DISCLAIMER: This is an external assessment. The view expressed in this document are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the view of 
the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY 
AND PEACEBUILDING INTHE PEOPLE￾TO-PEOPLE RECONCILIATION FUND 
PROGRAM
END OF PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT
Contract No. AID-OAA-I-13-00044/Order No. AID-OAA-TO-15-00056
PHOTO CREDIT: HIPPOLYT PUL
Submitted to:
USAID/DCHA/CMM
Prepared by:
Coeli Barry, PhD, Evaluation Team Leader
Hippolyt Pul, PhD, Senior Conflict/Subject Matter Specialist
Submitted November 2019
Contractor:
Democracy International, Inc.
7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1010
Bethesda, MD 20814 
Tel: 301-961-1660
www.democracyinternational.com
 
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
BACKGROUND OF THE ACTIVITIES BEING EVALUATED: II
MAIN EVALUATION QUESTIONS: II
METHODOLOGY: III
CONCLUSIONS: III
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: IV
IMPLEMENTATION IV
EFFECTIVENESS IV
SUSTAINABILITY V
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN THAILAND’S DEEP SOUTH 1
SUMMARY OF CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PROJECTS 2
MAIN EVALUATION QUESTIONS 4
METHODOLOGY 4
LIMITATIONS TO THE EVALUATION 5
FINDINGS BY EVALUATION QUESTION 6
IMPLEMENTATION 6
ROLE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS 6
WOMEN AS RELIGIOUS ACTORS & LEADERS IN INFORMAL & FORMAL SETTINGS 7
ROLE OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN CONFLICT AND PEACE DYNAMICS
8
RELIGIOUS MESSAGES 10
UNEXPECTED FINDINGS 10
EFFECTIVENESS 11
INVOLVING RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN PEACEBUILDING 11
SUSTAINABILITY 12
CONCLUSIONS 13
IMPLEMENTATION 13
ROLE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 14
ROLE OF WOMEN RELIGIOUS LEADERS 14
EFFECTIVENESS 15
SUSTAINABILITY 16
FINDINGS 17
RECOMMENDATIONS 19
RECOMMENDATIONS: 19
GENERAL 19
ANALYSIS OF CONFORMITY AND GAPS WITH EXISTING RECOMMENDATIONS 
IN IN RELIGION, CONFLICT AND PEACEBUILDING TOOLKIT 28
ACRONYMS 
AFPC Association of Women Communications Professionals
ASPIRE Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity 
Reconciliation and Engagement
BIRP Bouar Inter-Religious Platform
CAR Central African Republic
CMM Conflict Management and Mitigation
CSO Civil Society Organizations
DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian 
Assistance
DNH Do No Harm
EI External Informants
ET Evaluation Team
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IP Implementing Partner
KIA Kenan Institute Asia
KII Key Informant Interview
LIP Local Implementing Partner
PPST Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand
SFCG Search for Common Ground
SME Subject Matter Expert
TAF The Asia Foundation
TOC Theory of Change
USG United States Government
ZKZ Zo Kwe Zo
i | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and 
Humanitarian Assistance, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (DCHA/CMM) undertook a 
thematic evaluation of four people-to-people (P2P) peacebuilding activities that engaged conflicting 
groups whose differences include religious identity in order to contribute to the limited body of 
knowledge on the nexus of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding relevant to development programming. 
USAID’s Global Reconciliation Fund supports the four peacebuilding activities, two in Central African 
Republic (CAR) and two in Thailand’s Deep South, that provide the basis of this learning evaluation. 
This learning evaluation examined the ways in which the inclusion or non-inclusion of religion affect the 
implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability of activities in which religious identities are part of the 
conflict and peace dynamics. The evaluation does not measure specific outcomes or results associated 
with the goals, objectives, and indicators of the case study activities. Instead, it seeks to establish how 
well the implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability of CMM activities are or can be affected when 
they are aligned with the inclusion of religion or not. It aims to establish key findings that can inform 
best practices in the design and implementation of Global Reconciliation Fund activities in other 
contexts where religion is a factor in peace and conflict dynamics. The evaluation is relevant to 
improving the operational frame of the Global Reconciliation Fund, as well as other programming. For 
this learning evaluation, USAID chose the four selected activities because context analysis indicated that 
religious identities were factors in the conflicts the activities were seeking to address, although they 
were not necessarily designed to directly address religion as part of the dynamics of conflict or 
peacebuilding. 
As this is not a performance evaluation, the evaluation did not focus directly on the effectiveness of the 
outcomes of the activities, but rather on how the inclusion or non-inclusion of religion in the design of 
interventions affected activity outcomes. USAID did not request and DI did not design the evaluation to 
assess overall performance of the activities. Because some Implementing Partner (IP) staff, local IP (LIP) 
staff, and many of the beneficiaries were more comfortable, and familiar, with performance evaluations, 
the Evaluation Team (ET) often needed to spend additional time communicating what was different 
about this approach. 
Given the ways in which both conflict parties and the state have instrumentalized religion, and that some 
have incorrectly characterized religion as the cause of the conflict, respondents were reluctant to put 
too much emphasis on religion. It was generally thought that by doing so they would be buying in to the 
(mis)reading and (mis)interpretation of the role of religion in the conflict. The baseline analysis drew 
attention to this issue and the endline ET observations reinforce that line of analysis to some degree. 
When the respondents felt more comfortable with their understanding of a learning evaluation and 
trusted that it aims to convey a nuanced and more accurate rendering of the role of religion in activity 
implementation and results, they were more comfortable taking part.
This endline evaluation aims to address gaps in knowledge about religion, peacebuilding, and conflict, and 
the report includes recommendations for different stakeholders. Religion is defined broadly in terms of 
different religious traditions and their leaders, actors, and institutions. The evaluation is structured on 
questions large enough to accommodate responses that capture the ways IPs, LIPs, participants, and 
advisors came to understand whether religion can be part of the effort to find peaceful solutions to 
conflicts. The learning evaluation method is particularly useful in eliciting findings on how religion could 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | ii 
be vital in the implementation or effectiveness of activity results, without implying that religion may play 
a role in the conflict. This evaluation method also allows for an assessment of the responses of 
participants in relation to the effect of religion on the reported outcomes of the activity.
The evaluation aims to contribute to potential learning opportunities afforded by the study of 
USAID/CMM’s four selected P2P Reconciliation Fund activities, including, for example, the unexpected 
findings. The findings section of the report highlights key findings and the conclusions section presents 
analysis of patterns and their significance. This report includes recommendations in order to support 
learning that informs program design, planning, and implementation in contexts in which religious 
aspects of conflict are significant.
BACKGROUND OF THE ACTIVITIES BEING EVALUATED: 
Religious identities and religious institutions have been implicated in protracted conflict in both the 
Deep South of Thailand and CAR, although in different ways. With the persistence of identity-based 
inequity, tensions between people of different religions have increased. Conflicting parties and 
governments frequently try to appropriate religion in order to garner support for their political 
positions. The four activities selected for support from CMM in these countries promoted peace in 
contexts where religion and religious identities of conflicting parties are part of either the dynamics of 
conflict or the search for peace. 
1. Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand (PPST): Implemented by The Asia Foundation (TAF) and 
its seven local partners in the three provinces and border districts of the Deep South of 
Thailand over a three-year period, from 2015-2018.
2. Healing, Opportunity, Peace, and Engagement for Youth in Yala (HOPE Yala): Implemented in 
Yala province in the Deep South of Thailand by the Kenan Institute Asia (KIA) and its two local 
university partners over a three-year period, from 2015-2018.
3. Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity Reconciliation and Engagement 
(ASPIRE): Implemented by Mercy Corps and its local partner, the Bouar Inter-Religious 
Platform in CAR, over a two-year period, from 2015-2017.
4. Zo Kwe Zo: Implemented by Search for Common Ground (SFCG) and its local partner, 
Association of Women Communications Professionals (AFPC), in Bossangoa, Bangassou, and 
Bangui in CAR over a two-year period, from 2015-2017.
MAIN EVALUATION QUESTIONS: 
1. Implementation: What are the critical implementation activities and strategies for activities 
working in settings where parties are mobilized around religious identities?
2. Effectiveness: How does the inclusion of religious dimensions affect the activities’ intended or 
unintended results?
3. Sustainability (refers to the ability of project participants and partners to continue with or 
expand on project interventions after donor funding ends): How does the inclusion of religious 
dimensions affect the sustainability of project results?
iii | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
METHODOLOGY: 
This learning evaluation examined intended and unintended results at the implementation, effectiveness, 
and sustainability levels for the four CMM P2P activities in which religion formed part of the conflict and 
peace dynamics. It is a two-step process in which DI conducted an entry point assessment in 2016 in 
both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand to determine what, if any, role religion played in the design 
and implementation of the activities. CMM and external Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) reviewed the 
entry point study report independently and in a roundtable discussion to provide input into the 
refinement of the tools for the endline study. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions 
(FGDs), and a mini-survey were the main data collection instruments for the entry point study. 
However, in the endline study carried out in CAR in August 2017 and in the Deep South of Thailand in 
August 2018, the mini-surveys were dropped because the very small sample sizes, coupled with the fact 
that the same persons participating in the KIIs and FGDs formed the sample frame for the survey. This 
severely limited the added value of the mini survey to the findings of the survey. Responses from the 
mini-surveys lacked added depth or variation from those provided in the other data collection segments 
in which respondents participated. Hence, KIIs and FGDs constituted the main primary data collection 
tools for the endline study.
In both baseline and endline studies, the team carried out in-brief and outbrief engagements, where 
possible, with USAID Mission and senior IP staff. Interviewees for the KIIs comprised IP staff, SMEs, 
government officials, key religious actors, and male and female community leaders. Participants for the 
FGDs were members of groups participating directly in the implementation of the activities under study, 
including adult and youth Peace Committees, women’s groups, teachers and students in schools 
participating in the activities, among others. The Evaluation Team coded, sorted, and analyzed data from 
both the baseline and endline studies in Excel. For the endline, the team used an additional data collation 
tool, the Findings, Comments, and Recommendations aide memoire, to capture emerging strong views 
from respondents prior to coding. Data analysis consisted of pooling and triangulating data from the 
baseline and endline studies to generate themes and categories that emerged from the four case 
activities in CAR and the Deep South of Thailand along the defined lines of enquiry for the study. This 
report presents the findings along the same model i.e. following the lines of enquiry. 
CONCLUSIONS: 
1. Religious leaders have symbolic and practical roles that allow them to play a very important part 
in peacebuilding. These roles are not mutually exclusive or independent of each other; practical 
functions are facilitated by their symbolic importance. Moreover, their symbolic role sets them 
apart from non-religious leaders.
2. Activities benefited from the involvement of religious leaders and religious institutions. Religious 
leaders suggested or took initiatives that worked with the activities. There are religious leaders 
who support peace generally, but there are also those who promote conflict.
3. Whether or not IPs intentionally incorporate consideration of religion in the design of their 
interventions, communities independently employ the convening, consoling, and cohering 
powers of religion, be it through its leaders, institutions, different religious traditions and values, 
or practices.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | iv 
4. The different religious traditions, denominations, institutions and their leaders have different 
capacities for responding to conflict situations. Faith traditions that have longstanding social 
outreach programs tend to have the personnel, institutional spaces, and mandates in place to 
take lead roles. Others develop their capacities as they engage. Even for the older institutions, 
technical, logistical, and financial capacity deficits often constrain their ability to sustain or 
expand the scope of their engagements. 
5. In the Deep South of Thailand and CAR, state actors and conflict parties mobilize people 
through identity-based fears, grievances, and prejudices to achieve political aims. Countering 
these practices by improving peacebuilding awareness and skills through intra-religious activities 
can serve as a vital alternative for communities and individuals affected by the conflicts. As 
communities and individuals become more confident, aware, and skilled, they are able to 
distinguish when religion is being instrumentalized.
6. Respondents noted drug and other substance abuse and addiction among youth as an issue both 
in the Deep South of Thailand and in CAR, a subject that is of particular concern to religious 
leaders in their role as moral leaders within their communities. In CAR particularly, it is a high￾risk factor for intensification of the conflict as addicted and/or unemployed youth are co-opted 
into fighting. 
7. The inclusion of religion in activity implementation, even when it was not included in activity 
design, contributes to overall effectiveness.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: 
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Engage with religion where it is important to the community. IPs should consciously explore and 
use opportunities that religion creates for reinforcing community participation and ownership of 
the processes and outcomes of peace initiatives. 
2. Promote pace education in schools to create a movement for a culture of peace. Based on 
observed practices in CAR and Thailand, the evaluation recommends that to create larger 
movements for a culture of peace among the youth and across faiths, IPs should consider 
supporting the development of interfaith curricula and instructional materials for peace 
education in schools.
3. Develop sample peacebuilding indicators focusing on the role of religion in contexts where 
religion is a factor within conflict dynamics.
EFFECTIVENESS
1. Exercise caution and sensitivity in framing conflicts in which religion is involved. IPs should make 
the effort to understand the nature and the extent to which the media and elites capture and 
use religion in the labeling and framing of conflicts and conflict actors. 
v | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
2. Engage with the community prior to final activity design to enhance participation and outcomes. 
Where the timeframe for proposal development and submission cannot be extended for pre￾design assessments, CMM should encourage IPs to build time into approved activities to carry 
out community-level conflict assessments prior to finalizing their implementation designs and use 
the outcomes to fine-tune implementation plans.
3. Increase familiarity with the provisions of the Establishment Clause more broadly. USAID should 
work with its own staff and IPs to increase their literacy in the main provisions of the 
Establishment Clause and legal interpretations that delineate programming options. In doing so, 
it should allow USAID and IPs to adopt a more nuanced and therefore potentially more 
expansive understanding of the Establishment Clause rather than avoiding programming that 
touches on religion or work with religious actors, as sometimes happens. 
4. Enhance women’s participation in peacebuilding within patriarchal religious institutions, where 
appropriate. Given that women play important roles in peacebuilding within the patriarchal 
structures of their respective religious communities (Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam), even if 
not as frontline leaders, IPs should focus on strengthening the contribution of women to peace 
through conscious efforts that identify and build women’s capacity to be more influential and 
effective in negotiating access to and participation in the peacebuilding processes.
5. Graft interventions on social capital of existing religious institutions. IPs will be well served if 
they identify and leverage or layer their interventions on the inherent strengths and legitimacies 
of religious leaders and institutions.
6. Understand the politics and economics of violent conflicts in local contexts. Violent conflicts 
thrive in contexts with high numbers of unemployed youth where war leaders are able to 
recruit young people into their fighting forces. Additionally, the use of drugs makes the youth 
vulnerable to recruitment as fighters. IPs should conduct rigorous analysis to establish the 
interplay between the use of religion and drugs to attract the youth into violent conflicts, 
especially in conflicts with religious dimensions.
SUSTAINABILITY
1. Take advantage of religion’s permanency. Religious leaders and institutions have a permanency 
that often outlives their civilian counterparts in many communities. Therefore, they offer an 
institutional hook for sustaining peacebuilding initiatives that governments, civil society 
organizations, and international development agencies cannot provide. The beliefs, values, and 
practices of religion are also sustaining forces for believing communities, providing solace to the 
affected and spaces of encounter for dialogue, forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation.
2. Leverage the penetration that religion has in some communities. Religions often permeate 
different social fabrics and penetrate spatial distances that civil authorities often cannot reach. 
Therefore, religion can have a strong bridging power across multiple identity groups (ethnicity, 
political affiliation, social class, etc.) and spaces. Even when religious beliefs and identities 
contribute to conflict, common grounds often exist in the spectrums of values and practices that 
provide windows of opportunity for constructive engagement.
1 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION 
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN THAILAND’S DEEP SOUTH1
 
Program Name: “Healing, Opportunity, Peace and Engagement for Youth in Yala 
(HOPE-Yala)”
Implementing Partner: Kenan Institute Asia
Dates of Program 
Implementation:
September 18, 2015- September 17, 2018
Award Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-486-A-15-00007
Total Award Amount: $490,000.00
Program Name: “Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand”
Implementing Partner: The Asia Foundation
Dates of Program 
Implementation:
September 15, 2015- September 14, 2018
Award Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-486-A-15-00004
Total Award Amount: $1,085,000.00
Since 2004, the Deep South region of Thailand (Yala, Narathiwat, and Pattani provinces, and neighboring 
districts of Songkhla province) has seen a resurgence of an ethno-nationalist conflict that dates back to 
the separatist movement of the early 1900s. Unlike the rest of Thailand, the region is predominantly 
Muslim and Malay-speaking but with a large Thai Buddhist minority. Key conflict drivers are grounded in 
long-standing center-periphery tensions rooted in Malay-Muslim grievances against the Thai state. 
Grievances include discrimination in local governance and social service delivery, political 
marginalization, and perceptions of injustice based on past human rights abuses and heavy-handed 
assimilation policies. Although religious identity is a characterization of the warring factions, the conflict 
 
1 Description of conflict dynamics and activities are attributable to The Asia Foundation and Kenan Institute Asia’s activity
proposals, quarterly, and annual reports with updates based on evaluation team field work in 2016 and 2018.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 2 
is not driven by religious persecution, exclusion, or other religious-themed challenges. However, with 
conflicting parties trying to appropriate religion in order to garner support for their political positions 
and the persistence of identity-based inequity, tensions between Muslims and Buddhists in Thailand’s 
Deep South have become more prominent with formerly peaceful social relations unraveling. The 
violence has contributed to increased displacement, separation, isolation, and withdrawal into distinct 
communities. In 2017 and 2018, Thai security forces implemented development programs aimed at 
creating non-violent communities, but efforts to restart formal peace talks between the Thai 
government and an umbrella group of rebels have faced multiple roadblocks.
There are two Reconciliation Fund activities in the Deep South of Thailand. The activity theories of 
change (TOCs) can be found in Annex I and both activities were implemented over a three-year period.
Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand (PPST): The Asia Foundation (TAF) and its seven local partners 
implemented PPST throughout the Deep South of Thailand over a three-year period. PPST’s overarching 
goal was to increase trust and common understanding among conflicting groups at the community and 
local elite levels. PPST also aimed to improve the prospect of higher-level peace talks succeeding by 
helping to ameliorate day-to-day violence and building sustainable bottom-up support for peace. PPST 
capacity building activities had a strong focus on women community leaders and local elites, with a 
targeted strategy to enable effective bottom-up advocacy for national peace negotiations. While the 
activity considered religion of participants in several ways, it did not specifically seek to engage religious 
leaders. The activity included some religious leaders as members of local elites, but participants were 
selected on the basis of a variety of criteria, not simply because they were religious leaders. Local 
partners included civil society organizations (CSOs) that support intra-religious and inter-religious 
engagement, cross-identity mutual support, dialogue, and advocacy. The activity did not explicitly engage 
religious institutions, such as Buddhist temples, mosques, or formal religious hierarchies but rather 
worked at strengthening CSOs—including some that identify openly according to their faith—to 
strengthen norms that support peace.
Healing, Opportunity, Peace, and Engagement for Youth in Yala (HOPE Yala): The Kenan Institute Asia 
(KIA) and its two local university partners implemented the HOPE Yala activity over a three-year 
period. HOPE Yala’s goal was to build trust between Muslims and Buddhists in six communities in Yala 
province by increasing inter-communal understanding that would change attitudes and increase 
cooperation within activity locations. Working through six partner schools and local communities, 
HOPE Yala engaged Muslim and Buddhist children (ages of about 12-15 years) to become young leaders 
among their peers, thereby resisting the use of violence and promoting social space for addressing 
grievances and development needs. Religious scholars served as activity advisors and validators and 
community religious leaders educated student participants on cultural and historical themes. Students 
engaged in inter-religious activities to enable cross-identity relationship building, cooperation, and trust￾building to challenge stereotypes and ignorance.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES IN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 2
 
 
2 Description of conflict dynamics and activities are attributable to Mercy Corps and Search for Common Ground’s activity
proposals, work plans, quarterly and annual reports with updates based on evaluation team field work in 2016 and 2017.
3 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Program Name: Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity 
Reconciliation and Engagement (ASPIRE)
Implementing Partner: Mercy Corps
Dates of Program Implementation: November 1, 2015-October 31, 2017
Award Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-15-00063
Total Award Amount: $1,170,000
 
Program Name: Zo Kwe Zo: All People Are People
Implementing Partner: Search for Common Ground
Dates of Program Implementation: October 15, 2015 – September 29, 2017
Award Number: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-15-00074
Total Award Amount: $1,169,546.00
 
Political and economic exclusion, high levels of corruption and illiteracy, weak state capacity for 
governance and service delivery, high unemployment rates, and inequitable access to proceeds of natural 
resources have contributed to political instability in CAR since its independence in 1960. CAR’s current 
population of approximately four million includes about 80 percent Christians, 15 percent Muslims, and 
5 percent practitioners of indigenous African religions and other faiths. In the most recent crisis, political 
actors mobilized and used the grievances of different identity groups to support their quests for power 
and control of resources. The Séléka coalition of loosely coordinated armed groups started as a regional 
assemblage fighting for political and economic justice and inclusion of the neglected northeastern part of 
the country. It rapidly acquired an Islamic label due to the Arabic-speaking Muslim militant factions 
within the coalition. Similarly, the crisis labeled the Anti Zaragina group—historically constituted in 
some parts of CAR to protect communities against armed robberies—as the Christian Anti-balaka 
militia when its Christian-majority fighters took up arms against the Séléka, even though some Anti￾balaka militias have Muslims in their rank and file. 
The two Reconciliation Fund activities in CAR were both implemented over a two-year period. The 
activity TOCs are included in Annex I:
Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity Reconciliation and Engagement (ASPIRE):
Implemented by Mercy Corps and its local partner the Bouar Inter-Religious Platform (BIRP), ASPIRE 
“aim[ed] to enable community leaders of all faiths and disaffected youth to work together to peacefully 
manage inter-group tensions, rebuild community cohesion and strengthen pluralism in the strategic town 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 4 
of Bouar.”3 The activity focused on building the capacity of faith and youth leaders in Bouar: (1) To 
promote inclusive community-led conflict resolution and prevention; (2) To support connector 
economic engagements between divided groups; and (3) To create positive attitudes for tolerance and 
nonviolent behaviors. 
Religious leaders, individually and as part of BIRP organizationally, were key partners in activity 
implementation and in leading social cohesion activities. Additionally, inter-religious groups of 
community members worked collaboratively on joint economic efforts of mutual benefit.
Zo Kwe Zo: Implemented by Search for Common Ground (SFCG) and its local partner the Association
of Women Communications Professionals (l’Association des Femmes Professionnelles de la 
Communication or AFPC), Zo Kwe Zo (ZKZ) sought to prevent intercommunity violence and to 
support an inclusive national peacebuilding process. ZKZ’s implementation took place in the towns of 
Bangui, Bangassou, and Bossangoa and their environs. The activity’s three specific objectives were: (1) 
To increase the participation of young women and men from diverse identity groups in peacebuilding 
processes; (2) To amplify positive representations of nonviolent and collaborative voices in the media; 
and (3) To enhance the capacity of non-state institutions to support a credible, peaceful, inclusive, and 
transparent transition process. 
Religious leaders were influential in supporting messages of nonviolence and inclusion. The activity 
created a platform for disseminating a diversity of voices in support of both community-based and 
national dialogues that promote the reintegration of divided communities.
MAIN EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1. Implementation: What are the critical implementation activities and strategies for activities 
working in settings where parties are mobilized around religious identities?
2. Effectiveness: How does the inclusion of religious dimensions affect the activities’ intended or 
unintended results?
3. Sustainability (refers to the ability of activity participants and partners to continue with or 
expand on interventions after donor funding ends): How does the inclusion of religious 
dimensions affect the sustainability of project results?
METHODOLOGY
The contract was awarded on September 29, 2015. The Thailand baseline data collection took place 
from March 7- March 25, 2016 and the CAR baseline data collection took place from May 8-May 26, 
2016. CMM and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) reviewed the baseline report and held a roundtable 
discussion on May 25, 2017 to refine the data collection tools for use in the endline fieldwork in CAR, 
which took place from August 7- August 26, 2017. 
 
