the work and the learning emerging. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 51 Appendix 1: List of projects funded List of PIP Projects in Northern Ireland Name of Organisation/Project Community Background Urban U Rural R Date Awarded Grant Award £ Rosemount Resource Centre (Time2Choose) CNR U Feb. 2013 £188,926 Queen’s Park Women’s Group PUL U June 2013 £94,036 Rathfern Comm Regeneration Group PUL U June 2013 £68,040 Conflict Resolution Services Ireland CNR U June 2013 £26,750 Shankill Parish Caring Association PUL U June 2013 £87,100 Creggan Enterprises Limited (Unheard Voices) Mixed U June 2013 £130,799 Causeway Rural Urban Network Mixed U June 2013 £129,190 St Columb’s Park House (Londonderry Bands Forum) PUL U June 2013 £124,500 Newtownbutler Together Mixed R Nov. 2013 £98,578 Border Arts Mixed R Nov. 2013 £98,727 Sperrin Cultural Awareness Association PUL R Nov. 2013 £98,200 Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project CNR R Nov. 2013 £70,733 Leafair Carson Project PUL R Nov. 2013 £102,736 Newry Sports Partnership Mixed R Nov. 2013 £63,690 Galbally Youth & Community Assoc. CNR R Nov. 2013 £94,565 North Lurgan Community Association CNR U Nov. 2013 £85,807 Fountain Street Comm. Dev Assoc. CNR R Nov. 2013 £99,888 Stoneyford Community Association PUL R Feb. 2014 £56,900 Forkhill & District Dev. Assoc. Ltd. CNR R Feb. 2014 £50,690 Upper Springfield Dev. Company CNR U Feb. 2014 £55,533 Ards Dev. Bureau & Comm. Network PUL R Feb. 2014 £102,855 Springboard Opportunities Limited Mixed U Feb. 2014 £101,759 Grace Women’s Group, Ardoyne CNR U Feb. 2014 £67,974 Annadale Haywood Residents Assoc. PUL U June 2014 £22,056 Charter NI Mixed U June 2014 £76,966 Community Restorative Justice (Newry/Armagh) CNR U June 2014 £101,076 Inter Estate Partnership, Antrim PUL U June 2014 £90,700 NIAMH Mixed U June 2014 £64,810 Schomberg Society, Kilkeel PUL R June 2014 £78,250 Sport Changes Lives PUL U June 2014 £105,744 Fermanagh Sport & Cultural Assoc. PUL R June 2014 £55,000 Roe Valley Residents Assoc., Tyrone Mixed R June 2014 £81,437 Moygashel Comm. & Cultural Assoc. PUL R June 2014 £51,000 Sperrins & Glens Teach Na Failte CNR R June 2014 £86,400 Ulidian Training, Ballymoney PUL R June 2014 £86,500 Conflict Resolution Services Ireland U Nov 2014 £47,150 Black Mountain Shared Space Project mixed U Nov 2014 £47,720 Ultoniae Cultural and Heritage Society R Nov 2014 £40,800 Rathfern and Whiteabbey Estates Feb 2015 £75,150 Twaddell and Woodvale Residents Association Feb 2015 £68,749 Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 52 James Connolly Cultural Youth Group Feb 2015 £31,050 Total Allocated £3,306,383 Ireland: Southern border counties Project Name Community Background Rural R Urban U Date Awarded Grant Award € Cox’s Demesne Youth and Community Project, Dundalk SBCs R Feb. 2013 €50,601 Failte Abhaile, Co. Louth SBCs R Feb. 2013 €62,271 Louth Leader Partnership (Strengthening Families) SBCs R Feb. 2013 €163,330 Muirhevnamor Community Council, Dundalk SBCs R June 2013 €132,667 Tyrone Derry/Londonderry Donegal Action (TDDA) SBCs R Nov. 2013 €138,150 Sligo Young Enterprises SBCs R Nov. 2013 €48,696 Cox’s Demesne Youth and Community Project, Dundalk At risk youth SBCs R Nov. 2013 €32,623 Driving Forward, Leitrim Co. Council SBCs R Feb. 2014 €90,450 Teach na Daoine, Co. Monaghan mixed R June 2014 €120,000 Clones Failte, Co. Monaghan SBCs R June 2014 €130,950 Donegal Youth Service SBCs R June 2014 €87,259 Drum Village Community Development Association mixed R June 2014 €57,980 Foroige Cable Project SBCs R June 2014 €90,841 Lá Nua SBCs R Nov 2014 €69,500 Leitrim Orange Lodge mixed R Nov 2014 €39,500 Total Allocated €1,314,818 Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 53 Appendix 2: List of external people consulted Brandon Hamber INCORE Brain Harvey Researcher Jacqueline Irwin Northern Ireland Community Relations Council Shaun Henry Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) William Devas Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation Paddy McGinn Pobal Emer Deane Reconciliation Fund: Dept. Of Foreign Affairs and Trade Donna Blaney Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister Sgt. Davy Thom PSNI Antrim Drew Richie ????? Wendy Kerr South Antrim Community Network Allen O’Donoghue Garda Síochana Diversion, Drogheda Alderman Alan Robinson Outgoing Mayor, Limavady Borough Council Catherine Farrimond Causeway Coast and Glens Council Charlie Jordan Garda Síochana, Sligo Sgt. David Mc Elwaine PSNI Strabane Tony Callaghan PSNI: Foyle Area commander Geoff Loane International Committee of the Red Cross Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 54 Appendix 3: Personal stories of change questionnaire Name (Optional): _____________________________ Nature of participation in the project: ________________________________________ 1. How did you come to participate in the PIP project? What was your motivation to get involved? 2. What were your expectations of the project? Were these met, and if so, how? 3. What worries/fears did you have about participating in the Project? How did you overcome/address these? 4. Did your experience of the project change over time? 5. In what ways do you feel the project has contributed to peace building/good relations in your area? 6. How has your attitude to peace building (the other community) been changed/ influenced by the PIP project? 7. Can you give an example /story of how the project has changed you /your attitude/your behaviour? 8. What is next for you following participation in the project? 9. Do you think the project has had any wider effect on your family and community? Please describe: 10. What is your abiding memory of the PIP project? CONSENT FORM Consensus Research may use your story in our report and it may also be used by the IFI on their website or in future reports and publications about the PIP programme. We would like you to give your consent to this by signing the form below. Yes/No I confirm that the purpose of the interview has been explained to me and that I understand how my story may be used by IFI in the future. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, during the interview without giving reason. I understand that I will have the opportunity to review a copy of my story and make comments where appropriate. I agree to take part in this interview and to allow my story to be used by the IFI . I agree that my name can be used in association with this story Name of Participant Date Signature Name of Researcher Date Signature Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 55 Appendix 4: Change Matrix Focus of work under PIP Priority for your project (High, medium or low(er) Indicators of change Baseline (start of project) -5 to +5 Current situation -5 to +5 Engagement of young people who felt excluded from their community The level of engagement of young people who feel excluded Engagement of communities/groups who felt alienated from the political process /peace process The level of engagement of communities/groups who feel alienated Reduction in internal division and conflict and increased community cohesion The level of internal division, conflict and community cohesion Increased understanding of our own community identity, history, culture and background The level of understanding of our own identity, history, culture and community Improving the quality of life – making the community a better and safer place to live The quality of life and sense of safety in the community Readiness (i.e. increased confidence, willingness or capacity) to deal with other communities The readiness of people to deal with other communities Increased awareness and respect for others cultures, identity and traditions The level of respect for others culture, identity and traditions Reduction in sectarianism, fear and mistrust between communities The levels of sectarianism, fear and mistrust in the area Readiness (i.e. increased confidence, willingness or capacity) to deal with the legacy of the conflict The readiness of people to deal with the legacy of conflict Engagement and improved working relationships with government agencies (especially PSNI/Garda) The relationships with Government agencies Development of new skills, training and/or employment opportunities The skills and confidence to undertake training and/or gain employment Other (Please describe) Colum 4 & 5: The situation in your community at the start of the project and where it is at now. Minus 5 indicates serious problems around this issue. Zero indicates a relatively stable/neutral situation with +5 meaning that there are no longer any problems on this issue. Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 56 Appendix 5: Participants Questionnaire Why did you join this project? a) To get training / help get a job b) To get off the streets / just to do something c) Because I was in trouble d) My friends were doing it e) To make my community a better more peaceful place f) I was already involved in an earlier project g) Other reasons: . As a result of this project/my involvement in this project: 1. I now get on better with people from different communities / backgrounds Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 2. I got a qualification which will help me get a job (or got a job/into education) Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 3. There are better relations between people in our own community Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 4. I now feel safer in my own community / local area / town Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 5. I now feel more involved in my own community Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 6. I am more positive about the contribution I can make to my community Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 7. The local community is better able to deal with conflict and division Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 8. We have improved relationships with people from different communities/backgrounds Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 9. I have better relations with the police Yes Unsure/Not relevant No 10. I have better relations with other government agencies Yes Unsure/Not relevant No Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 57 Appendix 6: Project Staff /Steering group Questionnaire How effective has the PIP project been in the following areas / issues (tick relevant box) 1. The project has been very effective in dealing with internal tension and division within this community Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 2. The project has addressed sectarian attitudes, fear and mistrust and improved cross community relationships Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 3. The project has changed perceptions of safety and security in this community Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 4. The project has engaged disaffected young people in local community life Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 5. The project has encouraged and facilitated greater engagement of the local community in peacebuilding activities Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 6. The project has provided opportunities and promoted inclusive dialogue at local level Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 7. The project has helped build confidence and capacity at local level to deal with contentious issues Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 8. The project has built /improved relationships between the community and the police Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 9. The project has built/improved relationships between the community and other statutory agencies Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree 10. The project has made a difference in this community Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly Disagree Peace Impact Programme: Final Evaluation 58