3 Mercy Corps Award Excerpt, Attachment B Program Description, APS-OAA-14-00003.
5 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Between the baseline and endline field data collection, the evaluation team monitored in-country 
contextual developments. The team read formal IP quarterly reports made available to it. The team 
drafted data collection tools for endline field data collection based on insights from these reports and 
input from DCHA/CMM. The endline fieldwork targeted the same categories of individuals as at 
baseline. The team also consulted with DCHA/CMM and IPs to confirm its approach in the field and 
ongoing utility of evaluation focus.
This learning evaluation looked at what changed over time in intended and unintended activity results at 
the implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability levels as a result of the inclusion of religious 
dimensions across activities. During the CAR endline fieldwork, the Evaluation Team spoke with 51 
respondents in 25 KIIs and 45 participants in 12 FGDs. The Team Leader who completed the baseline 
data collection and endline data collection in CAR was unable to continue to fill that role for personal 
reasons, so DI replaced the Team Leader for the endline data collection in Thailand and the drafting of 
the final report. During the Deep South of Thailand endline fieldwork, which took place from July 23-
August 10, 2018, the ET spoke with 36 key informant interview (KII) respondents in 18 interviews and 
67 participants in 14 focus group discussion (FGD) sessions. The ET adjusted the tools used in the CAR 
endline fieldwork as necessary, since many of the questions could not be understood by some LIPs, 
activity advisors, and participants in the Deep South of Thailand. Similarly, the Deep South of Thailand 
endline fieldwork adapted the KII and FGD tools to fit different categories of respondents. The focus of 
these instruments was on: changes from baseline including an explanation of the changes, testing of the 
TOC, effective or ineffective implementation strategies, intended and unintended outcomes, as well as 
the sustainability of results and contributions to Peace Writ Large. For more detail on the evaluation 
design, please see Annex F: Evaluation Methodology. 
The evaluation team conducted activities in the field for the endline similar to those performed for the 
baseline analysis. The team travelled to intervention sites to meet with local SMEs, IP and local partner 
staff, and beneficiaries to explore views on national dynamics or Peace Writ Large. 
LIMITATIONS TO THE EVALUATION 
The primary limitation of the evaluation is that the call for applications for the Global Reconciliation 
Fund did not direct applicants to explicitly focus on conflicts in which religious dynamics are important 
determinants of escalation or resolution. These activities were selected because they mentioned that 
religion plays a role in the conflict in the Deep South of Thailand and CAR, but the activities did not 
focus on engaging religion in their programming, as the learning evaluation seeks to study. Additionally, 
the call for applications directed applicants to focus on the P2P model of peacebuilding, which 
emphasizes rolling and nested community-managed “…conferences, consultations, dialogues, and 
mediation […] embedded in larger peacebuilding processes.” However, the time span of the activities 
did not align well with the slow evolving and long-term perspectives of P2P initiatives. Peacebuilders see 
conflicts as having very deep historical roots and with equally longer term implications for future 
generations. Such conflicts are not resolved with two- or three-year interventions; the healing of 
wounds and the rebuilding of relationships between feuding parties take longer than the lifespan of 
donor-sponsored activities.
The small sample size also limited the generalizability of the findings. First, the list of possible participants 
in the evaluations that the IPs determined focused largely on participants in their respective activities or 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 6 
external subject matter specialists with whom they had worked. Second, some of the communities 
focused on in the study had overrepresentation of one religious group over the others. This limited the 
representativeness of the respondents across faith groups. In general, Christians were overrepresented 
compared to Muslims in CAR and Buddhists were under-represented compared to Muslims in the Deep 
South of Thailand. 
Response bias was another challenge. Since the activities did not specifically target inclusion of religion in 
their design and implementation processes, participants had difficulty relating to the questions posed on 
the role of religion in activity design and implementation. Hence, responses tended to focus largely on 
tangential rather than direct experiences from participation in the activity. Hence, the findings may not 
be generalizable to all humanitarian, peacebuilding, or development interventions. 
Another limitation of this evaluation comes from a divergence in findings owing to the different 
character and operating contexts of the activities within CAR and the Deep South of Thailand. Also, 
because the activities were not designed with religion in mind as a factor to be addressed, IPs often 
found the tools either too difficult or not applicable to their activities and partners. Additionally, since 
the term religion can be linked to teachings, practices, institutions, and leaders, participants were not 
always clear about what was meant by the term in a given context. As a variable, religion has many more 
overt, as well as subtle, dimensions in relation to conflict or peace than other variables such as ethnicity 
or political ideology. Different components of those dimensions, by themselves or in combination with 
others, can either cause conflict or, alternatively, be instruments for peacebuilding. People are also likely 
to emphasize different dimensions of the variable based on their lived experiences. Hence, the 
immediate reactions of respondents on hearing the phrase “role of religion in the conflict” was 
frequently to leap to an interpretive statement such as “religion is the cause” and respond by saying that 
“religion was not the cause” of the conflict. Often, as the interviews progressed, respondents would 
qualify their statements further and say that “religion was used” to fan the conflicts or to build peace.
In addition, similar to the challenges identified in the baseline study, the concepts addressed in the 
evaluation questions themselves were not well-understood, and especially in the case of the Thailand 
endline fieldwork, demanded nuanced translation. This may have had implications for the quality and 
completeness of the communication between the evaluators and the respondents. 
FINDINGS BY EVALUATION QUESTION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
ROLE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
Because religious leaders often enjoy a high amount of respect and trust, mobilizing them for 
peacebuilding may ensure an activity or program can gain a following and can connect various 
stakeholders, even armed groups, more fluidly. The symbolic value of religious leaders boosts their 
practical role for the community. 
Religious leaders often have credibility and well-established relationships with local authorities, and the 
efficacy of religious leaders rests on the fact that religion plays a key role in people’s lives. Thus, most 
7 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
respondents emphasized the positive role of religious leaders: they are trusted, respected, charismatic, 
listened to, can attract a following, and be connectors for peace. 
Respondents in both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand note that the presence of religious leaders 
lends credibility to peacebuilding activities. They are influential; for example, “when they speak, people 
listen” (TH Deep South – TAF – KII). They are also regarded as moral guarantors and “when we consult 
with the imam and the imams understand us and our concept 
and then the imam supports us, the imam brings credibility to 
our activity. It means that we can do it, it is like the ‘green 
light,’ from the imam (CAR – MC – Bangui - IP).
Religious leaders take on practical roles; they can be 
connectors, mediators, and unifiers among various actors –
including individuals, inter- or intra-religious groups, and the 
state. “Religious leaders are the gatekeepers to their 
communities, as they leverage their authority, legitimacy, and knowledge of the structures and 
functioning of their communities to create and manage access for external actors who need to engage 
with or in the communities” (CAR – MC – Bangui - IP). They also play the role of advisor, counselor, 
and educator, as substantiated by a respondent in CAR who felt that “religious leaders have a 
strengthened capacity to share positive messages with each other. Their messages have started to 
disarm people’s mentality, disarm their hearts” (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME).
However, religious leaders function more as persuaders than enforcers. They can also be seen as 
subservient to state power and control, as in the case of some Muslim religious leaders in the Deep 
South of Thailand, who often choose to play low-key roles because of perceived safety and security 
concerns.
Respondents in both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand also mentioned cases where religious leaders 
instigated or supported conflict. “There were some extremist religious leaders on both sides that 
wanted the conflict to continue who said bad things” (CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD). They actively get 
people to participate in conflict. “Religious leaders are actors in the violence, some ustaz4 teach students 
to be part of the violence” (TH Deep South - EI – KII) They can also be detached from the problems of 
the community. “For example, the Friday sermons, or teachings, we have problems because the one 
who gives the teaching doesn’t look at the problems in the community. It is one-way communication” 
(TH Deep South – TAF - FGD). The same respondents argued that religious leaders, Buddhist and 
Muslim alike, have the capacity and ability to build peace and create conflict, in which case it becomes 
important to “change the mindsets of the religious leaders, both Muslim and Buddhist. It is time to do 
something.” (TH Deep South – TAF – FGD)
WOMEN AS RELIGIOUS ACTORS & LEADERS IN INFORMAL & FORMAL SETTINGS
 
4 An ustaz is a religious teacher or scholar, derived from an Arabic/Persian term: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustad.
“Religious leaders represent a 
group of people that have a 
common objective. People trust 
them more than they do civilian 
leaders.”
(CAR - SFCG - Bangui - SME19)
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 8 
This learning evaluation also looked at the ways women occupied informal as well as formal leadership 
roles. Given the patriarchal nature of the religions included in the activities —Buddhism, Christianity, 
and Islam—most of the leadership spaces women claimed are informal. In the informal realm, many 
opportunities open up in conflict and post-conflict situations for women who are respected within their 
faith group or their wider community to move into leadership roles. Echoing the findings of the baseline 
fieldwork, the endline fieldwork found that, as religious actors, women find roles through faith-based 
organizations within civil society and as individuals in CAR - for example, as members of groups in the 
churches (ZKZ) and as wives of male churchgoers (SFCG). 
Women hold influential roles, garnering respect earned from exhibiting behavior deemed exemplary of 
religious values. Additionally, in both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand, women were more effective 
in certain aspects of peacebuilding than men, including promoting inter-religious trust-building and 
forgiveness. Women leaders can also talk about sensitive subjects more openly than men. In the view of 
a Deep South of Thailand respondent, in some situations, if men had said the same thing as women, they 
would be labelled as extremists, while women would not (TH Deep South – EI - KII). In CAR, “Women 
tend to speak directly to the problem when sometimes the men skirt the issues” (CAR - SFCG -
Bossangoa – SME - KII).
Women were sometimes regarded as religious leaders in Christian 
and some Muslim cases, although in the latter case the term 
religious leader was not used. Women have an important role 
within the Muslim community, but there is not a name for Muslim 
religious women leaders. However, according to a CAR 
respondent, there is an association of Muslim women as appointed 
and elected leaders (CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD). In the Deep 
South of Thailand, some Malay-Muslims were reluctant to even 
acknowledge the term “women religious leaders” and that it could 
be used at all. “Muslim women leaders are hardly found [although] 
Christian women leaders can cross faith lines” (CAR – MC – Bangui 
– SME - KII).
ROLE OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN CONFLICT AND PEACE DYNAMICS 
Even though religion is not perceived as the cause of the conflict in CAR and the Deep South of 
Thailand, religious identities, beliefs, and practices contribute to the dividing lines between the parties 
involved in the conflict and also define possible solutions to conflict. In the case of the Deep South of 
Thailand, the conflict pits Buddhists against Muslims; in CAR, Christians against Muslims.
For example, respondents reported that religion supported the achievement of the objectives of the 
activities evaluated because “everyone is connected to a religion” (CAR – MC – Bouar - 08-HP) and 
participation in religious ceremonies provided a captive audience as “churches and mosques [were] used 
to pass on information about various activities” (CAR – MC – Bouar - 07-HP). In another example, 
respondents acknowledged that religion can “spur and increase the violence if you don’t stop it because 
each side uses religion to support their main goal” (TH Deep South –TAF- EI - KII).
Institutionally, in the Deep South of Thailand, religious institutions and affiliates tend to operate in silos -
that is vertically within a religion, and seldom horizontally with other religious groups. Religious 
When men religious leaders 
speak, they are angry and at 
the end of their talk, speak 
of forgiveness. Women 
speak directly about 
forgiveness without anger 
and from the beginning. 
(CAR - SFCG - Bangui -
FGD)
9 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
institutions such as mosques and temples were not involved in the activities. Overall, there were more 
institutional cross-faith engagements in CAR than in Thailand. In contrast to religious institutions, secular 
institutions are often regarded with mistrust and are seen as either divisive or doing little for their 
communities.
The SFCG activity offers examples of ways that participants invoked their religious identities, beliefs, 
values, and practices in the activity implementation process. In cases where IPs may not have intended it, 
participants found and took advantage of the intersections between religious identities and divides to 
build bridges of their own. As a respondent in CAR noted, “in our ZKZ training, I met an anti-Balaka 
leader. I have worked with him a lot. Also the General Secretary of anti-Balaka movement. I also met 
the president of the organization of young fighters in Séléka. We met with them during the training. 
They worked as the link between Séléka and Anti-Balaka” (CAR – SFCG- Bangui - FGD).
The activities stimulated interfaith collaboration, bringing together Christians and Muslims in CAR and 
Buddhists and Muslims in the Deep South of Thailand, who in the past worked independently and 
through their respective networks. A local IP in the Deep South of Thailand noted that they did not 
separate Muslims and Buddhists for program activities, rather the participants did things together and 
“there was collaboration between Buddhists and Muslims” (TH Deep South – TAF – FGD).
Hence, the activities were successful in reducing religion-based prejudices and strengthening trust. The 
participants in Deep South Thailand schools talked about the benefits of bringing Muslim and Buddhist 
children together, helping them overcome prejudices and stereotypes about the other religion and their 
adherents. Parents of the youth participants from schools involved in the HOPE Yala activity recalled 
that seeing their children work together in cross-faith settings helped them recognize the artificiality of 
the barriers of religion and appreciate people of other religions more. Buddhist youth participants, for 
example, overcame religious barriers by involving Islamic experts in their community activities to help 
them achieve their activities’ aims. By working together, Buddhist students became “more reasonable” 
(TH Deep South – KIA - FGD) in reacting to seeing a Muslim imam, for example. Previously, the 
students would have tended to associate this person with negative stereotypes and assumptions such as 
the association of Muslims with terrorism. Because of HOPE Yala they learned that this perception was 
“not reasonable.”
ASPIRE was the one activity that considered religion in its design and implementation. However, even in 
the case of the three other activities that did not specifically target the inclusion of religion in the design 
and implementation processes, the ET still heard how the participants, with or without the active 
support of their IPs, used and found meaning in their religious beliefs, identities, and values within the 
activity implementation. In some settings in CAR, the respondents called for the IP to more intentionally 
include religion in subsequent interventions. SFCG had not expressly targeted the inclusion of religion 
or religious actors in its activity design and implementation, and respondents recommended that “in the 
future, SFCG and USAID should support religious institutions and leaders directly because these actors 
are the most listened to by the people.” (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME - KII) Another respondent 
advised that activities should directly involve religious leaders in the activity implementation because 
they are “in regular contact with many people and they are the best people to be heard,” and a third 
respondent concurred that they wished SFCG would continue to involve religious leaders in activity
activities (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME - KII).
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 10 
RELIGIOUS MESSAGES 
Religious messages refer to both official teachings as well as values associated with religious ideals. 
Respondents mentioned that religious messages were helpful when they came from scriptural sources 
and when they reinforced values such as responsibility, tolerance, and forgiveness. Religious teachings 
“heal their heart,” as a Thai respondent noted, and also said that both Islam and Buddhism could be 
dually used “to evoke the sentiment of peace or be used to justify violence” (TH Deep South – KIA -
KII).
In CAR, respondents cited examples of the use of scriptures and other religious texts for peace 
messaging in both Islam and Christianity, but in the Deep South of Thailand, only Islam cited religious 
texts for messaging; there was little evidence of the use of Buddhist texts. 
Respondents in CAR noted that religious messages can be more 
effective than government messages, especially when they are 
delivered by religious leaders. A government representative 
observed that it was helpful to have religious leaders offer messages 
of peace and coexistence in cases of misunderstandings between the 
government and the people. An imam, meanwhile, reported that 
even if the religious leader’s message is similar to what the 
government wants to communicate, the delivery is more effective 
because the imam can “support the message with verses” (CAR￾MC-Bouar-FGD). Messages of peace can be instrumental: “[T]he 
only ‘weapon’ religious leaders have is their words” (CAR - SFCG -
Bossangoa – SME - KII). 
While religious messages can promote peace, they can also be a source of conflict. While the ET did not 
widely hear that religious messaging was used to justify violence, one religious leader stated that “Islam 
is the religion of peace. And when the others are deprived or have taken the rights of Muslims, as long 
as the right has been deprived, they have to get it back. After getting it back then the peace will exist 
according to the ideology. Peace means confronting the situation; non-confrontation is surrender, which 
is different from peace” (TH Deep South – TAF – EI - KII). 
UNEXPECTED FINDINGS 
In the course of the endline fieldwork, some findings emerged which were outside the scope of the 
evaluation but which the ET judged to be significant because they indicated a trend that could influence 
the shape of the conflict in the future. As this is a learning evaluation, such findings have been captured 
in this report. Drug abuse and addiction among youth was raised as a high-risk factor for intensification 
of the conflict in both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand as addicted youth can be co-opted into 
groups engaged in conflict. In the Deep South of Thailand, religious and community leaders alike 
acknowledged the problem of youth drug use. Respondents mentioned the role religious leaders play in 
addressing their concerns and offering guidance to families (TH Deep South-KIA-FGD). Some 
respondents believed that drug addiction was a way to prevent youth from engaging in education or 
other non-conflict activities and instead become involved in conflict. In CAR the use of tramadol among 
both the Anti-Balaka (who are mainly Christian) and the Seleka (who are predominantly Muslim) was 
reported. Respondents reported that tramadol was used more by Muslims than Christians. Christian, it 
“You have to love your 
neighbor as yourself. All 
are children of God. This 
message is a common 
language, no matter your 
religion”
(CAR – SFCG – Bangui –
SME16 – Mayor)
11 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
was explained, had access to other drug substitutes such as alcohol. CAR respondents mentioned that 
youth behave more violently under the effects of drugs (CAR – SFCG – Bousangoa –IP -KII). 
The second issue pertains to the place of educational institutions in peacebuilding activities. In the Deep 
South of Thailand, segregation of the educational system along religious lines reinforced identity 
isolations and hardens religious positions. Both adult and student interviewees reported that being able 
to meet and work with their peers from other faiths through the HOPE Yala activity helped them to 
overcome stereotypes they had held about people of the other faith. Additionally, school-based peace 
education activities can serve as an entry point for drawing the broader community into peacebuilding 
engagements. In CAR, even though schools were not specifically targeted, Mercy Corps reported that 
they organized meetings and sensitization sessions in schools. When the religious leaders decided to 
engage in peacebuilding in Bouar, one of the first things they did was to get schools back to work 
because it was the surest way to demonstrate the return of peace. There were also other efforts in 
CAR to target school-aged youth, including a peace education program for youth, reported by a 
member of the National Interreligious Platform, and a curriculum that the interreligious committee was 
working on for all children. 
EFFECTIVENESS 
INVOLVING RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN PEACEBUILDING
Religious leaders were motivated to participate in the activities evaluated, their participation helped 
unlock barriers between IPs and religious groups, and the program implementation benefited from their 
involvement. The findings from both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand strongly indicate that 
religious leaders can model values of peace and compassion while offering assistance to those in need. 
When religious leaders lend support to activities, there is a much greater likelihood that they will be 
successful. The ET found, for instance, that beneficiaries described religious leaders as “credible and 
trusted,” (TH Deep South – TAF - FGD.) and that their “presence… lends credibility to peacebuilding 
activities of the partners” (TH Deep South – TAF - FGD). In the Thanto district of the Deep South of 
Thailand, “both Muslim and Buddhist communities listen to one monk leader” (TH Deep South – KIA￾KII). In CAR, all the organizations working in social cohesion and peacebuilding are looking to include 
religious leaders to maximize reach to the community for their social cohesion goals (CAR - SFCG -
Bossangoa – SME -KII). A respondent in CAR noted that “the religious leaders have a great influence in 
the implementation of such projects as ZKZ. If they are involved in social cohesion activities, I think we 
can have a good result” (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME - KII).
Respondents noted changes that speak to the efficacy of the involvement of religious leaders and 
institutions in program implementation. One Muslim religious leader noted that before the start of 
activities, he felt insecure taking Muslim students to a Buddhist village. (TH Deep South – KIA – FGD) 
But the activity provided him with the opportunity to overcome that apprehension and bridge the divide 
between the religions. One participant in the Deep South of Thailand observed that Muslims were more 
courageous to speak about the conflict, euphemistically referred to as “the situation.” (TH Deep South –
TAF - FGD) Under Martial Law in the Deep South of Thailand, people do not feel comfortable talking 
about “the [political] situation,” but the activity established a level of trust between the religious leaders 
and the participants, encouraging people to be more vocal and willing to speak up.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 12 
Additionally, there can be positive spillover effects for women when religious leaders take part in 
activities in some villages. An LIP in the Deep South of Thailand reported that in the family, men felt it 
was not proper for women to work outside the home and would worry that women were learning 
things that went against Islamic teachings. But if the religious leader spoke in support of an activity, it 
was a guarantee for it (TH Deep South – TAF - KII). Similarly, sometimes the presence of religious 
leaders encouraged women to participate in programs where they otherwise would not have necessarily 
felt comfortable. In some villages of the Deep South of Thailand, societal norms limit the role of women 
within the community, but the participation of religious leaders facilitated women’s participation (TH 
Deep South – TAF – EI - KII).
However, the efficacy of involving religious leaders in the activities is limited in some ways as well. Some 
findings suggest that religious leaders are not uniformly qualified to play a positive role in activity 
activities, nor do all religious leaders approach peacebuilding in the same way. Religious leaders take part 
in the peace process when invited as participants but, in the Deep South of Thailand, they do not initiate 
peacebuilding activities (TH Deep South-TAF-EI-KII). In CAR, however, findings show that they do. 
Their ability to take part in local issues can be constrained by the fact that they may not be from the 
conflict areas (Buddhist monks move from other parts of the country to the Deep South of Thailand, for 
example) or they may have spent long periods of time away studying. Without skills to manage conflict, 
they can leave themselves open to manipulation by members of their community, either fellow monks or 
community members (TH Deep South – TAF – FGD).
Religious leaders can also lack secular knowledge, limiting their effective involvement in peacebuilding. A 
respondent in the Deep South of Thailand reported feeling frustrated when talking to religious teachers, 
because “they know about religious subject matters, but they don’t know about secular subjects.” 
Secular subjects, as referenced by this respondent, include general politics as well as everyday issues that 
ordinary people face (TH Deep South – TAF - FGD).
Involving religious leaders affected the way the youth engaged with the programs in some instances. A 
CAR respondent observed that some youth participation was constrained because “the religious leaders 
are our fathers, we respect them,” and if the leaders said there was something the youth should not do, 
they did not do it (CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD).
SUSTAINABILITY 
The evaluation assessed sustainability at both individual and institutional levels from the standpoint of 
resiliency, adaptability, institutionalization, and participant capacity building. Across the four activities, 
efforts supporting sustainability ranged from improving capabilities of key stakeholders, institutionalizing 
nonviolent conflict resolution processes and mechanisms, and creating new or strengthening existing 
relationships that can support the continuation and/or expansion of interventions beyond the cessation 
of donor funding. The permanence of religious relationships mirrors the extent to which resiliency, 
institutional renewal, and growth are criteria for peacebuilding. The endline evaluation sought to 
establish how the involvement of religion ensures participants remain committed to faith-based 
relationships in times of crisis as an instrument for building peace (resilience of relationships) and remain 
committed to using faith-based mechanisms (actors, process, spaces, etc.) as the means for restoring or 
enhancing peace in times of crisis (resilience of faith-based peacebuilding mechanisms).The inquiry also 
assessed the extent to which the involvement of religion in peacebuilding ensures that the participating 
institutions have the capacity to sustain engagement in peacebuilding through internal renewal of their 
13 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
commitments, continuation of actors, processes and/or the stimulation of the emergence, and/or 
engagement of other newer groups and networks that support the peacebuilding process. In CAR, 
findings indicate that the Catholic Church in Bouar led the Interreligious Peacebuilding Platform (IRP) 
initiative which the national hierarchy embraced and championed; hence there was internal affirmation 
and growth. 
The activities provided opportunities for capacity building that empower individuals and communities to 
sustain peacebuilding initiatives. One CAR respondent noted that they will use the knowledge that they 
gained from their involvement with the SFCG program to continue “efforts for peaceful coexistence” 
(CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME - KII). Respondents in both CAR and the Deep South of Thailand 
highlighted that the activities incited individuals to engage with peacebuilding efforts and cultivated 
enthusiasm and skills that will continue beyond the end of the activities.
The importance for sustainability of both older networks and emergent ones is apparent. The IRP 
initiative gradually grew beyond Bouar into a national initiative, thus evidencing the growth of a network 
that incorporated more faith-based groups across different religious traditions and their leaders, 
(network expansion). Respondents affirmed that they would continue to spread the peacebuilding 
efforts, even after the end of the two activities in CAR because it is their calling (mission permanence); 
they were doing that work before the activity (pre-existing knowledge, commitment, and practice), and 
they will continue to exist in CAR long after the activity ends (institutional permanence). 
In the Deep South of Thailand respondents noted that newly formed networks can allow individuals to 
remain in contact and serve as a means by which people can continue to work together beyond the 
activity lifetime. The activity provided respondents with opportunities to connect and work with monks 
in different districts who they otherwise would not have access to. One respondent noted that these 
relationships will continue as the monks stay engaged with the work of the communities (TH Deep 
South – TAF - FGD).
Similarly, the inclusion of religious leaders is instrumental to the sustainability of program objectives. The 
activity was credited with creating awareness among some Buddhist monks who became very receptive 
to the need to engage in peacebuilding (TH Deep South – TAF - FGD). The enthusiasm of these monks, 
along with the relationships they have established with IPs, can be harnessed to sustain their 
engagements. In CAR, respondents indicated that because religious leaders were already in the 
communities and working on peace issues before the activity interventions, “they will find a way to 
continue to work together, even if it is on a smaller scale” (CAR-MC-Bouar-FGD). In the view of 
another respondent “IRP/B started before ASPIRE and so they will continue after ASPIRE ends. They 
already know ASPIRE will come to an end and they know what to do and how to do that. They will 
continue” (CAR – MC – Bouar – SME -KII). Even for the ZKZ activity in which religion was not 
intentionally used in interventions, one CAR respondent said that “religious leaders can help keep the 
ZKZ results sustained” (CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD). The program allowed him to meet both Séléka 
and anti-Zaragina on issues of peacebuilding and conflict resolution beyond the life of the activity.
CONCLUSIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 14 
ROLE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
Where religion is an integral component of conflict, there are many ways that religious leaders can have 
a role in advancing peace agendas and mitigating conflict. People who identify strongly with their faith 
look up to and are more apt to listen to religious leaders over other community leaders. While this 
reverence is unexceptional in situations of stability, in conflict conditions the symbolic role of religious 
leaders can take on greater significance. In conflict environments, communities often lose faith in their 
government officials and politicians; consequently the symbolic space occupied by religious leaders can 
expand in reaction. The findings indicate that there are numerous ways the symbolic role of religious 
leaders is enhanced by their practical roles. Because religious leaders’ credibility within and sometimes 
across religious groups tends to be high, they can make a difference in activity outcomes. In CAR and in 
the Deep South of Thailand, religious leaders can mediate conflict and connect with individuals within 
and across communities. Partly due to the involvement of religious leaders, program activities were able 
to reach more people and be more effectively implemented. Religious leaders can fill vacuums created 
by a weak or absent governing structure. 
Nevertheless, these opportunities are not uniformly embraced. Evidence (particularly from the Deep 
South of Thailand) suggests that religious leaders can be reluctant to openly take part in activities that 
conflict parties may construe as pro-government or favoring another conflict party, thus suggesting that 
when religious leaders keep their distance from the activities, they do so for concerns over personal 
safety rather than due to disagreement with the activity goals. Given the generally positive contributions 
of religious leaders to the activity results, it is important to explore ways to include religious leaders in 
program implementation and address any potential security concerns. These measures will help activities
benefit from the potential increased participation, activity effectiveness, and cooperation among 
participants that religious leader involvement can promote. 
Implementation benefits when religious institutions are open to the objectives of peacebuilding and 
provide spaces for participation. Based on positive outcomes in terms of increased trust between 
members of different faiths, as well as skills developed through USAID-sponsored interventions—such 
as the youth leadership skills in peacebuilding—the evidence indicates that the inclusion of religion in 
activity implementation, even when it was not included in activity design, contributes to overall 
effectiveness. This learning evaluation format allowed the ET to hear how participants, with or without 
the support of their IPs, found meaning and ways to use their religious beliefs, identities, and values in 
activity implementation. Through taking part in interfaith peacebuilding activities, participants recognized 
the artificiality of the barriers of religion, allowing them to further engage in the peacebuilding process.
ROLE OF WOMEN RELIGIOUS LEADERS
The role of women religious leaders is context-specific, as social and cultural norms shape, as well as 
constrain, their full, open participation in roles regarded as the purview of men. Women have either no 
role or only a limited role within institutionalized religions of Buddhism and Islam. In Catholicism, to 
take one example from the Christian faith, lay women have space to participate, from the parish level 
through diocesan, national, and even international levels. However, lay leadership does not mean 
institutional authority. The ways women can inhabit leadership roles in peacebuilding and conflict 
mitigation are determined by pre-existing operating environments and by the peacebuilding activities
themselves. Well-designed interventions can have a positive impact on the existing operating 
15 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
environments, such as when IPs explicitly designed activities to encourage the participation of women in 
leadership roles. 
Conflict environments can reinforce or disrupt gender-based norms. Even though women tend to have 
less visible roles as religious leaders, findings indicate that conflict situations may create openings for 
women to assume greater leadership roles in their religious and community settings. Additionally, the 
findings indicate that some peacebuilding activities were designed with women’s economic capacity 
building as an important component. The evidence from CAR in particular shows that when IPs are well￾positioned to respond to the opportunities, the activities can benefit most if they include women even 
as informal religious leaders. In particular, IPs who recognize and address women’s social and economic 
needs in post-conflict situations can leverage that to promote women’s engagement in peacebuilding.
EFFECTIVENESS 
Even when IPs did not focus on religion as a core component in activity design, participants used 
religious identities, beliefs, values, and practices in the implementation process. As noted in the findings, 
in the case of SFCG in CAR, participants encouraged the IP to more intentionally include religion in 
subsequent interventions. In the HOPE Yala activity in the Deep South of Thailand, students reported 
that activities that brought together Muslims and Buddhists helped them overcome prejudices about the 
other religion. As activities benefited from the inclusion of religious leaders and religious institutions 
(even if or when IPs did not intend this), findings suggest that drawing upon the symbolic value and 
positioning of religious leaders enhances outcomes by supporting opportunities for religious leaders to 
inspire greater openness and inter-religious cooperation among individuals. In CAR citizens looked to 
religious leaders to step in to fill the political vacuum that the conflict left. As one such leaders recalled 
“… there was a huge political vacuum when the prefet5 left. So I had to step in to engage the Séléka and 
other armed groups. I extended the engagement of religious actors to the imams and pastors who 
responded and engaged quickly and actively” (CAR – MC – Bouar – LIP -KII). Because religion is such an 
integral part of people’s everyday lives, messages delivered by religious leaders can reach a wide 
audience. Additionally, there is a distinct advantage to working with older religious leaders on 
peacebuilding initiatives, as they bring both experience and influence. Such religious leaders have a 
strengthened capacity to share positive messages with each other. Besides, “older leaders are more 
influential and have more power;” when they ask implementers to do something, the implementers feel 
compelled to do so (TH Deep South – TAF-KII.).
Religious messages are not uniformly effective, and in some cases, religious messages promoted violence. 
However, when used in the most contextually-appropriate ways, religious messages that support 
cooperation contribute to more positive outcomes. Religious messages can also reinforce positive 
reception of the concepts of peace and forgiveness. Particularly in cases where government messages in 
support of peace were not welcome, embraced, or were not reaching communities embroiled in the 
conflict, religious messages were perceived as more effective. Even though religious and civil leaders may 
give the same “…message of peace, whether it is said by religious leaders or by government leaders” 
(CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD), the messages of religious leaders are more listened to because “people 
trust them more than they do civilian leaders” (CAR - SFCG - Bangui – SME - KII). When religious 
 
5 A government official responsible for a region, or prefecture, in CAR.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 16 
leaders disseminate the message of peacebuilding and multiculturalism (TH Deep South – TAF-KII), their 
messages are founded on scriptures. Hence, “there are no differences in messages between the religious 
leaders” (CAR - SFCG - Bangui - FGD), as “the messages of Christians and Muslims are the same 
because they have the same source. We can find the same phrases in the Bible as in the Koran” (CAR -
SFCG - Bangui – SME -KII). Besides, ccommunities perceive religious leaders to be more honest brokers 
of peace than civil leaders. In the Deep South of Thailand, “whenever the local people have a problem, 
they rarely go to see the head of the village, but they would go directly to the Imam with their 
problems” (TH Deep South – KIA -FGD. In CAR, people trust religious leaders more than they do 
civilian leaders (CAR - SFCG - Bangui – SME - KII). Even in the ZKZ activity where the inclusion of 
religion was never formally considered, respondents in field interviews observed that “… the imams are 
considered the most important person in the village. If they speak, everyone will follow them. [Hence] 
We pass messages through them to the Séléka” (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa – SME - KII). Besides, the 
peace messages from religious leaders “…are inspired by the Bible. The Koran also. They are inspired by 
certain verses: do not be divided, we need to have love for our neighbors” (CAR - SFCG - Bossangoa –
SME - KII).Cross-faith collaboration between different religions can be achieved at the community level 
through activities that facilitate changes in practices. Working with youth was especially successful, as 
the youth were found to be more open to diversity and gender equality and could take what they 
learned to their parents. Individuals and groups that work primarily within existing networks with others 
sharing their own religious beliefs can have positive experiences as a result of coming together with 
people from another faith. When members of one religious group become more knowledgeable and 
familiar with the practices and beliefs of another religion, they can build trust and reduce their 
established prejudices. Community level interaction can also shift perceptions that one group holds 
about the other side in a conflict. P2P peacebuilding is effective at the community level when 
interventions dissipate negative feelings which, if unchecked, can lead people to choose violence.
SUSTAINABILITY 
Incorporating religious aspects into the program design and implementation, whether intentional or 
unintentional, contributes to the activities’ sustainable efforts towards peacebuilding. Across the activity 
beneficiary communities, participants and leaders expressed that even without USAID-funded activities, 
discussions would continue across the religious divide. Additionally, religious leaders can be catalysts of 
change that can sustain the activity results due to their influence and reputation in their communities as 
respected and trustworthy leaders.
Peacebuilding goals can be sustained through the continued maintenance and access to networks that 
the activities created. With the establishment of sound structures, knowledge and skills development, 
high motivation, and commitment, activity successes are more likely to continue, even if on a reduced 
scale. Faith-based organizations and networks, which are more prevalent in CAR than in the Deep South 
of Thailand, persist longer than CSO-based ones because they have institutional permanence and long￾standing missions. This is because, unlike the CSOs whose presence and functioning depends on donor 
priorities, funding, and agency policies, the local church or mosque is “an institution that never 
disappears. It is an institution that will be there forever. People will continue to be believers; therefore, 
they will be a sustainable source of peacebuilding” (CAR-MC-Bouar-FGD). Compared to governments, 
“religious institutions are permanent. Politicians come and go, and the activities they start or support 
may change over time. However, religious institutions have a permanent mission, duty, and presence. 
They stay when the secular institutions are not able to stay and operate” (CAR-MC-Bouar-FGD). While 
17 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
the extent of their engagement may fluctuate due to resource limitations or changes in the conflict 
context, their engagement is constant.
In the Deep South of Thailand, where engagement of religious leaders in peacebuilding is much more 
limited, it was nonetheless observed that the P2P activities have allowed for the formation of networks 
that can allow individuals to remain in contact and continue to work together beyond the activity
lifetime (TH - Deep South -TAF - KII). This is because “the project has created awareness among some 
monks on the need to engage in peacebuilding. The enthusiasm of these monks and the relationships 
they have established with the partners can be harnessed to sustain their engagements.” (TH - Deep 
South -TAF- FGD.). The presence and engagement of religious institutions and actors is particularly 
important in this area because “not too many NGOs work with people on the ground” (TH - Deep 
South -TAF - EI-KII). In CAR, respondents observed that “...during the conflicts, state institutions 
reduced their visibility, presence, and influence but religious institutions continued to operate […]So 
religious leaders had a leverage/entry point [for engagement] with the fighters” (CAR – MC – Bangui –
SME -KII). Besides, “the local church or mosque is an institution that never disappears. It is an institution 
that will be there forever. People will continue to be believers; therefore, they will be a sustainable 
source of peacebuilding” (CAR – MC – Bouar – IP - KII). Additionally, faith-based organizations have the 
potential to have a wider reach and faster response than secular organizations, due to their ease of 
access and availability of staff. In CAR, faith-based organizations exist in areas that government agencies 
and CSOs do not necessarily reach. 
Sustainability hinges on the continuing functions of networks and the application of imparted knowledge. 
Certain mechanisms, such as platforms and committees that are more inclusive of women and other 
religions, should be maintained for continued peacebuilding. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism employ 
traditional male-dominated hierarchies that are not likely to be influenced by USAID programming. 
However, we find that women are still under-represented in the Interreligious Platform for Peace in 
CAR, for example, though it is not a theologically-mandated structure. Similarly, efforts to create 
separate platforms for women likely not only maintain segregation but also add to their marginalization.
FINDINGS 
1. Implementation
− Religious leaders have symbolic and practical roles that allow them to play a very important 
part in peacebuilding. These roles are not mutually exclusive or independent of each other; 
practical functions are facilitated by their symbolic importance. Moreover, their symbolic role 
sets them apart from non-religious leaders.
2. Effectiveness
− Activities benefited from the involvement of religious leaders and religious institutions. 
Religious leaders suggested or took initiatives that worked with the activity. Through religious 
leaders who generally support peace (although there are also those who promote conflict), 
beneficiaries heard activity messages reinforced. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 18 
− Some religious leaders and institutions are better prepared and positioned to respond to 
conflict situations than others. Faith traditions that have long standing social outreach 
programs tend to have the personnel, institutional spaces, and mandates in place to take lead 
roles. Others develop their capacities as they engage. Even for the older institutions, technical, 
logistical, and financial capacity deficits often constrain their ability to sustain or expand the 
scope of their engagements. 
− Physical encounter of the other is an important step to dismantling cultural and psychosocial 
barriers that create and maintain stereotypes, biases, and attitudes that perpetuate conflict 
mindsets. In the Deep South of Thailand, for instance, segregation of the educational system 
along religious lines is reinforcing identity isolation and hardening religious position, a negative 
consequence of an approach intended to allow identity groups to know and work with each 
other for peace. The use of schools as the entry point for cross-faith peacebuilding allowed the 
students, and subsequently some parents to encounter people of other faiths; helping them to 
demystify long held stereotypes of the other.
3. Sustainability
− In the Deep South of Thailand and CAR, state actors and conflict parties mobilize people 
through identity-based fears, grievances, and prejudices to achieve political aims. Countering 
these practices by improving peacebuilding awareness and skills through intra-religious 
activities can serve as a vital alternative for communities and individuals affected by the 
conflicts. As communities and individuals become more confident, aware, and skilled, they are 
able to distinguish when religion is being instrumentalized.
− Respondents noted drug and other substance abuse and addiction among youth as an issue 
both in the Deep South of Thailand and in CAR, a subject that is of particular concern to 
religious leaders in their role as moral leaders within their communities. In CAR particularly, it 
is a high-risk factor for intensification of the conflict as addicted and/or unemployed youth are 
co-opted into fighting. 
− While religion helped activities gain acceptance and participation (making implementation more 
effective), the activities also helped religious groups through the creation of spaces and 
opportunities of cross-faith engagements. This helped to create bridges of cross-faith 
engagements in ways that did not exist before. Critically, newer platforms of inter-faith 
engagements for peace outside of the formal hierarchical structure of religious institutions 
have emerged to create opportunities for broader groups of people to be active leaders in the 
peace processes. In CAR, a new platform of middle level religious leaders of Priests and 
Pastors is critical to sustainability “…because most senior religious leaders don’t have time to 
really do the work. And there can be opposition against them because of their inter-religious 
work [as in the case of] Imam Kobine is not welcome in the Muslim community” (CAR - SFCG 
- Bangui - IP - KII). Elsewhere “.. new relationships built through the activities [include] a 
committee of young Christians and Muslims and Anti-Balaka and Seleka Koran (CAR - SFCG -
Bangui - FGD). In the Deep South of Thailand, an increased realization that Muslims and 
Buddhists have been living together peacefully [means] “…we can continue to do the same” 
(TH - Deep South TAF -FGD). In the long run, these possibilities of working together that 
activities introduced, can foster peace among local groups and sustain activities objectives.
19 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The recommendations here derive from the findings above. 
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This section comes in two parts. Part 1, focuses on general recommendations, draws on the findings 
from the current study to provide guidance on how to address some of the identified gaps in the 
recommendations of the Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding toolkit on building peace in conflict 
settings where religious identities are involved. Part II provides more specific analysis of the identified 
gaps in the current set of nine key principles in the USAID Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding toolkit,
which provide guidance to intervention planners and implementers on how to engage religion and 
religious actors on conflict issues in the design and implementation of peacebuilding activities. The 
section points out additional issues or actions that, in the light of findings from this study, need to be 
addressed to promote more comprehensive, and plausibly effective, ways of promoting peace in 
contexts where religious identities underwrite the conflict and peace dynamics.
GENERAL
The recommendations offered below are arranged in accordance with the lines of enquiries of the study 
to better indicate at what point in the intervention design and execution cycle they are applicable. They 
provide guidance how to deepen the analysis of the role of religion in all phases of conflict dynamics in 
order to illustrate how to enhance the role of religion in promoting peace. 
Implementation
− Engage with religion where it is important to the community. IPs should consciously explore and 
use opportunities that religion creates for reinforcing community participation and ownership of 
the processes and outcomes of peace initiatives. 
− Promote peace education in schools to create a movement for a culture of peace. Based on 
observed practices in CAR and Thailand, the evaluation recommends that to create larger 
movements for a culture of peace among the youth and across faiths, IPs should consider 
supporting the development of interfaith curricula and instructional materials for peace education 
in the schools.
− Recognize and account for capacity differences between religious groups. Not all religious groups 
are skilled in interreligious dialogue, social justice, and peacebuilding. IPs should recognize and 
look out for these capacity differences so that they can better leverage the capabilities of the 
forerunners to bring on board and carry along the late starters.
− Develop sample peacebuilding indicators focusing on the role of religion in contexts where 
religion is a factor within conflict dynamics. A tentative sample of indicators may include but is not 
limited to the following:
Social Interaction, Inclusion, and Cross-faith Actions for Peace
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 20 
− Membership in (and frequency of involvement in) of people of different faiths in community-wide 
post-conflict recovery, rehabilitation, reintegration, and reconciliation initiatives
− Number of cross-faith sporting, friendship, and social groups that have maintained contact with 
members of different faith groups during and after incidents of violence
− Frequency of contact between members of religious traditions purported to be in conflict 
(disaggregated by gender, age, occupation, etc.)
− Number of reported cases of cross-faith participation in social events (celebrations of births, 
deaths, weddings, etc.) of members of other faiths purported to be in conflict (disaggregated by 
gender, age, type of location, etc.)
Community resilience through cross-faith actions for peace
− Actions taken by cross-faith groups to rebuild community infrastructure after the incidents of 
violence
− Number and types of faith-based actions (healing ceremonies, reconciliation encounters, etc.) held 
to rebuild broken relationships 
− Percentage of members of post-conflict social networks that report taking cross-faith actions to 
promote peace
− Percentage of respondents who report taking action to protect life and property of members of 
other faiths because their own faith inspired them to act
Faith-Inspired Resilience of Social and Economic networks
− Assets protection: number of people of different faiths who protected the assets (houses, shops, 
other business interests) of persons of opposing religions during the conflict
− Number of cross-faith economic groups that continue to engage and support each other before, 
during, and after incidents of violent conflicts
Effectiveness
− Exercise caution and sensitivity in framing conflicts in which religion is involved. IPs should 
make the effort to understand the nature and the extent to which the media and elites capture 
and use religion in the labeling and framing of conflicts and conflict actors 
− Engage with the community prior to final activity design to enhance participation and 
outcomes. Where the timeframe for proposal development and submission cannot be 
extended for pre-design assessments, CMM should encourage IPs to build time into approved 
activities to carry out community-level conflict assessments prior to finalizing their 
implementation designs and use the outcomes to fine-tune implementation plans.
21 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
− Broaden familiarity with and understanding of the provisions of the Establishment Clause: 
USAID should work with its own staff and IPs to increase their literacy in the main provisions 
of the Establishment Clause and legal interpretations that delineate programming options. In 
doing so, it should allow USAID and IPs to adopt a more nuanced and therefore potentially
expansive understanding of the Establishment Clause rather than avoiding programming that 
touches on religion or work with religious actors, as sometimes happens. Incorporating 
specific and clearer guidance on such broader interpretations of the Establishment Clause in 
calls for applications would encourage IPs to more intentionally and legally explore and engage 
religion and religious actors in peacebuilding efforts for greater effectiveness, impact, and 
sustainability.
− Enhance women’s participation in peacebuilding: Women play important roles in peacebuilding 
within the patriarchal structures of their respective religious communities (Buddhism, 
Christianity, and Islam), even if not as frontline leaders, using both formal but peripheral and 
informal spaces and opportunities. However, a focus on seeing women’s role in peacebuilding 
within the formal religious institutional arrangements of their faith traditions often miss the 
contributions that enhanced capacities for women’s in such roles can make to the 
peacebuilding effort. To leverage these potentials, IPs should more creatively explore ways to 
identify and strengthen the capacities of women to be more influential and effective in 
negotiating access to and participation in the peacebuilding processes.
− Graft interventions on social capital of existing religious institutions. IPs will be well served if 
they identify and leverage inherent legitimacies in working with religious leaders and 
institutions that come with such recognition and acceptance across faith lines.
− Understand and harness the power of media in defining conflicts. External interveners, 
including the international peacebuilding community – donors, IPs, and service providers such 
as consultants, etc. – need to pay particular attention to the role of the media in the 
(mis)definition and (mis)representation of the issues in the conflicts and support interventions 
that track and counter the role of social media in peddling rumors that create deliberate 
misinformation, disaffections, that incense passions, and help mobilize camps for violence.
− Understand the politics and economics of violent conflicts in local contexts. Violent conflicts 
thrive in contexts with high numbers of unemployed youth where war leaders are able to 
recruit young people into their fighting forces. Additionally, the use of drugs makes the youth 
vulnerable to recruitment as fighters. IPs should conduct rigorous analysis to establish the 
interplay between the use of religion and drugs to attract the youth into violent conflicts, 
especially in conflicts with religious dimensions.
− Appreciate the value of religion in the lives of communities. For some communities, religion is
not just a set of beliefs and practices; it is a way of life that drives everything the community 
does. Hence, religion cannot be excluded from how people see and engage with the world.
Sustainability
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 22 
− Take advantage of religion’s permanency. Religious leaders and institutions have a permanency 
that often outlives their civilian counterparts in most communities. Therefore, they offer an 
institutional hook for sustaining peacebuilding initiatives that governments, civil society 
organizations, and international development agencies may not provide. The beliefs, values, and 
practices of religion are also sustaining forces for believing communities, providing solace to 
the affected and spaces of encounter for dialogue, forgiveness, peace, and reconciliation.
− Leverage the penetration that religion has in some communities. Religions often permeate 
different social fabrics and penetrate spatial distances that civil authorities often cannot reach. 
Therefore, religion can have a strong bridging power across multiple identity groups (ethnicity, 
political affiliation, social class, etc.) and spaces. Even when religious beliefs and identifies 
contribute to conflict, common grounds often exist in the spectrums of values and practices 
that provide windows of opportunity for constructive engagement.
− Work with religious leaders to more swiftly build lasting legitimacy and credibility. Religious 
leaders often have greater respect within and across different ethnic, faith, political, and social 
strata. Therefore, they are important gatekeepers that must be recognized and harnessed to 
promote peace. In contexts where religion is a factor in the conflict being addressed, 
intervention planners should tap into the moral authority of the religious leaders to promote 
engagements with the communities, governments destabilization, and other parties. 
− At the same time, be cognizant of the risk of religious attachments. In some contexts, strong 
religious attachments can be sources of conflict when left unchecked. A failure to recognize 
the role of religion as a factor in the conflict dynamics could result in religion-inspired 
animosities that threaten peace. Implementers should pay particular attention to isolating the 
role of religion in conflict and peace dynamics in order to be better positioned to provide the 
appropriate responses.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 28 
ANALYSIS OF CONFORMITY AND GAPS WITH EXISTING RECOMMENDATIONS IN IN RELIGION, 
CONFLICT AND PEACEBUILDING TOOLKIT 
A review of the nine recommendations show that they are focused more on conflict than on peacebuilding. Table 1 below offers summary 
highlights of the gaps in the toolkit that findings in the current study may help to fill. 
TABLE 1: GAP ANALYSIS OF NINE RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELIGION, CONFLICT AND PEACEBUILDING TOOLKIT 
No
. 
Principle Summary of Focus/Observed Gaps in Current 
Toolkit 
Implications from Evaluation Findings Recommended Actions/Additions to Toolkit 
1 NATURE OF 
THE 
CONFLICT
In both CAR and Thailand, religious leaders 
were not involved in instigating conflicts. 
Rather, they were the agents of peace. 
Guidance on contextual analysis based on a 
reading of the current statement of the 
principle alone does not provide adequate 
instruction to intervention planners to explore 
the role of religion in peace dynamics.
This tool guides programming covering 
“religion, conflict, and peacebuilding.” 
However, the current statement of the 
principle recommends analysis of role 
of religious identities and actors in 
conflict dynamics. It does not call for 
similar analysis for the actual and/or 
potential role of religion and religious 
actors in peace dynamics.
Either i) the statement of the principle is revised to 
include consideration of the religious dimensions 
building resiliencies for peace or ii) a separate principle 
is created to direct intervention planners to focus on 
identifying possible ways in which religion (beliefs, 
values, institutions, and actors) are or can be used as 
instruments of peacebuilding 
 
 
 
Culture and religion may be inseparable:
Principle focuses on the influence of culture on 
the practice of religion. In most cases, however, 
religion and culture are inextricably intertwined, 
as people don’t see culture as separate from 
religion; religion is a way of life, just as culture is 
a way of life. In such contexts, it is a false 
dichotomy to separate religion and culture as 
independent causal factors for peace or conflict.
The use of culture as distinct from 
religion can be misleading in contexts 
where indigenous or even foreign 
religions are so assimilated into the way 
of life of people as to make it 
indistinguishable from the culture.
It might be more appropriate for the toolkit to 
provide guidance that focuses on worldviews 
encompassing beliefs, values, and practices, rather than 
a distinction between religion and culture. In both 
CAR and Deep South of Thailand where community 
members did not agree that religion was a factor in 
the conflicts they experienced, a worldview approach 
allows for a cross-faith examination of the factors that 
create and sustain the conflict or peace. 
29 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CULTURE
Culture may not be homogenous even in the 
same community: The statement of principle 
assumes a homogenous and static view of 
culture even for specific identity groups. 
However, different categories of people in any 
one community may have experienced the 
conflict differently. Women and young people 
tend to have different experiences. This affects 
their perceptions, beliefs, values, attitudes and 
behaviors towards the conflict and peace 
dynamics. 
Reaching down to subcultural levels of 
analysis is often crucial to identifying 
key but hidden groups/issues in conflict 
or peace dynamics. In CAR and Deep 
South Thailand where the conflicts have 
mutated over several generations, it is 
not enough to know how culture 
influences religion; it is essential to 
understand how the conflict narratives 
are transmitted inter-generationally as a 
prelude to designing strategies that 
break the loop. For instance factors 
that perpetuate hyper-masculinity and a 
culture of violence among unemployed 
young ex-combatants hustling in streets 
or seeking refuge in drugs and 
substance abuse, as in CAR and Deep 
South of Thailand, will be more crucial 
in determining a society’s movement 
towards violence or peace than the 
larger regional or national cultural 
outlooks alone as movements in the 
macro-level dynamics rely on mobilizing 
and exploiting the unseen and unheard 
grievances and vulnerabilities of the 
micro-levels. 
Provide guidance to intervention planners and 
implementers to go beyond monolithic views of 
culture, and religion to identify the multiple layers of 
cultures and/or subcultures in society and how they 
contribute to or impact on the conflict and peace 
dynamics. Special guidance on how culture impacts on 
the conflict and peace dynamics for the youth and 
women should receive greater attention. 
Also, provide clearer guidance on subcultural analysis 
that captures the impact of conflicts on peripheral 
and/or hard to reach groups such as youth who are 
involved with drugs (either as users or taking part in 
trade of drugs).)
Intergenerational Differences: In today’s 
globalized world, local cultures may not be the 
only determinants of perceptions of individuals 
or groups on the dynamics of conflict or peace 
in their locality. Expanded access to information 
has not only expanded the range and multiplicity 
There are intergenerational differences 
between and within population 
subgroups as well. Younger generations 
with no direct experience of the 
original causes of conflict would have 
different approaches to the conflict and 
Religious beliefs, perceptions, values, and practices 
that promote or hinder peace are products of culture. 
Since culture itself is learned or acquired through 
socialization, breaking intergenerational narratives that 
sustain cycles of violence requires that communities in 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 30 
of layered cultures and subcultures, it also 
significantly affects the pace and scale of cultural 
change beyond the physical boundaries of 
identity groups. Buddhist, Christian, and Muslim 
youth in one country do not necessarily share 
the same views on the influence of culture and 
religion on their lives and the conflict with 
elders of their respective communities.
peace dynamics. For instance, young 
people in both CAR and Thailand, both 
in and out of school, showed more 
openness to embracing diversity than 
adults. In Thailand, in particular, school 
kids participating in one of the activities
showed great enthusiasm in learning 
about other religions and cultures and 
embracing their diversities. In 
particular, the findings from the Deep 
South of Thailand suggest that schools 
provide important spaces for sowing 
the seeds for sustainable 
intergenerational peace, as they offer 
spaces that enable young people to 
confront and break down prejudices, 
stereotypes and other isolationist 
perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors 
that create and sustain conflicts. 
School-based peace activities also have 
the potential to draw in adults 
(teachers, parents, community leaders 
such as monks and Imams, government 
officials, etc) across identity lines, as 
when Buddhists and Muslim parents, 
teachers, and community leaders 
worked together with their school 
children on their peace activities .
conflict create opportunities for the construction 
more inclusive narratives for the younger generations. 
School systems provide one such potentially high 
impact opportunities for the narrative reconstruction. 
They provide a window for mobilizing more people 
and key people across generations and identity lines. 
To leverage this, however, the toolkit needs to 
provide guidance to intervention designers and 
implementers on how to harness the socializing power 
of schools to create or reinforce a culture of peace 
through peace education programs in schools.
3 GENDER Avoidance: Understand and respect local 
customs in respect of gender issues – avoid 
Buddhists and Muslim women in both 
CAR and Deep South of Thailand had 
no name for “women religious leaders” 
though admitting some women do play 
Also, provide guidance on how the embrasure of 
existing cultural norms on gender differences in 
leadership for peace could create alternate niches for 
31 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
interventions targeting only women that are 
considered threatening. 
key roles in the peace process. 
Christian women religious leaders were 
however acknowledged as a reality. 
better understanding and harnessing of the power of 
women for peacebuilding. 
4 NATURE OF 
HIERARCHY 
AND 
STRUCTURE 
 
 
Calls for respect for hierarchical (vertical) 
orders in religious organizations and to engage 
religious leaders at the onset of interventions. 
The Toolkit already provides guidance that in 
the spirit of Do No Harm (DNH) peace actors 
should not push for the inclusion of women at 
all levels in peace processes. Horizontal (peer) 
relationships across religious lines are not 
discussed. 
While respecting DNH, efforts must be 
made to have a better understanding of 
the contextual nuances around 
women's engagement in religion 
(formal/ informal roles) in order to 
explore more culturally acceptable 
ways to promote women’s engagement 
while respecting and DNH.
This study, however, found that peer to 
peer relationships among religious 
leaders built effective bridges of 
engagement for peace. 
Need to include guidance for instances where some 
religious leaders are non-responsive to peace 
overtures. This would include how to identify, analyze, 
and leverage horizontal (peer to peer) relationships 
across hierarchies to stimulate actions, as in the case 
of the BIRP in CAR – Christian leaders led the charge 
and brought along some Muslim leaders.
5 GROUP 
DYNAMICS 
The principle calls for intervention planners and 
implementers to pay attention to intra- and 
inter-group dynamics to avoid exacerbating 
negative power dynamics or imbalances. 
Religious institutions and actors have 
different institutional and individual pre￾existing and predisposing capabilities 
(theological foundations, knowledge 
banks to tap into, collective and 
individual expertise and prior 
experience, etc) for rapid engagement 
in peacebuilding. In CAR, Christian 
groups, especially the Catholic Church, 
were more prepared than Muslim ones 
to initiate and sustain peacebuilding 
efforts. In Deep South of Thailand,
Buddhists monks seemed more 
organized and more ready to engage in 
It is essential to provide guidance on analysis of 
capacity differentials in peacebuilding between religious 
institutions and actors to determine targeted capacity 
development needs of different religious groups. In 
particular guidance on assessment tools that help 
unearth the peacebuilding interactive capacities and 
networks and/or limitations thereof of different 
categories of religious actors (men, women, youth, 
etc) will be most helpful in guiding intervention 
designers and implementers. Assessment of religious 
institutions should go beyond the churches, mosques, 
temples, synagogues, etc to include religiously inclined 
ones such as broadcast houses. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | 32 
peacebuilding, albeit among themselves, 
than Muslim ones.
6 LANGUAGE Request interveners to be sensitive to the use 
of language to avoid offending others or 
creating suspicions of intent.
Use of language is also important in 
how outsiders, especially the media and 
development actors, frame conflicts. 
Need to emphasize the need to use the 
lenses of the people in describing their 
conflicts. 
Provide guidance to intervention planners and 
designers to go beyond how the mainstream media 
captures and discusses issues surrounding the conflicts 
to better reflect the views and voices of those affected 
in the analysis. 
7 RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN 
RELIGION 
AND 
GOVERNMENT 
Requests interveners to be attentive to the 
nature of relationships between religious groups 
and the government to explore and harness 
partnership and leverage opportunities.
In CAR, government was largely absent 
and religious leaders filled the void in 
providing stability. And in CAR, at least 
the legitimacy of one Islamic religious 
leader was questioned by followers of 
another leader who was less reluctant 
to engage in the Interreligious Platform 
processes. In South Thailand Deep 
South of Thailand, some religious 
leaders were viewed as co-opted by the 
government when they collaborated 
with the latter on peace moves that the 
government initiated and directed. 
Guidance on how to ensure support to religious 
leaders that does not inadvertently undermine their 
legitimacy, especially from rival factions is essential. 
Also, guidance is needed on how to ensure that 
working with religious institutions and actors may 
enhance government and/or USAID legitimacy, while 
also ensuring that the communities they represent do 
not see them as captured or coopted and therefore 
illegitimate.
8 KEY 
HISTORICAL 
EVENTS 
Toolkit guidance requires interveners to be 
sensitive to key historical events that shape and 
direct relationships or the conflict.
Historical events define conflict 
narratives of the victors and the victims 
and often inform revisionists’ 
reconstruction of the narratives to 
sustain intergenerational recurrence of 
the conflicts. In interventions that 
involve truth-telling as a precondition 
for promoting reconciliation, historical 
Beyond mere recall of the historical events, there 
should be guidance on how to promote joint 
reassessments and reconstruction of common 
narratives by conflicting groups and in ways that 
embrace different views as a step to peace and 
reconciliation. This will squarely fit into a P2P 
approach to peacebuilding.
33 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
facts have to be confronted, albeit in 
non-inflammatory ways. 
9 CURRENT US 
FOREIGN 
POLICY 
Be aware of current US foreign policies and 
how they affect religious institutions’ and actors’ 
ability to act in the name of the US or with USG 
resources.
No specific field level encounters on 
perceptions of US Government policy 
on conflict and peace dynamics. 
However, the policy influences of other 
governments in both CAR (France) and 
Deep South of Thailand (Malaysia) were 
cited as sustaining the conflicts and/or 
brokering peace. 
Analysis of US government policy impacts should 
include locals’ perception of past US presence and 
interventions as well, as experiences of the past 
policies may be stronger than the current level of 
analysis required. 
In the spirit of DNH, guidance on how to frame and 
phrase issues in which policies and programs of other 
governments are raised might be necessary. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-1
ANNEX A: EVALUATION SOW 
A-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-3
 
 
 
 
A-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-5
 
 
 
 
A-6 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-7
 
 
 
 
A-8 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-9
 
 
 
 
A-10 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-11
 
A-12 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-13
 
 
 
 
A-14 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-15
 
A-16 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-17
 
 
 
 
A-18 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | A-19
A-20 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
 
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-1
ANNEX B: EVALUATION TOOLS (ENDLINE) 
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 
Implementing Partners, Local Project Partners, Individual Project Participants
Interviewer: Interpreter: 
Date: Location: 
Notetaker [if different from Interviewer]:
Info for each respondent [can attach a sign-in sheet]: 
Respondent Name: 
Title:
Organization:
Respondent Type:
Sex:
Religion: 
Youth / Adult (over 35 years):
Location of work/residence:
Others attending interview: [non-respondent attendants in interview]
INFORMED CONSENT
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. [Introduce team members.]
● We are a research team studying religion and peacebuilding (édification de la paix) in 
international development programs.
● As part of this study, we are focusing on examples from South Thailand and the Central 
African Republic.
● The research will be used to help organizations to improve their support for peace and 
international development work in situations where religion is a part of the operating 
environment. 
● Although religion is the main theme for our research, we understand that the analysis of 
conflict in the Central African Republic is more complex than our narrow focus on religion.
● Your insight will help us to better understand the ways in which religion is and is not a 
part of the conflict or in efforts to support peace. 
● This interview is a follow-up on our Baseline field work conducted in May 2016.
Your participation is voluntary and you can end this interview at any time. Any quotations from our 
discussions that are used in the research report will be anonymous and will not be attributed to you by 
name or your organization. 
B-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
IC1. Do you have any questions about this interview process? 
If “ yes” what is the question?
IC2. We usually list the names of the people we have interviewed for this research in an annex of the 
report. Would you feel comfortable being included in this list of interviewees?
IC3. Do you willingly agree to participate in this evaluation? 
OPENING
1. Organizational Role/Role de l’organisation 
IP/Local Partner: What is your organization’s role in the implementation of the P2P project?
Quelle est le rôle de votre organisation dans la réalisation du projet?
Participant: How is your organization involved with the P2P project?
De quelle manière êtes vous impliqué dans le projet?
Subject matter Expert: How are you or your organization aware of the P2P project?
2. Personal role/Role personnel 
IP/Local Partner: What are your main duties and responsibilities for the P2P Project?
Quel sont vos devoirs et responsabilités vis-a-vis le projet personne à personne?
Participant: How did you personally participate in the P2P Project?
De quelle manière avez-vous participé personnellement au projet? 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-3
Subject matter Expert: How are you personally involved with the P2P project, if at all?
3. Duration/Duree
IP/Local Partner: How long have you been in this role?
Pendant combien de temps êtes-vous dans ce rôle?
Participant: When did you first begin participating in the project?
Quand avez-vous commence à participer à ce projet? 
Subject matter Expert: When did you first become familiar with the P2P project?
ROLES AND EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS LEADERS [1-A] 
NOTE: If respondent is a religious leader project participant, rephrase the question in terms of his/her 
personal experience. 
 
4. What if any roles did participating religious leaders [you] play in the P2P project? 
Quel rôle les leaders religieux ont-ils joués dans le projet?
5. What motivated the religious leaders involved to pursue this project? (EIPP Table 10 Evaluation Criteria) 
qu’est-ce qui à motiver les leaders religieux pour s’impliquer dans le projet?
6. How did religious leaders’ [your] role in the project change since the project started in 2015?
Depuis le commencement du projet en 2015, de quelle manière ont-ils changés les rôles des leaders religieux?
7. How were the roles that religious leaders played in this project the same or different from those of secular 
leaders? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
De quelle manière le rôle des leaders religieux dans le projet est-il diffèrent de celui des leaders séculiers? 
Est-ce qu’il y a une différence au niveau de l’efficacité?
8. How were the roles of male religious leaders in this project the same or different for women religious 
B-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
leaders? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
De quelle manier le rôle des leader hommes dans ce projet est-il différent de celui des femmes leaders? Est-ce 
qu’il y a une différence au niveau de l’efficacité?
9. How were the roles of adult religious leaders in this project the same or different from the roles of youth 
religious leaders (35 years and under)? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
De quelle manière sont les roles des jeunes leaders religieux même que ou différent de ceux des leaders 
adultes ? Est-ce qu’il y a une différence au niveau de l’efficacité?
10. How different or the same were the roles of religious leaders of different faiths in the implementation of 
the project? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
De quelle manière diffèrent les rôles des leaders religieux des différentes confessions? Est-ce qu’il y a une 
différence au niveau de l’efficacité ?
EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS LEADERS [2-B] 
11. How has the participation of religious leaders affected project outcomes? 
De quelle maniere la participation des leaders religieux ont influence les resultats des projet?
Probe: What contributions, if any, did religious leaders who participated in the project make to the 
outcomes of the project?
Quelles étaient les contributions de ces leaders religieux envers les résultats des projets?
Probe: If participating religious leaders made strong contributions to the project outcomes, what helped 
them to be effective?
Qu’est-ce a rendu le rôle des leaders religieux plus efficace dans la réalisation des résultats des projets?
Probe: If participating religious leaders did make strong contributions to the project outcomes, what 
made their roles less effective?
Qu’est-ce qui a rendu le rôle des acteurs religieux moins efficace dans la réalisation du projet?. 
NON-PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS LEADERS [1-A] 
12. Why did some religious leaders not participate in the project?
Pourquoi certains leaders religieux n’ont pas voulu participer au projet?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-5
13. What were the results of non-participation of these religious leaders on project outcomes?
Losque les leaders religieux refusent de participer au projet quels étaient les résultats?
ROLES OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS [1-A] 
Examples of religious institutions: AEC, FATEB, Apostolic Churches, Baptist Churches, Caritas, Union des 
Soeurs, Legion de Marie, Islamic Council, Madrasta, Saint Charles, Lycee PIXII 
 
14. What if any roles did participating religious institutions [your institution] play in the P2P project? 
Quel rôle las institutions religieuses ont-ils joués dans le projet?
15. What motivated the religious institutions to get involved in this project? (EIPP Table 10 Evaluation 
Criteria)
Qu’est-ce qui à motiver las institutions religieuses pour s’impliquer dans le projet?
16. How did the role of [your] religious institutions’ in the project change since the project started in 2015?
Depuis le commencement du projet en 2015, de quelle manière ont-ils changés les rôles de las institutions 
religieuses?
 
17. How were the roles that religious institutions played in this project the same or different from those of 
secular institutions? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness? 6
De quelle manière le rôle de las institutions religieuses dans le projet est-il diffèrent de celui de las institutions 
séculiers? Est-ce qu’il y a une différence au niveau de l’efficacité?
18. How different or the same were the roles of religious institutions of different faiths in the implementation 
of the project? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
De quelle manière diffèrent les rôles de las institutions religieuses des différentes confessions? Est-ce qu’il y a 
une différence au niveau de l’efficacité?
 
6 Linked to EIPP Table 10 Evaluation Criteria: Where appropriate, how well have inter-religious actors collaborated with 
secular initiatives?
B-6 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS [2-B] 
19. How has the participation of religious institutions affected project outcomes? 
De quelle maniere la participation de las institutions religieuses ont influence les resultats des projet?
Probe: What contributions, if any, did religious institutions make to the outcomes of the project?
Quelles étaient les contributions de cettes institutions religieuses envers les résultats des projets?
Probe: If participating religious institutions made strong contributions to the project outcomes, what 
helped them to be effective?
Qu’est-ce a rendu le rôle de las institutions religieuses plus efficace dans la réalisation des résultats des 
projets?
Probe: If participating religious institutions did not make strong contributions to the project outcomes, 
what made their roles less effective?
Qu’est-ce qui a rendu le rôle de las institutions religieuses moins efficace dans la réalisation du projet?
NON-PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS [1-A] 
20. Why did some religious institutions not participate in the project?
Pourquoi certains institutions religieuses n’ont pas voulu participer au projet?
21. What were the results of non-participation of these religious institutions on project outcomes?
Losque las institutions religieuses refusent de participer au projet quels étaient les résultats?
 
INCLUSION OF RELIGION IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION [1-B] 
NOTE: Skip this section for project participants and Subject 
Matter Experts. 
22. How did the project recognize and address key conflict drivers and aspects of peace factors that are 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-7
related to religion?7 (conflict assessment / context assessment)
De quelle manière avez-vous tenu compte des causes/sources des conflits et les aspects des facteurs de paix 
qui sont liés à la religion?
23. How is religious identity taken into account when hiring and training project staff? 
De quelle manière avez-vous considéré l’identité religieuse de candidats dans les processus de recrutement et 
de formation des personnels du projet?
24. How is the religion of vendors considered when purchasing supplies or services (procurement)?
De quelle manière la religion est-elle prise en compte quant à l’achat des fournitures ou des services? 
25. How does the project’s monitoring and evaluation design take into account religion (e.g., religious identity 
of participants; changes in attitudes/behaviors, knowledge related to religion; use of religious messaging; 
religious institutional partnerships)?
De quelle manière la religion prend en compte le suivi et l’evaluation du projet?
26. How was religion a factor in the selection of participants in the P2P project? 
De quelle manière le choix des participants au projet personne a personne a pris en compte aspect religieux? 
? 
Probe: How did the project include participants with different religious backgrounds?
Comment est-ce que le projet a assuré l’inclusion des participants des differentes ’identités religieuses.
Probe: What, if any, differences were there in the motivations of participants based on their religious 
identity or beliefs? 
Motivation des participants
[NOTE: Comments regarding selection might include outreach strategies, selection criteria, identity 
characteristics, willingness to participate, etc.]
 
7 Linked to EIPP Table 10 Evaluation Criteria: Which of the key conflict drivers and peace factors have aspects that are 
related to religion? How does the initiative recognize and address them? Does the initiative align with the contextual 
understanding of the faith groups involved? Does it meet their felt needs with regards to the issue being addressed?
B-8 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
27. For each of these (conflict/context assessments, staffing, procurement, participant selection), what were 
the challenges faced in terms of taking religion into account?
Pour tous les facteurs qui suit (études des conflits et du contexte ; recrutement des personnels ; 
approvisionnement ; sélection des participants, etc) quels étaient les défis/difficultés rencontres en ce qui 
concerne la religion? 
28. For each of these (conflict/context assessments, staffing, procurement, participant selection), what were 
the opportunities presented in terms of taking religion into account?
Pour tous les facteurs qui suit (études des conflits et du contexte ; recrutement des personnels ; 
approvisionnement ; sélection des participants, etc.) quels étaient les opportunités qui se sont présentées à 
vous en ce qui concerne la religion?
 
INTRA-/INTER-RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES [1-C] 
29. How did the project conduct intra-religious activities and what were the Lessons Learned?8
Quelles sont les activités intra religieux du projet et quelles sont les leçons apprises?
30. How did the project conduct inter-religious activities and what were the Lessons Learned?
Quelles sont les activités inter-religieux du projet et quelles sont les leçons apprises?
31. What are Lessons Learned in terms of sequencing inter-religious activities and inter-religious activities?
Quelles sont les leçons apprises concernant le séquençage des activités inter-religieuses et intra-religieuses?
DO NO HARM [1-D] 
32. What are Lessons Learned in terms of precautions or risks of taking religion into account in the design 
and implementation of the project? 
Quelles sont les leçons retenues en ce que concerne les précautions ou les risques de prendre en compte la 
 
8 Linked to EIPP Table 10 Evaluation Criteria: In inter-faith initiatives, are intra-faith relations also being adequately 
addressed?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-9
religion dans la planification et la réalisation du projet?
OUTCOME HARVESTING [2-A] & THEORIES OF CHANGE [2-E]
33. What were the outcomes of the project, both positive and negative?
Quels sont les résultats accomplis? (positifs ou négatives)?
34. What is evidence that these outcomes were achieved? 
Quelles sont les preuves des résultats obtenus?
35. What have you noticed as changes in nature and quality of the communication and coordination among 
religious groups working together to implement this initiative?9
Quels sont les changements remarques au niveau de coopération, de communication et de relation entre les 
groupes religieux qui se sont produits durant l’exécution de ce projet ? 
36. How did inclusion of religion in design and implementation prevent or support outcomes from being 
achieved?
Dans quelle manière est-ce que l’inclusion de la religion dans la planification et la réalisation du projet a 
empêché ou soutenu les résultats du projet?
37. DO NOT ASK PARTICIPANTS OR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS: What if any key 
assumptions changed over the course of implementation?
Que se passerait-il si les présuppositions changent au moment de la réalisation? 
DISPARATE RESULTS [2D] 
38. How did involvement of religion in project implementation lead to different outcomes for male and female
 
9 Linked to EIPP Table 10 Evaluation Criteria: What is the nature and quality of the communication and coordination 
among religious groups working together to implement this initiative?
B-10 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
project participants?
De quelle manière l’implication de la religion a-t-il produit des résultats différents en les participants hommes 
et femmes? 
39. How did involvement of religion in the project implementation lead to different outcomes for adult and 
youth (<35 years) project participants?
De quelle manière l’implication de la religion a-t-il produit des résultats différents pour les adultes et les 
jeunes?
40. How did involvement of religion in project implementation lead to different outcomes based on religious 
identity of project participants?
Comment est-ce l’implication de la religion dans le projet a produit des résultats différents a base l’ d’identité 
religieuse des participants au projet?
EXTERNAL FACTORS [2F] 
41. What external factors contributed to achieving project results (both positive and negative)? [e.g., status of 
political transitions / peace negotiations, changes in levels of violence, regional dynamics, policies to address 
identity-based economic and social disparities, outcomes of other implementer activities]
Quels sont les facteurs externes qui ont contribué a la production des résultats (positifs ou négatives)?
42. What external factors prevented expected outcomes from being achieved? [e.g., activities not 
implemented as planned, assumptions didn’t hold, faulty logic, insufficient resources, changes in external 
conditions, action taken/not taken by key stakeholder] 
Quels sont les facteurs qui ont empêché la réalisation des résultats escomptés du projet? 
RELIGIOUS MESSAGING [2-C] 
43. What were the religious messages disseminated by the project? 
Quels sont les messages religieux utilisés par le projet?
44. How were these religious messages disseminated?
De quelle manière ces messages religieux sont utilisés?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-11
45. What were the results of these messages? 
Quels étaient les résultats de ces messages?
46. How are results from dissemination of religious messaging different from non-religious messaging?
De quelle manière les résultats de la diffusion des messages religieux sont-ils différents des messages non￾religieux?
SUSTAINABILITY [3]
47. How does involving religion in the project support the sustainability/continuation of its outcomes after the 
end of the grant period?10
De quelle manière l’implication de la religion peut contribuer à la pérennisation des résultats du projet?
Probe: What are examples that project participants/partners will remain committed to faith-based 
relationships and actions (inter- or intra-) even in moments of crisis (resiliency)? [Adapted From EIPP 
Table 10 Evaluation Criteria]
Probe: What are examples that project participants/partners will remain committed to faith-based 
mechanisms already being used and/or relationships being tapped in moments of crisis? [From EIPP Table 
10 Evaluation Criteria]
Probe: What are examples of new groups, organizations, or institutions that now work to support 
project outcomes as a result of including religion in the project?
48. How will involving religion undermine sustainability of project results after the end of the project period?
De quelle maniere l’implication de la religion peut porter prejudice aux resultats du projet a la fin du projet? 
CLOSING
49. Do you have any final observations or Lesson Learned related to religion and the implementation and 
 
10 Examples of project activities may support sustainability could include improved capabilities of key stakeholders, 
institutionalized nonviolent conflict resolution processes and mechanisms, new or strengthened relationships that are likely 
to support ongoing sustainability of achieved results, etc.
B-12 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
results of the project?
Avez-vous quelque a ajouter sur la religion et le projet?
Thank you for taking the time to meet with our team as part of this study on the relationship between 
religion, peacebuilding and conflict. As next steps, we will aggregate the information from the CAR-based field 
work. We will then this integrate analysis with Thailand-based field work data next year. The final report that 
includes all four projects is expected to be completed by the end of 2018 and will be made publicly available 
online. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Facilitator: Interpreter: 
Notetaker: Location:
Date:
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-13
Implementing Partner: SFCG:_____ Mercy Corps:_____ 
Type of Participant:
____________________________________________________
__
Number of Men: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:_____ 
Number of Women: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:_____ 
Religious identity: Christian:_____ Muslim:_____ Other:_____ 
 Unknown:____ 
 
Attach attendance sheet with signatures indicating receipt of transportation costs reimbursement. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT
[NOTE TO DATA COLLECTORS: Be sure to write down everyone’s first name and where they are sitting 
before you begin discussion.]
INTRODUCTION: Hello. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I am part of a research team that is studying 
the connection between religion and peacebuilding in international development. With me is [NAME OF 
INTERPRETER] who will be helping us with translation today. 
As part of this research, we are focusing on projects from South Thailand and the Central African 
Republic. The research will be used to help organizations improve their support for peace and 
international development work in situations where religion is an important consideration for the 
project’s success. Although religion is the main theme for our research, we understand that the analysis of 
conflict in the Central African Republic is more complex than our narrow focus on religion. Over the next 
three weeks, we are meeting with people who have participated or will participate in a [Mercy Corps or 
Search for Common Ground]activity. 
At the end of this time, we will aggregate all the information from CAR and Thailand in a public report. 
None of your names will be in this report and all your comments will be anonymous.
I will ask you about 10 questions regarding the relationship between religion and peacebuilding. Your 
participation is voluntary. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and you 
can leave the discussion at any time. Any information from our discussions that are used in the research 
report will be anonymous and will not be attributed to you by name. It is important to give everyone an 
B-14 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
opportunity to speak about his or her experience, so I will do my best to be sure everyone has a chance 
to participate. 
Do you have any questions about this process before we begin?
1. ROLES: In what ways have religious leaders or institutions been involved in the implementation of the 
P2P project? 
De quelles maniere les leaders religieux ou les institutions religieuses sont impliques dans le projet?
2. POSITIVE OUTCOMES: How has the involvement of religious leaders and institutions contributed to 
positive results of project?
De quelle maniere les leaders religieux et les institutions religieuses ont contribute positivement aux 
resultats du projet?
3. NEGATIVE OUTCOMES: How has the involvement of religious leaders and institutions contributed 
to negative results of the project?
De quelle maniere les leaders religieux et les institutions religieuses ont contribute negativement aux 
resultats au projet?
4. IMPACT ON OUTCOMES: How different would the results of the project have been without the 
involvement of religious leaders and institutions?
Si les leaders religieux et les institutions religieuses n’avaient pas participes quels seraient les resultats 
du projet? Est-ce que les resultats seraient differents?
5. DISPARITIES (leaders): How did including religious leaders in the project affect the project results 
differently for different groups, for example, were there different results for male and female 
participants, youth and adults, people from different religions, etc.? 
De quelle maniere l’introduction des leaders religieux dans le project a affect les homes et les femmes 
differemment?
6. MESSAGING: 
7a. In what ways did the P2P project use religious scriptures, texts, and teachings? 
De quelle maniere le projet a utilise les ecrits, textes et enseignements religieux?
7b. What were the outcomes of the project’s use of these messages?
Quels ont ete les resultats de l’utilisation de ces messages?
7. DISPARITIES (messaging): How did including religious messages in the project affect the project results 
differently for different groups, for example, were there different results for male and female 
participants, youth and adults, people from different religions, etc.?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-15
De quelle maniere l’introduction des messages religieux dans le project a affect les homes et les 
femmes differemment?
8. INTRA-RELIGIOUS OUTCOMES: Can you provide an example of how the project strengthened the 
capacity or willingness of people from the same religion be more supportive of nonviolent conflict 
resolution?
Pouvez-vous nous donner un exemple de la maniere dont le projet a renforce la capacite ou la volonte 
des gens d’une meme religion a soutenir la resolution des conflit d’une maniere non violente?
9. INTRA-RELIGIOUS OUTCOMES: Can you provide an example of how the project strengthened the 
capacity and willingness of people from different religions to support nonviolent conflict resolution?
Pouvez-vous nous donner nn exemple de la maniere dont le projet a renforce la capacite des gens de 
religion differente a soutenir la resolution des conflits d’une maniere no violente? 
10. SUSTAINABILITY: How will the inclusion of religious leaders and institutions help your community to 
continue the project results after it ends?
De quelle maniere l’introduction de leaders religieux et des institutions religieuses aide votre 
communaute a continuer avec les resultats du projet?
11. CONCLUSION: Do you have any final comments regarding religion and the P2P project?
Avez quelque chose a ajouter qui a trait a la religion et le projet?
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion. If you have any questions about this 
research, please feel free to talk with me after this discussion.
B-16 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
SURVEY
Implementing Partners, Local Project Partners, Individual Project Participants, External Subject 
Matter Experts
Enumerator: Interpreter: 
Date: Location: 
Recorder [if different from Enumerator]:
Respondent Name:
NOTE: Survey Respondent’s name links to KII notes for independent characteristics.
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT
NOTE TO RECORDER: Be sure to write down full name of Respondent in order to match independent 
variables for data entry.
INTRODUCTION TO SURVEY: The final step in the interview is a brief questionnaire that will only take 
about 5 minutes to complete. As explained at the beginning of the interview, your answers will be 
aggregated with all other questionnaire responses and the analysis will be anonymous in the written 
report. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer and end the survey at any time.
Do you have any questions about the survey before we begin?
1. To what extent did the project take into account religious dynamics of conflict in the project area?
(choose one)
[Implementation 1-B – conflict/context assessment]
[ ] Large extent
[ ] Some extent
[ ] Little extent
[ ] None
[ ] Don’t know
2. Which religious group’s values, beliefs, symbols or scripture did you see used as part of the 
project’s messages? (e.g, posters, radio, preaching, songs, drama performances, quizzes) (choose 
all that apply)
[Efficacy 2-C – messaging]
[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Indigenouse religion
[ ] Don’t know
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-17
[ ] Other religion
Please 
specify_________________________________________________________
3. Which religious group’s practices or rituals were used as part of the project implementation?
(choose all that apply)
[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Other religion
[ ] Indigenouse religion
[ ] Don’t know
Please 
specify_________________________________________________________
4. Which practices or rituals were used as part of the project implementation? (choose all that apply)
[ ] Prayers
[ ] Fasting
[ ] Ceremonies
[ ] Other
[ ] Confessions
[ ] Sacrifice
[ ] Don’t know
 Please specify_____________________________________________________
5. What was the religious identity of project participants? (choose all that apply)
[Implementation 1-B – participant recruitment] 
[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Other religion
[ ] Indigenouse religion
[ ] Don’t know
Please 
specify_________________________________________________________
6. What was the affiliation of religious leaders involved in the project? (choose all that apply)
[Implementation 1-B – participant recruitment] 
[ ] Christian
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Other religion
[ ] Indigenouse religion
[ ] Don’t know
B-18 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Please 
specify_________________________________________________________
7. Since the project started in 2015, how effective was the project in improving relationships between 
groups that were in conflict? (choose one)
[Effectiveness 2-A – results]
[ ] Very effective
[ ] Somewhat effective
[ ] Not effective
[ ] Made worse
[ ] Don’t Know
8. To what extent has the project increased the effectiveness of religious leaders resolving conflict 
peacefully? (choose one)
[Implementation 1-A – roles / Effectiveness 2-B – religious actors]
[ ] Large extent
[ ] Some extent
[ ] Little extent
[ ] None
[ ] Don’t know
9. To what extent has the project increased the effectiveness of religious leaders in improveing 
relationships with people from their own religion? (choose one)
[Implementation 1-A – roles, 1-C – intra/inter-religion / Effectiveness 2-B – religious actors]
[ ] Large extent
[ ] Some extent
[ ] Little extent
[ ] None
[ ] Don’t know
10. To what extent has the project increased the effectiveness of religious leaders in improving 
relationships with people from a religion different from their own religion? (choose one)
[ ] Large extent
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-19
[ ] Some extent
[ ] Little extent
[ ] None
[ ] Don’t know
Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements (choose one) 
11. The inclusion of religious leaders in the implementation of this project has contributed to 
important project results. 
[Effectiveness 2A – results]
[ ] Very strongly agree [ ] Strongly agree [ ] Agree 
[ ] Disgree [ ] Strongly disagree [ ] Very strongly disagree 
[ ] No opinion 
12. The inclusion of religious institutions in the implementation of this project has contributed to 
important project results. 
[Effectiveness 2A – results]
[ ] Very strongly agree [ ] Strongly agree [ ] Agree 
[ ] Disgree [ ] Strongly disagree [ ] Very strongly disagree 
[ ] No opinion 
13. The inclusion of religious values in the implementation of this project has contributed to important 
project results. 
[Effectiveness 2A – results]
[ ] Very strongly agree [ ] Strongly agree [ ] Agree 
[ ] Disgree [ ] Strongly disagree [ ] Very strongly disagree 
[ ] No opinion 
14. The inclusion of religious leaders in the implementation of this project makes it harder for girls 
and women to participate equally with male participants in the project. 
[Effectiveness 2D – disparities]
[ ] Very strongly agree [ ] Strongly agree [ ] Agree 
[ ] Disgree [ ] Strongly disagree [ ] Very strongly disagree 
[ ] No opinion 
B-20 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
15. The inclusion of religious leaders in the implementation of this project makes it harder for youth 
(35 years and younger) to participate in the project? 
[Effectiveness 2D – disparities]
[ ] Very strongly agree [ ] Strongly agree [ ] Agree 
[ ] Disgree [ ] Strongly disagree [ ] Very strongly disagree 
[ ] No opinion 
FINAL – Overall, how satisfied are you with the project’s results? 
[ ] Very satisfied
[ ] Somewhat satisfied
[ ] Somewhat unsatisfied
[ ] Not satisfied
[ ] Don’t know
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-21
THAILAND 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 
Implementing Partners, Local Project Partners, Individual Project Participants
Interviewer: Interpreter: 
Date: Location: 
Notetaker [if different from Interviewer]:
Info for each respondent [can attach a sign-in sheet]: 
Respondent Name: 
Title:
Organization:
Respondent Type:
Sex:
Religion: 
Youth / Adult (over 15-24 years):11
Location of work/residence:
Others attending interview: 
INFORMED CONSENT
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. [Introduce team members.]
● We are a research team studying religion and peacebuilding in international 
development programs.
● As part of this study, we are focusing on examples from Southern Thailand and the 
Central African Republic.
 
11For the young leaders in Kenan's projects, ET will use the term 'young leaders'.
B-22 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
● The research will be used to help organizations to improve their support for peace 
and international development work in situations where religion is a part of the operating 
environment. 
● Although religion is the main theme for our research, we understand that the 
analysis of conflict in Thailand is more complex than our narrow focus on religion.
● Your insight will help us to better understand the ways in which religion is and is not 
a part of the conflict or in efforts to support peace. 
● This interview is a follow-up on our Baseline field work conducted in 2016.
Your participation is voluntary and you can end this interview at any time. If you choose not to 
participate or to end your participation before the end of the interview, your decision will not affect 
your ability to participate in the project or to access funding or other services from USAID. Any 
quotations from our discussions that are used in the research report will be anonymous and will not 
be attributed to you by name or your organization. Please be aware non-participation and/or 
terminating the interview will not affect their access to USAID support/services
IC1. Do you have any questions about this interview process? 
If “ yes” what is the question?
IC2. Do you willingly agree to participate in this evaluation?
OPENING 
1. Organizational Role 
IP/Local Partner: What is your organization’s role in the implementation of the PPST (FOR TAF) 
HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project?
Participant: How is your organization involved with the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for Kenan) 
project?
Subject matter Expert: Are you or your organization aware of the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for 
Kenan) project? How have you/your organization become aware of the project?
2. Personal role 
IP/Local Partner: What are your main duties and responsibilities for the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM 
(for Kenan)) Project?
Participant: How did you personally participate in the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for Kenan)Project?
Subject matter Expert: How are you personally involved with the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for 
Kenan) project, if at all?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-23
3.Duration/
IP/Local Partner: How long have you been in this role?
Participant: When did you first begin participating in the project?
Subject matter Expert: When did you first become aware of the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for 
Kenan) project?
INCLUSION OF RELIGION IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 
NOTE: Skip this section for project participants and Subject Matter Experts. This section can 
be answered by staff of Kenan or TAF, ie implementing partners (IPs), by local staff of IPs,and 
representatives of religion institutions 
4. How did the project recognize and/or address key conflict drivers and/or aspects of peace factors 
that are related to religion? (conflict assessment / context assessment)
5. How is religious identity taken into account when hiring and training project staff?
6. How is the religion of vendors considered when purchasing supplies or services (procurement)?
7. How does the project’s monitoring and evaluation design take into account religion (e.g., religious 
identity of participants; changes in attitudes/behaviors, knowledge related to religion; use of religious 
messaging; religious institutional partnerships)?
8. How was religion a factor in the selection of participants in the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for 
Kenan)PPST (FOR TAF) HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project? 
Probe: What, if any, differences were there in the motivations of participants based on their 
religious identity or beliefs? 
Motivation of the participants?
[NOTE: Comments regarding selection might include outreach strategies, selection criteria, identity 
characteristics, willingness to participate, etc.]
9. For each of these (conflict/context assessments, staffing, procurement, participant selection), what 
were the challenges faced in terms of taking religion into account? (Interviewer: please probe for 
responses on each dimension).
10. For each of these (conflict/context assessments, staffing, procurement, participant selection), 
what were the opportunities presented in terms of taking religion into account?? (Interviewer: please 
probe for responses on each dimension).
INTRA-/INTER-RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES 
11. How did the project conduct intra-religious activities and what were the Lessons Learned? 
(Please note: this question may not be applicable for HAKAM (Yala)
B-24 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
12. How did the project conduct inter-religious activities and what were the Lessons Learned?
13. What are Lessons Learned in terms of sequencing intra-religious activities and inter-religious 
activities?
OUTCOME & THEORIES OF CHANGE 
14. What were the results of the project, both positive and negative?
15. What is the evidence that these results were achieved? 
16. What have you noticed as changes in nature and quality of the communication and coordination 
among religious groups working together to implement this initiative?
17. How did inclusion of religion in the design and implementation of the project prevent or support 
results from being achieved?
Note: Question is for IPs and local partners. DO NOT ASK PARTICIPANTS OR SUBJECT 
MATTER EXPERTS:
18. What, if any, key assumptions have changed over the course of implementation?
DO NO HARM 
19. What are Lessons Learned in terms of precautions or risks of taking religion into account in the 
design and implementation of the project?
DISPARATE RESULTS 
20. How did involvement of religion in project implementation lead to different results for male and 
female project participants?
21. How did involvement of religion in the project implementation lead to different results for adult 
and youth (<24 years) project participants?
22. How did involvement of religion in project implementation lead to different results based on 
religious identity of project participants?
ROLES OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 
Religious institutions can be either Buddhist or Islamic or other religious institutions and the term 
institution does NOT refer to authorities based in Bangkok or major cities in the South, such as 
Patani and Yala 
23. What if any roles did participating religious institutions [your institution]play in the PPST (for 
TAF) HAKAM (for Kenan) project? 
24. What motivated the religious institutions to get involved in this project?
25. How did the role of [your] religious institutions in peacebuilding change since the project started 
in 2015?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-25
 
26. How were the roles that religious institutions played in this project the same or different from 
those of secular institutions? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
27. How different or the same were the roles of religious institutions of different faiths in the 
implementation of the project? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 
28. How has the participation of religious institutions affected project results? 
Probe: If participating religious institutions made strong contributions to the project results, 
what helped them to be effective?
Probe: For participating religious institutions that made small or limited contributions to the project 
results, what made their roles less effective?
NON-PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS Religious institutions can be either Buddhist 
or Islamic or other religious institutions and the term institution does NOT refer to authorities 
based in Bangkok or major cities in the South, such as Patani and Yala 
29. Were there any religious institutions that opted out of involvement in the project?
30. What factors hinder some religious institutions from participating in the project?
31. What were the results of non-participation of these religious institutions on project results?
ROLES OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS 
NOTE: If respondent is a religious leader project participant, rephrase the question in terms of 
his/her personal experience. 
32. What if any roles did participating religious leaders [you]play in the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for 
Kenan) project? 
33. What motivated the religious leaders involved to pursue in the peacebuilding process?
34. How did religious leaders’ [your] role in peacebuilding change since the PPST (for TAF)HAKAM 
(for Kenan) project started in 2015?
35. How were the roles that religious leaders played in this project the same or different from those 
of secular leaders? What, if any, difference was there in the level of effectiveness?
36. How were the roles of male leader in Islam in this project the same or different for women 
leader in Islam? When we use the term leaders, please note this can apply to a woman with an 
informal leadership role rather than holding an official position. What, if any, difference was there in 
the level of effectiveness? 
37. How were the roles of adult religious leaders in this project the same or different from the roles 
B-26 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
of youth religious leaders (24 years and under)?12 What, if any, difference was there in the level of 
effectiveness?
38. How different or the same were the roles of religious leaders of different faiths in the 
implementation of the project in any phase? What, if any, difference was there in the level of 
effectiveness?
EFFICACY OF PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS LEADERS 
39. How has the participation of religious leaders affected project results? 
Probe: What contributions, if any, did religious leaders who participated in the project make to 
the results of the project?
Probe: If participating religious leaders made strong contributions to the project results, what 
helped them to be effective?
Probe: For participating religious leaders who made small or limited contributions to the project 
results, what made their roles less effective?
NON-PARTICIPATING RELIGIOUS LEADERS 
40. Why did some religious leaders not participate in the project?
41. What were the results of non-participation of these religious leaders on project results?
EXTERNAL FACTORS 
42. What external factors contributed to achieving project results (both positive and negative)? [e.g., 
status of political transitions / peace negotiations, changes in levels of violence, regional dynamics, 
policies to address identity-based economic and social disparities, results of other implementer 
activities]
43. What external factors prevented expected results from being achieved?[e.g., activities not 
implemented as planned, assumptions didn’t hold, faulty logic, insufficient resources, changes in 
external conditions, action taken/not taken by key stakeholder]
RELIGIOUS MESSAGES13
44. What were the religious messages disseminated by the project? 
45. How were these religious messages disseminated?
 
12 This age is the cut-off of for the definition of Youth used in CAR Final Evaluation.
13ET fully recognizes that USAID does not engage in religious messaging.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-27
46. What were the results of these messages? 
47. How are results from dissemination of religious messages different from non-religious messages?
SUSTAINABILITY 
48. Does involving religion in the project support or undermine sustainability? 
49. How does involving religion in the project support the sustainability/continuation of its results 
after the end of the grant period?14
Probe: What are examples that project participants/partners will likely remain committed to 
faith-based relationships and actions (inter- or intra-) even in moments of crisis (resiliency)? 
Probe: What are examples that project participants/partners will likely remain committed to 
faith-based mechanisms already being used in moments of crisis? 
Probe: What are examples of new groups, organizations, or institutions that now work to 
support project results as a result of including religion in the project?
50. How will involving religion undermine sustainability of project results after the end of the project 
period?
CLOSING 
51. Do you have any final observations or Lesson Learned related to religion and the implementation 
and results of the project that you would like to share?
Thank you for taking the time to meet with our team as part of this study on the relationship 
between religion, peacebuilding and conflict. As next steps, we will aggregate the information from 
the CAR-based field work with Thailand-based field work data. The final report that includes all four 
projects is expected to be completed by the end of 2018 and will be made publicly available online.
EXTERNAL EXPERTS/TAF PARTNERS 
 
14Examples of project activities that may support sustainability could include improved capabilities of key stakeholders, 
institutionalized nonviolent conflict resolution processes and mechanisms, new or strengthened relationships that are likely 
to support ongoing sustainability of achieved results, etc.
B-28 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Facilitator: Interpreter: 
Notetaker: Location: 
Date:
Implementing Partner: Kenan: ______ TAF: _____ 
Type of Participant: _________________________________________
Number of Men: Total: ______ Youth: _____ Adults: _____ 
Number of Women: Total: ______ Youth: _____ Adults: ______ 
Others attending interview: 
INFORMED CONSENT
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. [Introduce team members.]
● We are a research team studying religion and peacebuilding in international 
development programs.
● As part of this study, we are focusing on examples from Southern Thailand and the 
Central African Republic.
● The research will be used to help organizations to improve their support for peace 
and international development work in situations where religion is a part of the operating 
environment. 
● Although religion is the main theme for our research, we understand that the 
analysis of conflict in Thailand is more complex than our narrow focus on religion.
● Your insight will help us to better understand the ways in which religion is and is not 
a part of the conflict or in efforts to support peace. 
● This interview is a follow-up on our Baseline field work conducted in 2016.
Your participation is voluntary and you can end this interview at any time. If you choose not to 
participate or to end your participation before the end of the interview, your decision will not affect 
your ability to participate in the project or to access funding or other services from USAID. Any 
quotations from our discussions that are used in the research report will be anonymous and will not 
be attributed to you by name or your organization. Please be aware non-participation and/or 
terminating the interview will not affect their access to USAID support/services.
IC1. Do you have any questions about this interview process? 
If “ yes” what is the question?
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-29
IC2. Do you willingly agree to participate in this evaluation?
1. Were you or your organization familiar with the PPST (for TAF) HAKAM (for Kenan) 
project? How have you/your organization become familiar with the project?
If yes, then first probe for a description of their familiarity with the projects. If it is very extensive 
you can use the KII tool, otherwise please continue with these questions.
2. Are you part of any peacebuilding work where religion is involved?
3. Have you observed any intra-religious conflicts? What were the issues and how were they 
addressed?
4. Have you observed any inter-religious conflicts? What were the issues and how were they 
addressed?
5. To what extent is religion a part of the conflict in South Thailand? (If response is “religion is 
not a part”, skip to Probe #6).
Probe 1: To the extent that religion is a factor in the conflict, what aspects of religion are 
part of the conflict system? (Give examples: religious actors, institutions, beliefs?)
Probe 2: Can you give some examples of how religion is a part of the conflict?
Probe 3: Can you give some examples of how religious leaders are part of the conflict?
Probe 4: Can you give some examples of how religious institutions are part of the conflict?
Probe 5: Can you give some examples of how messages based on religion affect the conflict?
Probe 6: If this conflict does not have a religious aspect, how did this conflict be come to be 
named as a religious conflict?
6. If religious leaders were involved in the conflict, what roles did they play?
Probe: How significant was their role?
7. To what extent is religion a part of peacebuilding in Southern Thailand?
Probe: Can you give some examples of how religion is a part of peacebuilding?
Probe: Can you give some examples of how religious leaders are part of peacebuilding ?
Probe: Can you give some examples of how religious institutions are part of peacebuilding?
Probe: Can you give some examples of how messages based on religion affect peacebuilding? 
The messages can be from scripture or from preaching.
8. If religious leaders were involved in peacebuilding, what roles did they play?
Probe: How significant was their role?
B-30 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
9. How are women contributing to peacebuilding or exacerbating conflict? Is there a difference 
in how men are contributing to peacebuilding or exacerbating conflict?
Probe: Can you give examples of how women in positions of leadership in the community or 
schools contribute to peacebuilding or exacerbating conflict?
Probe: Is there a difference in how young women (below the age of 24) and older women 
contribute to peacebuilding or exacerbating conflict?
10. To what extent would the involvement of religious leaders in peacebuilding encourage the
search for peace?
11. To what extent would the involvement of women leaders in community or school settings 
peacebuilding encourage the search for peace?
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the role of religion in the conflicts in 
Southern Thailand?
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-31
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 
Facilitator: Interpreter: 
Notetaker: Location:
Date:
Implementing Partner: Kenan: _____ TAF:_____ 
Type of Participant: _________________________________________________
Number of Men: Total: ______ Youth: _____ Adults:_____ 
Number of Women: Total: ______ Youth: _____ Adults:_____ 
Religious identity: Buddhist: _____ Muslim: _____ Christian:_____ 
 Unknown: ____ Other:_____
Attach attendance sheet with signatures indicating receipt of transportation costs 
reimbursement. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT 
[NOTE TO DATA COLLECTORS: Be sure to write down everyone’s first name and where 
they are sitting before you begin discussion.]
INTRODUCTION: Hello. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I am part of a research team that 
is studying the connection between religion and peacebuilding in international development. 
With me is [NAME OF INTERPRETER] who will be helping us with translation today. 
As part of this research, we are focusing on projects from South Thailand and the Central 
African Republic. The research will be used to help organizations improve their support for 
peace and international development work in situations where religion is an important 
consideration for the project’s success. Although religion is the main theme for our 
research, we understand that the analysis of conflict in Thailand is more complex than our 
narrow focus on religion. Over the next three weeks, we are meeting with people who have 
participated in a [Kenan Foundation or Asia Foundation] activity. 
At the end of this time, we will aggregate all the information from Central African Republic 
and Thailand in a public report. None of your names will be in this report and all your 
comments will be anonymous.
I will ask you about 10 questions regarding the relationship between religion and 
peacebuilding. Your participation is voluntary. You do not have to answer any questions you 
do not want to answer and you can leave the discussion at any time. Please be aware non￾participation and/or terminating the interview will not affect their access to USAID 
support/services. Any information from our discussions that are used in the research 
report will be anonymous and will not be attributed to you by name. It is important to give 
everyone an opportunity to speak about his or her experience, so I will do my best to be 
sure everyone has a chance to participate. 
Do you have any questions about this process before we begin? 
B-32 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
1. ROLES: In what ways have religious leaders or institutions been involved in the 
implementation of the PPST (FOR TAF) HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project? 
2. RESULTS: Has the involvement of religious leaders and institutions contributed to the 
positive or negative results of the project?
3. POSITIVE RESULTS: How has the involvement of religious leaders and institutions 
contributed to positive results of project?
4. NEGATIVE RESULTS: How has the involvement of religious leaders and institutions 
contributed to negative results of the project?
5. IMPACT ON RESULTS: How different would the results of the project have been 
without the involvement of religious leaders and institutions?
6. DISPARITIES (leaders): How did including religious leaders and institutions in the project 
affect the project results differently for different groups, for example, were there 
different results for male and female participants, youth and adults, people from different 
religions, etc.? 
7. MESSAGES:
7a. In what ways did the PPST (FOR TAF) HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project use religious 
scriptures, texts, and teachings? 
7b. What were the results of the project’s use of these messages?
8. DISPARITIES (messaging): How did including religious messages in the project affect the 
project results differently for different groups, for example, were there different results 
for male and female participants, youth and adults, people from different religions, etc.?
9. INTRA-RELIGIOUS RESULTS: Can you provide an example of how the project 
strengthened the capacity or willingness of people from the same religion to be more 
supportive of nonviolent conflict resolution?
10. INTER-RELIGIOUS RESULTS: Can you provide an example of how the project 
strengthened the capacity and willingness of people from different religions to support 
nonviolent conflict resolution?
11. SUSTAINABILITY: How will the inclusion of religious leaders and institutions help your 
community to continue the project results after it ends?
12. CONCLUSION: Do you have any final comments regarding religion and the PPST (FOR 
TAF) HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project?
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion. If you have any questions about 
this research, please feel free to talk with me after this discussion. 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-33
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE 2 
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 
Facilitator: Interpreter: 
Notetaker: Location:
Date:
Implementing Partner: Kenan:_____ TAF:_____ 
Type of Participant:
____________________________________________________
__
Number of Men: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:_____ 
Number of Women: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:_____ 
Religious identity: Buddhist:_____ Muslim:_____ Christian:_____ 
 Unknown:____ Other:_____
Attach attendance sheet with signatures indicating receipt of transportation costs reimbursement. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT 
 [NOTE TO DATA COLLECTORS: Be sure to write down everyone’s first name and where they are 
sitting before you begin discussion.]
INTRODUCTION: Hello. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I am part of a research team that is 
studying the connection between religion and peacebuilding in international development. With me 
is [NAME OF INTERPRETER] who will be helping us with translation today. 
As part of this research, we are focusing on projects from South Thailand and the Central African 
Republic. The research will be used to help organizations improve their support for peace and 
international development work in situations where religion is an important consideration for the 
project’s success. Although religion is the main theme for our research, we understand that the 
analysis of conflict in Thailand is more complex than our narrow focus on religion. Over the next 
three weeks, we are meeting with people who have participated in a [Kenan Foundation or Asia 
Foundation] activity. 
At the end of this time, we will aggregate all the information from Central African Republic and 
Thailand in a public report. None of your names will be in this report and all your comments will be 
anonymous.
I will ask you about 10 questions regarding the relationship between religion and peacebuilding. Your 
participation is voluntary. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer and 
you can leave the discussion at any time. Please be aware non-participation and/or terminating the 
B-34 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
interview will not affect their access to USAID support/services. Any information from our 
discussions that are used in the research report will be anonymous and will not be attributed to you 
by name. It is important to give everyone an opportunity to speak about his or her experience, so I 
will do my best to be sure everyone has a chance to participate. 
Do you have any questions about this process before we begin? 
1. Tell us about your projects. What did you enjoy the most? What did you find hardest to do? 
2. What were some positive and negative results from your activities?
3. Did having imams and monks involved help make things better or did they make it harder to do? 
(Please remember that we want to hear what you think and we do not tell teachers or people from 
Kenan anything that you say in this discussion)
4. Would the project (or activities) have been different if there were no imams or monks involved?
5. In what ways did the PPST (FOR TAF) HAKAM (FOR KENAN) project use religious scriptures, 
texts, and teachings? 
6. What were the results of the project’s use of these messages?
7. What did your families get from this project? 
8. Was it different for Buddhist and Muslim families?
9. Did your classmates who are girls/boys use religious teachings when they designed/planned their 
projects? And when they ran the projects, did they use religious teachings?
10. Can you provide an example of how the project strengthened the capacity and willingness of people 
from different religions to support nonviolent conflict resolution?
11. How will the inclusion of religious leaders and institutions help your community to continue the 
project results after it ends?
12. Do you have any final comments regarding religion and the PPST (FOR TAF) HAKAM (FOR 
KENAN) project?
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion. If you have any questions about this 
research, please feel free to talk with me after this discussion. 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | B-35
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE 3 
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 
Facilitator: Interpreter: 
Notetaker: Location: 
Date:
Implementing Partner: Kenan:______ TAF:_____ 
Type of Participant: _________________________________________
Number of Men: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:_____ 
Number of Women: Total:______ Youth:_____ Adults:______ 
Religious identity: Buddhist:_____ Muslim:_____ Christian:_____ 
 Unknown:____ Other:_____
Attach attendance sheet with signatures indicating receipt of transportation costs 
reimbursement. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT 
 [NOTE TO DATA COLLECTORS: Be sure to write down everyone’s first name and where 
they are sitting before you begin discussion.]
INTRODUCTION: Hello. My name is [YOUR NAME] and I am part of a research team that 
is studying the connection between religion and peacebuilding in international development. 
With me is [NAME OF INTERPRETER] who will be helping us with translation today. 
As part of this research, we are focusing on projects from South Thailand and the Central 
African Republic. The research will be used to help organizations improve their support for 
peace and international development work in situations where religion is an important 
consideration for the project’s success. Although religion is the main theme for our 
research, we understand that the analysis of conflict in Thailand is more complex than our 
narrow focus on religion. Over the next three weeks, we are meeting with people who have 
participated in a [Kenan Foundation or Asia Foundation] activity. 
At the end of this time, we will aggregate all the information from Central African Republic 
and Thailand in a public report. None of your names will be in this report and all your 
comments will be anonymous.
I will ask you about 10 questions regarding the relationship between religion and 
peacebuilding. Your participation is voluntary. You do not have to answer any questions you 
do not want to answer and you can leave the discussion at any time. Please be aware non￾participation and/or terminating the interview will not affect their access to USAID 
B-36 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
support/services. Any information from our discussions that are used in the research 
report will be anonymous and will not be attributed to you by name. It is important to give 
everyone an opportunity to speak about his or her experience, so I will do my best to be 
sure everyone has a chance to participate. 
Do you have any questions about this process before we begin? 
1. Tell us about your role in the projects.
2. What were some positive and negative results from the activities that you took part in?
3. How was the involvement of religious leaders and institutions contributed to the results to 
the project?
4. Would the project (or activities) have been different if there were no imams or monks 
involved?
5. In what ways did the HAKAM project use religious scriptures, texts, and teachings? 
6. Was it different for Buddhist and Muslim families?
7. Did the students use religious teachings when they designed/planned their projects? And 
when they ran their projects, did they use religious teachings? 
8. Can you provide an example of how the project strengthened the capacity and willingness 
of people from different religions to support nonviolent conflict resolution?
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this discussion. If you have any questions about 
this research, please feel free to talk with me after this discussion. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | C-1
ANNEX C: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
USAID Documents 
People-to-People Peacebuilding: A Program Guide. USAID Office of Conflict Management and 
Mitigation. January 2011.
Religion, Conflict & Peacebuilding: An Introductory Programming Guide. USAID Office of Conflict 
Management and Mitigation. September 2009.
SOL-OAA-15-000138 - Task One Statement of Work
Solicitation for Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities. No. 
USAID/DCHACMM-APS-OAA-14-000003. Issued February 24, 2014
USAID Reconciliation Fund - RFA-OAA-15-000007 FY2015.
Reconciliation Fund Project Documents 
Central African Republic Projects 
Mercy Corps: Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity Reconciliation and 
Engagement (ASPIRE) Program documents
● Reconciliation Fund Application Excerpt: Attachment B – Program Description. P. 13-25.
● ASPIRE Work Plan and M&E Plan spreadsheet (undated)
● Andras Beszterczey, Social Cohesion and Governance Programme Manager, Mercy Corps 
Lebanon. Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity Reconciliation and 
Engagement Guidelines and Recommendations Early Warning Early Response System. 
December 2015.
● Advancing Solutions for Peace through Intercommunity Reconciliation and Engagement 
(ASPIRE) Quarterly Report FY15 Q4 Report: November 1 – December 31, 2015. 
Submitted: January 29, 2016
● ASPIRE program Consultant Scope of Work for Mediation Training (undated).
Search for Common Ground: “ZO KWE ZO: All People are People” 
● Reconciliation Fund Application Excerpt: Attachment B – Program Description. P. 14-35.
● Proposal in Response to APS-OAA- 14-00003ZO KWE ZO : “All People are People.” 
Submitted July 3, 2015.
● Monitoring & Evaluation Plan. 1 December 2016 to 30 September 2017 (undated).
● Work Plan. Oct 15, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Submitted November 30, 2015.
● Project Summary (undated).
C-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Search for Common Ground: “Better Together” – Supporting Community Empowerment and Non￾Violence in the Central African Republic
● Project Summary and PMEP. January 17, 2014 – October 12, 2015.
● First Quarterly Report. January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014. Submitted April 30, 2014.
● Second Quarterly Report. April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014. AID-OAA-A-14-00023. Submitted: 
July 30, 2014
● Third Quarterly Report, October 1 to December 31, 2014. Submitted: January 31, 2015.
● Third Quarterly Report and Annual Review. July 1 to September 30, 2014. Submitted: 
October 30th, 2014.
● Fourth Quarterly Report. January 1 to March 30, 2015, Submitted: April 30, 2015.
● Sixth Quarterly Report, April 1 to June 30 2015, Submitted: July 31, 2015.
● Seventh Quarterly Report (July 1 to September 30, 2015) and Annual Report. (October 1, 
2014 to September 30, 2015), Submitted: November 11, 2015.
● Final Report. 17 January 2014 – 16 October 2015. Submitted: January 25, 2016.
South Thailand Projects 
The Asia Foundation
● Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand - Year 1 Work Plan: September 15, 2015 –
September 14, 2016. 
● USAID/Asia Cooperative Agreement No. AID-486-A-15-00004
● Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand - Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan
● Democracy and Conflict in Southern Thailand – A Survey of the Thai Electorate in Yala, 
Narathiwas, and Pattani.
● Promoting Peace in Southern Thailand Quarterly Report - FY2016 1st Quarter: October 1, 
2015 to December 31, 2015.
● Performance Indicator Reference Sheet, February 19th, 2016.
● PITT, February 19th, 2016
The Kenan Institute
● Healing, Opportunity, Peace and Engagement (HOPE) for Youth in Yala, Thailand Activity -
First Year Annual Work Plan: 18 September 2015 – 17 September 2016. 
● USAID/Asia Cooperative Agreement No. AID-486-A-15-00007
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | C-3
● Healing, Opportunity, Peace and Engagement (HOPE) for Youth in Yala, Thailand Activity 
Quarterly Report: 1st Quarter – 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015.
● Healing, Opportunity, Peace and Engagement (HOPE) for Youth in Yala, Thailand Monitoring 
and Evaluation (M&E) Plan - Activity Start Date and End Date: September 18, 2015 to 
September 17, 2018. AID-486- A-15- 00007
Country-Specific Background Documents 
Central African Republic 
Alexis Arieff and Tomas F. Hustad. Crisis in the Central African Republic. Congressional Research 
Service. August 17, 2015
Central African Republic: Better Late Than Never. International Crisis Group. Central African 
Republic Background Documents, Policy Briefing, Africa Briefing N°96. Nairobi/Brussels, 2 
December 2013.
Central African Republic: The Roots of Violence. The International Crisis Group. Crisis Group 
Africa Report N°230, 21 September 2015.
Central African Republic. USCIRF Annual Report 2015. Pages 84-87. 
Rebekka Fiedler. The contribution of the interfaith platform to the reconciliation process in the 
Central African Republic The Henri Dunant Human Rights Series. Geneva Liaison Office of the 
World Evangelical Alliance. June 2014.
Michael J. Brown and Marie-Joëlle Zahar (2015) Social Cohesion as Peacebuilding in the Central 
African Republic and Beyond, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 10:1, 10-24, DOI: 
10.1080/15423166.2015.1008349
South Thailand 
Alexander Horstmann. Approaching peace in Patani, Southern Thailand—some anthropological 
considerations. December 12, 2007
May Tan-Mullins. Armed Conflict and Resolutions in Southern Thailand. Division of International 
Studies, The University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China. September 9, 2008.
Norbert Ropers and Mathus Anuvatudom. A Joint Learning Process for Stakeholders and Insider 
Peacebuilders: A Case Study from Southern Thailand. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding Vol. 2 No. 2 
(2014): Pages 277-296
Thomas I. Parks (2009) Maintaining peace in a neighbourhood torn by separatism: the case of Satun 
province in southern Thailand, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 20:1, 185-202, DOI: 
10.1080/09592310802573632
Alexander Horstmann. Living together: The transformation of multi-religious coexistence in 
southern Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 42(3), pp 487–510 October 2011.
Sung Yong Lee (2015) Peacebuilding and Islamic Leadership in Southern Thailand, Peace Review, 
27:3, 328-336, DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2015.1063376
C-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Chaiwat Satha‐Anand (2004) Praying in the rain: the politics of engaged Muslims in anti‐war protest 
in Thai society, Global Change, Peace & Security, 16:2, 151-167, DOI: 
10.1080/0951274042000233369
Christopher M. Joll. Religion and Conflict in Southern Thailand: Beyond Rounding Up the Usual 
Suspects. Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 32, No. 2, Southern Thailand: Anatomy of an 
Insurgency (August 2010), pp. 258-279
Michael Vatikiotis. Resolving Internal Conflicts in Southeast Asia: Domestic Challenges and Regional 
Perspectives. Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 28, No. 1 (April 2006), pp. 27-47
Marc Askew. Thailand's Intractable Southern War: Policy, Insurgency and Discourse. Contemporary 
Southeast Asia, Vol. 30, No. 2 (August 2008), pp. 186-214
Duncan McCargo (2010) Thailand's National Reconciliation Commission: a flawed response to the 
Southern Conflict, Global Change, Peace & Security, 22:1, 75-91, DOI: 10.1080/14781150903487998
Santi Nindang Reversing. The Legacy of Injustice in Thailand’s Conflict-Ravaged South. January 21, 
2015.
Men and Youth in Thailand’s Conflict-Affected Deep South. December 2014
Other Resources 
Adam Burke et al, Contested Corners of Asia: Subnational Conflict and International Development 
Assistance, The Case of Southern Thailand. The Asia Foundation, 2013.
K. Van Brabant. Peacebuilding How? Criteria to Assess and Evaluate Peacebuilding. Interpeace—
International Peacebuilding Alliance. (2010)
Literature Review Documents 
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. (2015). “Religion and Peacebuilding: Reflections on Current Challenges and 
Future Prospects.” The Journal of Inter-Religious Studies, Issue 16, Winter of 2015
Abu-Nimer, Mohammed, et. al. (2003). Interfaith Dialogue in Egypt; National Unity and Tolerance. 
United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC
Appleby, Scott R. (2000). The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. 
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Maryland
Appleby, Scott R. (2015). “Religious Violence: The Strong, the Weak and the Pathological,” The 
Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, 
New York
Armstrong, Karen. (2002). Islam; a Short History. Random House, Toronto
Bouta, Tsjeard, Kadayifici-Orellana A. Ayse, and Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. (2005). “Faith-based 
Peace-Building: Mapping and Analysis of Christian, Muslim and Multi-Faith Actors,” Netherlands 
Institute of International Relations ‘Chingendael.’ The Hague, 
www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20051100_cru_paper_faith-based%20peace-
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | C-5
building.pdfhttp://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20051100_cru_paper_faith-based peace￾building.pdf
Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2014). International Religious Freedom Report. 
U.S. Department of State http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper
Church, Cheyanne and Visser, Anna. (2002). “Single Identity Work: An approach to conflict 
resolution in Northern Ireland.” INCORE Working Paper 
http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/publications/occasional/SIW.pdfhttp://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/publications
/occasional/SIW.pdf
Denoeux, Guilain and Carter, Lynn. (2009). “Guide to the Drives of Violent Extremism.” 
Management Systems International, Washington DC
Dubois, Heather. (2008) “Religion and Peacebuilding.” Journal of Religion, Conflict and Peace. Vol. 1. 
Issue 2. http://religionconflictpeace.org/volume-1-issue-2-spring-2008/religion-and￾peacebuildinghttp://religionconflictpeace.org/volume-1-issue-2-spring-2008/religion-and-peacebuilding
Dubois, Heather and Hunter-Bowman, Janna. (2015). “The Intersection of Christian Theology and 
Peacebuilding.” The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. 
Oxford University Press, New York
Gopin, Marc. “Religion, Violence and Conflict Resolution,” undated paper from AfP data base
Hayward, Susan. (2015). “Women, Religion, and Peacebuilding.” The Oxford Handbook of Religion, 
Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Hibbard, Scott. (2015). Religion, Nationalism, and the Politics of Secularism.” The Oxford Handbook 
of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Horstmanm, Alexander. (2011). “Living Together: The Transformation of multi-religious coexistence 
in Southern Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 2, Issue 3 
Horstmann, Alexander. (2007). “Approaching peace in Patani, Southern Thailand – some 
anthropological considerations.” AEJ 6:57-67
Ibrahim, Ishak, (2015). “According to Which Customs
The Role of Customary Reconciliation 
Sessions in Sectarian Incidents and the Responsibility of the State.” Egyptian Initiative for Personal 
Rights, Cairo 
Joll, Christopher. (2010). “Religion and Conflict in Southern Thailand: Beyond Rounding Up the 
Usual Suspects.” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 32, No 2
Johnston, Douglas and Cynthia Sampson, eds., (1994) Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft, 
Oxford University Press, New York 
Johnston Douglas, (2003). Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik. Oxford University Press, 
New York
Kadayifici-Orellana, S. Ayse. (2015). “Peacebuilding in the Muslim World.” The Oxford Handbook of 
Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
C-6 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Khan, Hamid. (2003). “Islamic Law: Practitioners’ Guide,” International Network to Promote the 
Rule of Law, Washington, DC http://inprol.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/islamic_law_guide￾july_2013_final_0.pdfhttp://inprol.org/sites/default/files/publications/2013/islamic_law_guide￾july_2013_final_0.pdf
Lederach, John Paul. (2015). “Spirituality and Religious Peacebuilding.” The Oxford Handbook of 
Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Lederach, John Paul. (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford 
University Press, New York
Lederach, John Paul. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. United 
States Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC
Lee, Sung Yong. (2015) “Peacebuilding and Islamic Leadership in Southern Thailand.” Peace Review; a 
Journal of Social Justice. 27:3
Little, David. (2007). Peacemakers in Action: Profiles of Religion in Conflict Resolution. Cambridge 
University Press. New York
Little, David, (2015) “Religion, Peace and the origins of Nationalism,” The Oxford Handbook of 
Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Liow, Joseph Chinyong. (2006). Muslim Resistance in Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines: 
Religion, Ideology and Politics., East West Center, Washington. 
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/system/tdf/private/PS024.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=32138http://www
.eastwestcenter.org/system/tdf/private/PS024.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=32138
McCargo, Duncan. (2010). “Thailand’s National Reconciliatino Commission: a flawed response to the 
Southern Conflict.” Global Change, Peace and Security. 22:1
Merriam, Dana. (2015). “Creating Peaceful and Sustainable Communities through the Spiritual 
Empowerment of Women in Buddhism and Hinduism.” Women, Religion and Peacebuilding: 
Illuminating the Unseen.” Susan Hayward and Katherine Marshall, eds. United State Institute of 
Peace, Washington, DC
Moberg, Marci, “Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding; An Introductory Guide.” Washington, DC, 
United States Institute of Peace, 
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadr501.pdfhttp://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadr501.pdf
Neufeldt, Reina C. (2011). “Interfaith Dialogue: Assessing Theories of Change,” Peace & Change, 
Vo.36 No.3, July 2011
Neufeldt, Reina, (forthcoming in 2016) “Vying for Good: Ethical Challenges at the intersection of 
Inter-religious and Secular Peacebuilding." Paper presentation at the 57th Annual International 
Studies Association Convention, March 18, 2016. Atlanta.
Nozell, Melissa. (2004). “Religious Leaders Countering Extremist Violence: How Policy Changes Can 
Help,” United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/religious￾leaders-countering-extremist-violence-how-policy-changes-can￾helphttp://www.usip.org/olivebranch/religious-leaders-countering-extremist-violence-how-policy-
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | C-7
changes-can-help
Omer, Atalia, Appleby, Scott and Little, David. eds. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Religion, 
Conflict and Peacebulding. Oxford University Press, New York
Omer, Atalia, (2015). “Religious Peacebuilding: the Exotic, the Good and the Theatrical,” The 
Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, 
New York
Parks, I. Thomas. (2009). “Maintaining Peace in a Neighbourhood Torn by Separatism: the Case fo 
Satun Province in Southern Thailand.” Small Wars and Insurgencies, 20:1
Philpott, Daniel. (2015). “Reconciliation, Politics and Transitional Justice. The Oxford Handbook of 
Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Ropers, Nobert and Anuvatudom, Mathus. (2014). “A Joint Learning Process for Stakeholders and 
Insider Peacebuilders: A Case Studye for Southern Thailand.” Asian Journal of Peaecbuilding. Vol. 2 
No.2 
Rogers, Mark, Chassey, Aaron and Bamat, Tom. (2010). “Integrating Peacebuilding into Humanitarian 
Development Programming.” Catholic Relief Services, Maryland.
Rogers, Mark., Bamat, Tom., and Ideh, Julie., eds. (2008). Pursuing Just Peace: An Overview and Case 
Studies of Faith-based Peacebuilders. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, Maryland
Rothman, Jay. (1997). Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: in Nations, Organizations, and Communities. 
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Said Abdul and Funk, Natham C. (2002). “The Role of Faith in Cross-Cultural Conflict Resolution,” 
Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 9: No.1, Article 3 
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol9/iss1/3http://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol9/iss1/3
Sampson, Cynthia. (1997). “Religion and Peacebuilding,” in Peacemaking in International Conflict, ed. 
By I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen, United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC
Schirch, Lisa. (2015). “Ritual, Religion and Peacebuilding.” The Oxford Handbook of Religion, 
Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, New York
Schmidt, Stephanie L. (2015). Literature Review on Inter-Religious Action in Peacebuilding For the 
Effective Inter-Religious Action in Peacebuilding Program, CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, 
Cambridge, MA
Seiple, Robert A., Hoover, Dennis R. (2004). Religion & Security: the New Nexus in International 
Relations, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Maryland
Silvestri, Sara and Mayall, James. (2015). “The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding,” The 
British Academy, London
Slifka, Alan, ed. (1998). The Handbook on Interethnic Coexistence. Continuum, New York
Smock Dave., ed. (2002). “Religious Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace, 
Not War.” United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC
C-8 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Springs, Jason A. (2015). “Structural and Cultural Violence in Religion and Peacebuilding.” The 
Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding, Atalia Omer ed. Oxford University Press, 
New York
Steele, David A., (2006). “Religious Aspects of Conflict and its Resolution,” A paper presented at the 
Oslo Forum06.
Steele, David. (2013). “Creative Approaches to Conflict Transformation in Societies Effected by 
Extremist Religion,” University of California, San Diego
Thistlethwaite, Susan and Glen Stassen. (2008). “Abrahamic Alternatives to War: Jewish, Christian, 
and Muslim Perspectives on Just Peacemaking.” Special Report, October 2008, US Institute of Peace. 
http://www.usip.org/resources/abrahamic-alternatives-war-jewish-christian-and-muslim- perspectives￾just-peacemaking 
Winterbothan, Emily and Rahimi, Fauzia. (2011). “Legacies of Conflict: Healing Complexes and 
Moving Forwards in Bamiyan Province.” Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit Case Study 
Series, 2011, Kabul 
Yoder, Carolyn. (2006), The Little Book of Trauma Healing: When Violence Strikes and Community 
Security is Threatened. Good Book, Intercourse, PA
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-1
 ANNEX D: CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS 
D-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-3
D-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-5
D-6 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-7
D-8 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-9
D-10 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-11
D-12 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-13
D-14 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | D-15
 
 
D-16 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | E-1
ANNEX E: ILLUSTRATIVE SET OF INDICATORS 
Variable 1: Community perceptions of the religious nature of the violent conflicts they have 
witnessed 
Definition: Extent to which community level people attribute the violence they have witnessed to 
differences in religious beliefs, values, and practices of community members.
Suggested indicators Data 
collection 
Methods
Phase of Assessment
Design Implementing Monitoring Evaluation
% of community level 
interviewees who believe 
that the violence they have 
witnessed is as a result 
differences in religious 
beliefs, values, and practices 
between the parties in 
conflict.
Surveys, KIIs, 
FGDs
X X X X
% of respondents who 
believe that religious 
leaders have played active 
roles in inciting people to 
fight in defense of their faith 
in the conflict.
Surveys, KIIs, 
FGDs
X X X X
Variable 2: Influence of religious leaders in the public space in support of peacebuilding 
Definition: Extent to which people of different faiths act in accordance with the views, advice, 
guidance, or instructions a religious leader gives?
Suggested indicators Data 
collection 
Methods
Phase of Assessment
Design Implementing Monitoring Evaluation
E-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
i) # of people (disaggregated 
by gender, age, level of education, 
and religious affiliation) who 
report listening to radio 
programs, attending conferences 
or meetings where the religious 
leader is scheduled to speak or 
reading speeches or other 
literature the religious leaders 
puts out.
Survey
X X X
ii) Number of people, 
disaggregated as above who 
report changing their perceptions, 
attitudes, behaviors, or practices 
related to the conflict as a result 
of what they have learned from 
the religious leader.
KIIs, 
FGDs
X X
iii) Number of times 
respondents report seeing a 
religious leader invited to 
participate in peace negotiation or 
mediation processes at local, 
regional, or national levels.
Survey
X X
iv) Extent to which public 
officials, civil society leaders, and 
international actors consult the 
religious leader in matters related 
to peacebuilding.
KII
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | E-3
Variable 3 (set): Contribution of Women Leaders on peacebuilding in religious settings 
Definition Suggested 
indicators
Data 
collection 
Methods
Phase of Assessment
Design Implementing Monitoring Evaluation
The types of 
spaces of 
influence 
available to 
women in 
religious 
settings to lead 
processes in 
peacebuilding
Type of spaces 
of influence 
disaggregated 
by location i.e. 
community, 
institutional 
(church, 
mosque or 
temple level), 
and nationally 
(e.g. platforms, 
associations, 
networks) that 
are available to 
women in 
different 
religious 
settings to 
access and use 
to contribute 
to 
peacebuilding
Survey, 
KIIs
X X X X
Negotiation of 
new spaces in 
religious 
settings for 
peacebuilding
Extent to 
which women 
are successful 
in negotiating 
new spaces of 
influence in 
religious 
settings to 
contribute to 
peacebuilding
Surveys, 
KIIs
X X X
E-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Usage of 
existing spaces 
in religious 
settings for 
peacebuilding
Extent to 
which women 
use existing 
spaces of 
influence in 
their religious 
settings to 
contribute to 
peacebuilding
Surveys, 
KIIs
X X X
Women’s 
engagement 
the public 
space
Extent to 
which women 
use these 
opportunities 
they have in 
religious 
settings to 
influence 
policy on 
peacebuilding 
and 
reconciliation 
initiatives
Surveys, 
KIIs
X X X
 
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-1
ANNEX F: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
EVALUATION PURPOSE
To contribute to the limited body of knowledge on the nexus of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding 
relevant to development programming, USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian 
Assistance, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (DCHA/CMM) initiated a thematic 
evaluation of four Global Reconciliation Fund15 projects. These projects, which are located in the 
Deep South of Thailand and the Central African Republic (CAR), seek to apply people-to-people 
(P2P) to support peacebuilding. The projects were chosen because they cited religion in their 
conflict analysis as one of the issues involved in the conflict between the feuding groups. The TOR 
of this learning evaluation (reference Section C) set out the the objectives of this evaluation as 
follows:
● To determine to what extent religious identity and work with religious actors factored into 
program design, including theories of change, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and 
results achieved.
● To validate and/or revise the nine “Lessons Learned” as published in USAID's “Religion, 
Conflict and Peacebuilding Toolkit.”
● To contribute to the body of evidence regarding which inter-religious, peacebuilding 
programming strategies are effective and potentially replicable.
The evaluation findings and recommendations are intended to be used for the following: 
● To update guidance for USAID field staff and implementing partners on lessons learned and 
best practices for peacebuilding programs in inter-religious conflict contexts.
● To inform design of future year Reconciliation Fund programs. 
● To inform DCHA/CMM’s new training course for “Advanced Conflict-Related Program 
Design, Monitoring and Evaluation” for USAID staff.
● To publish and support adoption of lessons learned and best practices in the broader 
development and peacebuilding communities, including the United States Government (USG) 
interagency. 
APPROACH & AUDIENCE
 
15 Since 2004, USAID has managed the Global Reconciliation Fund program in accordance with a Congressional 
appropriation to provide funding for reconciliation-related programming (Section 7060(f) of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76, Division K). The objective of the Global 
Reconciliation Fund is “to make significant strides in the overall goal of conflict mitigation, peace, and reconciliation through 
the implementation of people-to-people (P2P) activities in selected eligible conflict-affected countries.” (
SOL-OAA-15-
000138 - Task One Statement of Work, p. 6.) USAID administers these funds through an annual grants program. These 
grants support projects that bring together people of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds from areas of 
unrest and war in order to promote conflict prevention, mitigation, and management.
F-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
The overall approach to this evaluation is grounded in Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE). UFE is 
based on the principle that an evaluation should be designed to address the intended uses of the 
evaluation’s targeted audience. This approach invites active engagement of intended users in 
evaluation design and implementation throughout the evaluation process. This evaluation is intended 
to be useful to a community of practice that includes audiences within and outside of U.S. 
government agencies. Specifically, DCHA/CMM seeks to apply learning to support its guidance, 
training and dissemination activities to improve peacebuilding and development objectives. USAID 
Mission staff from the Regional Development Mission for Asia (RDMA) and the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo (DRC) oversee the selected Global Reconciliation Fund programs. They will prioritize 
learning objectives useful for ongoing oversight of program activities and future planning related to 
peacebuilding programming. The USG interagency audience includes agencies that apply a conflict 
lens in better understanding operational environments and developing effective programming 
responsive to local dynamics. The four implementing partners as well as their local partners are also 
key evaluation audiences, both to support their own assessment of the grant-funded projects but 
also to apply to future engagement in analogous contexts. More broadly, the evaluation results are 
intended to support the international community of practice of donors, implementers, evaluators, 
and researchers interested in having insights into the nexus of religion, conflict, and peacebuilding. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
In consultation with DCHA/CMM, the evaluation team developed three primary research questions 
relevant to this evaluation. (For a list of primary and sub-questions, please see Table B-1: Evaluation 
Matrix.) The evaluation is not designed to assess overall performance of the participating grant 
recipient projects. Nor are these questions considered to be exhaustive of all lines of inquiry related 
to religious dynamics in peacebuilding and international development. They are intended to support 
learning that informs improved program design, planning, and implementation in situations in which 
religious aspects of operational contexts, identities, grievances, norms and institutions are relevant. 
The three primary questions are:
1. Implementation – What are the critical implementation activities and strategies needed to 
respond effectively to conflict where parties are mobilized around religious identities?
2. Effectiveness16 – In what ways did religious dynamics affect intended, unintended and actual 
project results?
3. Sustainability – How are any changes in attitudes, knowledge and behaviors related to 
dynamics between religious groups likely to continue after the projects’ conclusions?
Table B-1 Overall and Baseline Evaluation Questions and Sub-Questions 
OVERALL BASELINE
 
16 For the purposes of the thematic evaluation, effectiveness is defined consistent with OECD DAC evaluation criteria 
report (2007) on adaptations for peacebuilding: assessment of whether a program (1) Achieves or can be reasonably 
expected to achieve its stated or implicit objectives, and (2) Remains relevant to the issues of division or conflict (i.e., core 
grievances, contributions to peace). [K. Van Brabant. Peacebuilding How? Criteria to Assess and Evaluate Peacebuilding. 
Interpeace—International Peacebuilding Alliance. (2010)]
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-3
1. Implementation – What are the critical 
implementation activities and strategies needed to 
respond effectively to conflict where parties are 
mobilized around religious identities? 
1. Implementation – At start-up, what implementation 
activities and strategies were designed to respond 
effectively to conflict where parties are mobilized 
around religious identities? 
1A. How were religious actors (i.e., individuals and 
institutions) engaged as key stakeholders, partners and 
beneficiaries in program activities to support 
peacebuilding objectives? How did this engagement vary 
from secular actors? 
1a. At project start-up, what were the roles of 
religious actors (i.e., individuals and institutions) in 
project activities? How did these roles vary from 
secular actors?
1B. What were the expected and unexpected 
implementation challenges, facilitators and opportunities
related to religious dynamics? What were project 
responses?
1b. What were the expected implementation
challenges, facilitators and opportunities related to 
religious dynamics? How did the project take these 
into account at start-up?
1C. Over the course of implementation, in what ways 
did the program participants and beneficiaries find the 
religious dimensions of the program to be relevant to 
the conflict? 
1c. At project start-up, in what ways did the program 
participants (including project staff) and beneficiaries 
consider the religious dimensions of the project to be 
relevant to the conflict? 
2. Effectiveness – In what ways did religious dynamics 
affect intended, unintended and actual project results?
2. Effectiveness – At start-up, in what ways were 
religious dynamics expected to affect intended project 
results?
2A. What, if any, contributions were made by the 
projects toward changes in attitudes, knowledge and 
behaviors toward, within and among religious actors as 
well as secular actors?
2a. At project start-up, what were the attitudes, 
knowledge and behaviors of religious actors as well as 
secular actors that the projects seek to change or 
influence?
2B. What were the roles of religious actors (i.e., 
individuals and institutions) and how effective were they 
in mitigating conflict and peacebuilding? How did this 
differ from and interact with related secular leaders or 
institutional structures? 
2b. At project start-up, how effective are the targeted
religious actors (i.e., individuals and institutions) in 
mitigating conflict and peacebuilding [NOTE: relevant 
to project’s peacebuilding objectives]? How did this 
differ from and interact with related secular leaders or 
institutional structures? 
2C. How did messaging by religious actors referencing 
religious practices, beliefs and values affect program 
outcomes?
2c. At project start-up, what messaging was articulated 
by religious actors (i.e., individuals and institutions) in 
reference to religious practices, beliefs and values as 
they relate to the project’s intended outcomes?
2D. To what extent did engaging religious components 
of the program affect intended results? How did these 
results vary by religious identity and for men, women, 
youth and minority groups?
2d. At project start-up, what are the religious 
considerations for project components? 
F-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
2E. To what extent did program results validate theories 
of change related to intra- and inter-religious conflict 
and peacebuilding? Did these Theories of Change related 
to religious dynamics need to be revised through the 
course of implementation? If so, in what ways and 
around what issues?
2e. What were the initial project theories of change 
related to intra- and inter-religious conflict and 
peacebuilding? 
2F. How did the projects’ efforts to address intra- and 
inter-religious dynamics contribute to “peace writ 
large”?
2f. At project start-up, how did the project define the 
intended contributions of intra- and inter-religious 
dynamics to “peace writ large”?
3. Sustainability – How are any changes in attitudes, 
knowledge and behaviors related to dynamics between 
religious groups likely to continue after the projects’ 
conclusions? 
3. Sustainability – How are any changes in attitudes, 
knowledge and behaviors related to dynamics between 
religious groups expected to continue after the 
projects’ conclusions? 
3A. What capabilities, processes, institutions or 
relationships were established or enhanced that are 
likely to support ongoing adaptability of achieved results? 
What else might contribute to sustainability?
3a. What aspects of the planned project design and 
activities related to religion are intended to support 
adaptability of expected results?
3B. What external conditions are likely to support or 
undermine sustainability?
3b. At project start-up, what are the foreseeable 
factors that are likely to support or undermine 
sustainability?
REVISED EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The following evaluation questions are based on expert written and verbal feedback on the PEACE 
Task One Baseline Report. Experts included evaluators, researchers and academics (some with 
implementation experience), including representatives from USAID’s Office of Conflict Management 
and Mitigation (CMM) and the U.S. Department of State. Reviewers were asked to support refinement 
of the evaluation questions based on: (1) Potential learning opportunities afforded by the study of 
USAID/CMM’s four selected P2P Reconciliation Fund projects, and (2) Gaps in knowledge pertaining 
to religion, peacebuilding and conflict amongst the international development community of practice. 
Following the external review process. The evaluation team incorporated feedback through an 
iterative process that included: definition of terminology; relevancy of the final report’s use by USAID 
and implementers; opportunity for baseline and endline comparisons; and feasibility of useable data 
resulting from endline activities.
These revised evaluation questions take into account the following parameters:
(1) Completion of baseline data collection, analysis and reporting based on original evaluation 
questions.
(2) Selection of four P2P Reconciliation Fund projects in Central African Republic and South 
Thailand.
(3) Lack of explicit religious identity and dynamics in selected projects’ design and implementation. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-5
Requirements of the U.S. Establishment Clause,17 which require all USG-funded projects to have 
a secular purpose that does not advance or inhibit religion and does not favor or discriminate 
against beneficiaries based on religious identity. 
The footnotes attached to the below evaluation questions are intended to facilitate the internal 
process of review and are not intended to be considered attached to the finalized version. Footnoted 
definitions developed for the purposes of this evaluation will be included in a glossary of terms for the 
final report. 
 
17 Text of establishment clause as stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is stated as follows 
(emphasis added): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
F-6 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Table of Baseline and Endline Evaluation Questions 
ENDLINE REFERENCE TO BASELINE ANALYSIS 
IMPLEMENTATION 
IMPLEMENTATION: What are the critical 
implementation activities and strategies for 
projects working in settings where parties are 
mobilized around religious identities?
1A. How are religious actors18 engaged to support 
project objectives?
1. Religious Actors
2. Religious Roles
3. Motivations
1B. How is religion taken into consideration in 
project implementation?
Conflict Assessment
Staffing
Procurement
M&E
1C. How did projects design, conduct, and 
sequence intra-religious and inter-religious 
activities?
Intra-religious
Inter-religious
Sequencing
 
18 The evaluation team defines religious actors as individuals, institutions, or identity groups that engage in conflict or peacebuilding because of the inspirations, motivations, 
beliefs, or values derived from their faith. They can include actors in formal leadership positions affiliated with religious institutions, unofficial actors whose influence is 
grounded in religious identity, and non-religious (secular) actors that are motivated by religious values, preferences, biases or messages. 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-7
ENDLINE REFERENCE TO BASELINE ANALYSIS 
1D. What are the Do No Harm considerations 
arising from the implementation experiences of 
these projects?19
Preparation or capacitation of staff; 
Locations and safe spaces of project activities; 
Accommodation for religious practices, rites and traditions; 
Instrumentalization of religion; 
Threats to legitimacy, 
Status, safety, or efficacy of project participants; 
In appropriate exclusion or inclusion
EFFECTIVENESS 
2. EFFECTIVENESS: How does inclusion of 
religious dimensions affect the project’s intended 
or unintended results?20 
2A. How does attention or lack of attention to 
religious dimensions impact results?
social cohesion; 
attitudes of enmity; 
resiliency; or 
resistance to violence
how religious dimensions supported or undermined results.
 
19 Possible Do No Harm considerations might relate to preparation or capacitation of staff; locations and safe spaces of project activities; accommodation for religious 
practices, rites and traditions; instrumentalization of religion; threats to legitimacy, status, safety, or efficacy of project participants; in appropriate exclusion or inclusion. For 
a summary of the types of Do No Harm considerations identified at project start-up, refer to the Baseline Report, Table 3: Plans for Inclusion of Religious Considerations in 
Project Components.
20 Possible project results may include changes in social cohesion; attitudes of enmity; resiliency or resistance to violence. For a summary of each project’s expected results 
at start-up, refer to the Baseline Report, Table 2: Expected Changes in Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior; Table 5: Approaches and Activities Leading to Expected Change.
F-8 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
ENDLINE REFERENCE TO BASELINE ANALYSIS 
Expected Changes in Attitudes, Knowledge and Behavior; Table 5: Approaches and Activities Leading to 
Expected Change. 
2B. How effective are the projects’ religious 
actors in their project roles? What factors 
supported or worked against their efficacy?
differentiation or similarities of these actors from secular actor counterparts. 
government officials may be motivated by personal religious beliefs.
2C. What were the religious messages used by 
the projects, how were they disseminated, and 
to what effect?
Messages by religious actors
Religious messages by secular actors
Modes of dissemination
2D. How does involvement of religious 
dimensions lead to disparate results based on 
identity of project participants?
Youth v. adult
Male v. Female
Minority v. majority 
Christian v. Muslim
2E. What were the religious dimensions of 
Theories of Change in use by the projects and 
corresponding assumptions? 
TOC
Assumptions
Expected Results
PWL
2F. What external factors affected the projects’ 
outcomes and how did each respond?
External factors supportive of objectives.
External factors undermining objectives
SUSTAINABILITY 
3. SUSTAINABILITY: How does inclusion of 
religious dimensions affect the project’s 
sustainability of results? 
capabilities, 
processes, 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-9
ENDLINE REFERENCE TO BASELINE ANALYSIS 
institutions or 
relationships 
F-10 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
EVALUATION DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The evaluation had three phases: collaborative design (January-February, April 2016), baseline data 
collection and analysis (March, May-August 2016), and end of project data collection and analysis 
(March 2017, June 2018, and August 2018). Democracy International’s evaluation team was 
responsible for design, implementation and management of the overall evaluation. The DI team 
members included DI home office staff (Director of Analytical Services, Senior Program Manager, 
Program Officer and Program Assistant), Evaluation Team Leader, Senior Conflict Specialist, two 
Local Conflict Specialists, two Logisticians, and five Interpreters. USAID evaluation team members 
provided technical input and guidance on issues of contract adherence and evaluation 
implementation. In Thailand, USAID personnel (DCHA/CMM Contracting Officer’s Representative, 
DCHA/CMM Conflict Analyst, USAID/RDMA Project Management Specialist) participated in some 
interviews and preliminary analysis and provided real-time guidance on adapting the evaluation design 
to the local context. When involving USAID personnel in the field data collection in Thailand, careful 
attention was made to Do No Harm concerns with respect to both IPs’ USAID branding waivers. 
Specifically, IPs indicated that the evaluation team was not to identify the evaluation or Reconciliation 
Fund projects with the U.S. government when meeting with project beneficiaries or other 
community members. This created some ethical tension for the evaluation team between “informed 
consent” and Do No Harm considerations, as at IPs’ request some participants were intentionally 
not informed that the project itself and DI’s work were commissioned by USG.
Phase 1: Collaborative Design
During Phase 1 (Thailand prep: January to February, 2016; CAR prep: April 2016), the evaluation 
team finalized evaluation design and prepared for Baseline data collection. The team consulted with 
key evaluation end users; reviewed background materials on the two geographic locations and four 
grant-supported projects; prepared a thematic study on current research related to the nexus of 
religion, conflict and peacebuilding; designed evaluation activities and tools; and worked with 
projects’ Implementing Partners to schedule field activities. 
Prior to field departure to Thailand, the evaluation team developed KII guides to ensure consistent 
collection of data across sites and respondents and customized collection for respondents with 
unique perspectives. Although the team did not pilot the tools, they underwent a process of data 
simulation to assure the tools were likely to lead to useable data responsive to evaluation questions. 
An essential step in Utilization-Focused Evaluation, data simulation is a process in which the 
evaluation team constructed likely findings based on the data collection tools. Based on this process 
as well as input from DCHA/CMM and IP staff, the team amended the tools prior to field work in 
Thailand. To respond to issues arising from actual use of tools, the team re-examined all data 
collection instruments mid-way through data collection in Thailand and prior to data collection in 
CAR. To ensure both continuity of use combined with flexibility and responsiveness to field 
conditions, the evaluation team stayed true to the intent of the evaluation questions but applied a 
collaborative process with IP and Mission staffs for adapting the form and sequence of the interview 
instruments. Once finalized, to support accurate interpretation in the field, the evaluation team also 
identified key concepts and terminology for translation.
Phase 2: Baseline Data Collection and Analysis
During Phase 2, the evaluation team conducted Baseline data collection and analysis activities in both 
Thailand (March 2016) and CAR (May 2016) for all four IP projects. The team conducted field work 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-11
over a three-week period in each country with site visits to all activity locations.21 Field-based 
activities included the in-briefs with both USAID Missions, IP staffs and local project partners; semi￾structured Key Informant Interviews (KII) in Thailand and CAR with IP staff and local partners and 
subject matter experts (1 hour); Focus Group Discussions (FGD) in CAR with likely beneficiaries (1 
hour); written surveys of a sample of Mor 1 students in Thailand (10 minutes); written surveys of 
FGD participants in CAR (10 minutes); Participatory Workshops in Thailand with IP and local 
partner staff (3 hours); and outbriefs with Thailand Mission personnel and IP staff. 
In consultation with evaluation team members, IP project staff recommended and recruited KII and 
FGD participants based on criteria defined by the evaluation team, including diversity of 
representation based on sex, religion, age and location. In Thailand, the evaluation team conducted 
KIIs with 91 respondents, of whom 40 percent (36 of 91) were female. Respondents types included 
IP staff and local partners; project advisor; government and private Islamic school principals, teachers 
and students; Muslim and Buddhist religious leaders; government officials; CSO leaders; and subject 
matter experts that included academics and journalists. In CAR, the field team met with 181 
respondents, 36 percent of whom were female (66 of 191), 75 percent Christian (135 of 181), 25% 
Muslim (46 of 181), 91 percent over the age of 25 years (164 of 177 respondents stating their age), 
and 9 percent 18 to 25 years of age (13 of 177 respondents stating their age). Types of respondents 
included IPs and local partners; prior or potential project participants (e.g., women group members, 
youth leaders, peer educators, Committee for Peace & Mediation members and awareness 
workshop participants), key stakeholders (e.g., religious leaders, government leaders and officials, 
journalists), and key subject-matter experts. The team conducted interviews and focus groups in 
English, Thai, Malay, French or Sango, depending on the preference of the respondents and with the 
support of local interpreters. 
FGDs were typically four to six individuals that included both men and women together, with the 
exception of some FGDs with women leaders only. FGDs included both Muslim and Christian 
participants except in Bossangoa where all Muslims had left or been evacuated from the area. Youth 
were defined as 18-25 years and adults above 25 years. Upon return from the field, the team post￾coded written notes from both KII and FGD in order to identify baseline measures for the 
evaluation questions. Although the evaluation is an aggregate evaluation across the two countries, 
the baseline analysis highlights specific examples from the four projects whenever there was notable 
variation from a dominant pattern. 
Joint field-based workshops in Thailand among evaluation team members and USAID/RDMA and 
DCHA/CMM team members provided an opportunity for mid-course review and corrections. 
Following completion of data collection activities focused on the KIA project, the teams met in 
Songkhla (South Thailand) to reflect on progress to date. This half-day discussion included review of 
the evaluation questions, emergent themes, gaps in understanding, and minor adjustments in data 
collection. The evaluation team with DCHA/CMM and RDMA evaluation participants conducted a 
similar review in Bangkok after completing all Deep Southern Thailand data collection with the 
 
21 South Thailand site visits included activities in Bangkok, Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces and border districts of 
Songkhla province. CAR site visits were in Bouar, Bangassou, Bossangoa and Bangui as well as nearby villages surrounding 
these principle towns. 
F-12 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
added focus on lessons learned and priorities for data collection in the upcoming field work in the 
Central African Republic.
Written survey respondents in the Deep South of Thailand were Mor 1 students (i.e., aged 12 and 
13 year olds) divided into two main groups. The first group was 42 students (64% girls, 36% boys, 
69% Buddhist, 31% Muslim) from three (of six) HOPE Yala project participant schools that were 
government schools still in session during the field work period (i.e., the other three schools were 
on academic breaks so students were unavailable). The second group was comprised of 77 private 
Islamic school Mor 1 students (72% girls, 28% boys, all Muslim). The Local Conflict Specialist 
identified two private schools22 based on being (1) in session at the time of the field work, and (2) 
located in the same community as the selected HOPE Yala participant school. At each of the non￾participant school, the school administration selected a class of boys and a class of girls to be 
surveyed. The Local Conflict Specialist conducted the survey and read each question in Thai as well
as providing clarification in local Malay, if needed. Respondent rates were 100 percent; however. The 
evaluation team logistician entered all data into Survey Monkey; the Evaluation Leader exported data 
into Excel for analysis.
Written survey respondents in CAR included all Focus Group Discussion participants. Of the 116 
respondents, 69 percent were from Zo Kwe Zo (77 or 116) and 34% were from ASPIRE (39 or 
116). Respondents were distributed somewhat evenly across Bangui (23%, 27 of 116 respondents), 
Bangassou (20%, 23 of 116) and Bossangoa (23%, 27 of 116) with the majority conducted in and 
around Bouar (34%, 39 or 116). The larger proportion is explained by a particularly large focus 
group of 17 women in that location. Of those the 112 responds providing their gender, 60% were 
men (67) and 40% were women (45). Of the 111 respondents providing religious identity 
information, 71 percent were Christian (79) and 29% were Muslim (32).
Evaluation team interpreters conducted the surveys, which were written in French but were also 
verbally translated into local language Sango, which is not a written language. The response rate was 
100 percent; however, some surveys were not completed correctly so were not included in the data 
analysis. The Local Conflict Specialist entered data into SPSS and conducted analysis. 
In Thailand’s Deep South, the evaluation team with DCHA/CMM and USAID/RDMA conducted an 
individualized three-hour participatory workshop with each project to discuss the project design at 
the baseline phase related to religious aspects of the operating environment, theories of change and 
project design. The HOPE Yala workshop included the KIA project manager and two project 
advisors. It focused on identification of key religious actors involved in project implementation, 
religious actor roles, and the baseline logic model that diagramed expected change pathways and 
project results. The PPST workshop included the two TAF local project managers and 
representatives of six of the eight local partner organizations (attended: B4P, MAC, Patani Forum, 
PAW, SPAN, WePeace; did not attend: ISTF, Saiburi Looker). The first part of the workshop 
focused on proposed PPST activities related to religion, with the understanding that specific activities 
had not yet been finalized. The second half focused on targeted attitudes, knowledge and behaviors 
related to religion that PPST expects to shift from baseline. In turn, these changes were linked to 
 
22 There were no private Islamic schools in session in the location where the third HOPE Yala participant school was 
located.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | F-13
Peace Writ Large objectives related to the negotiations with the Government of Thailand and 
community-based dispute resolution mechanisms. No workshops were conducted in CAR due to 
limitations on travel for evaluation team members and key IP personnel.23
PHASE 3 END OF PROJECT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR ENDLINE EVALUATION
Between the baseline and endline field data collection, the evaluation team monitored in-country 
contextual developments. The team read formal IP quarterly reports made available to it. The team 
drafted data collection tools for endline field data collection based on insights from these reports 
and input from DCHA/CMM. The baseline field work targeted the same categories of individuals as 
at Baseline. The team also consulted with DCHA/CMM and IPs to confirm approach in the field and 
ongoing utility of evaluation focus.
The evaluation team planned to conduct activities in the field for the endline similar to those 
performed for the baseline analysis. The team travelled to intervention sites to meet with local 
SMEs, IP and local partner staff, and beneficiaries and met with Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) to 
explore views on national dynamics or Peace Writ Large, . In the main, the team used KII protocols, 
FGD guides, and written surveys in CAR. The KIIs and FGD protocols were adopted for use in the 
Deep Southern Thailand endline study. The focus of these instruments was on changes from baseline 
and explanation of these changes focusing on testing of the TOC, effective or ineffective 
implementation strategies, intended and unintended outcomes, as well as the sustainability of results 
and contributions to Peace Writ Large. 
 
23 Travel between Bangui and implementation sites are via small United Nation humanitarian flights with limited itineraries, 
which restrict reservations to two organization members per flight.

UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | G-1
ANNEX G: DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS 
 
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 
 
48 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), 51 KII Respondents
41 Christian, 9 Muslim, 1 Other
38 Adult, 13 Youth
10 Female, 41 Male
13 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), 44 FGD Respondents
38 Christian, 6 Muslim
6 Adult, 38 Youth
19 Female, 25 male 
 
THAILAND 
 
18 KIIs, 36 KII Respondents
5 Buddhist, 31 Muslim
25 Adult, 11 Youth
19 Female, 17 Male
14 FGDs, 67 FGD Respondents
27 Buddhist, 40 Muslim
G-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
30 Adult, 37 Youth
34 Female, 33 Male
 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | H-1
ANNEX H: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES 
COELI BARRY, EVALUATION TEAM LEADER (PHASE 3 THAILAND)
Ms. Coeli Barry has over 15 years of experience leading the design and implementation of 
international social development programs. She has extensive experience in program evaluation in 
Thailand, having worked on various peace building, conflict management and governance, and 
political conflict and reconciliation projects. She is an experienced methodologist with expertise 
working with religious and ethnic conflict in Southeast Asia, including inter-faith dialogue trainings. 
She has proven research excellence and project direction in human rights, democracy, and religious 
and ethnic conflict. She has worked as the Team Leader and Technical Specialist for a USAID-funded 
conflict and governance project in Thailand, the lead evaluator for the Supporting Peace Building in 
Southern Thailand program implemented by The Asia Foundation, and the Senior Researcher for a 
UNDP government reconciliation program in Bangkok. She has also designed and implemented 
performance and program impact measurements for international academic programs and for 
externally funded projects on human rights education and improving research competencies on 
peacebuilding and conflict resolution for the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol 
University. She has a strong record of writing about religious and ethnic conflict in Southeast Asia, 
having published various works. Additionally, she speaks proficient Thai. 
HIPPOLYT PUL, LOCAL CONFLICT SPECIALIST (CAR) AND SENIOR CONFLICT/SUBJECT MATTER 
SPECIALIST (PHASE 3 THAILAND)
Dr. Pul has 25+ years of experience in local and international development planning and 
management; governance and civic engagement initiatives; peacebuilding and conflict transformation 
programming; and research, monitoring, and evaluation. He has proven experience in the design, 
delivery, monitoring, and evaluation of multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral, and integrated interventions, 
especially in economic and social sector interventions in agriculture, education, health, and 
humanitarian assistance. He has extensive expertise and experience working with faith-based 
organizations. Additionally, he has great facilitation and training expertise in conflict analysis, 
transformation, and peacebuilding. He has a deep, lifelong involvement with religious peacebuilding, 
working primarily in Africa but also globally on peacebuilding efforts. He is currently the executive 
director of the Institute of Peace and Development in Tamale, Ghana, carrying out independent 
research on peace, governance, and development issues in Africa and providing consultancy services 
in conflict assessments, peacebuilding, governance, and socioeconomic development. He has also 
worked as the Coordinator of the Africa Justice and Peace Working Group, and he has held various 
positions with Catholic Relief Services, including serving as the Deputy Regional Director for 
Program Quality and Regional Advisor on Governance, Global Solidarity, Advocacy, and Partnerships 
for the Catholic Relief Services West and Central Africa Regions and Deputy Country 
Representative and Head of Programming for Ghana. Dr. Pul has a PhD in International Conflict 
Analysis and Resolution. 
JENNIFER KUIPER, EVALUATION TEAM LEADER (PHASE 1, PHASE 2, AND PHASE 3 CAR)
Jennifer Kuiper has over 15 years’ experience leading, managing, and designing evaluations, programs, 
projects, and budgets in diverse policy arenas with a focus on fragile and conflict-affected states 
(FCS). Kuiper has served as Team Lead on USAID performance evaluations, been a part of 
USAID/CMM conflict assessments, and holds certifications in Gender & Conflict and Advanced 
Conflict Assessment. She has been the primary author on evaluation and assessment reports and 
briefed DC and Mission staff on key findings and recommendations. She has also supported USAID 
H-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
implementing partners in establishing monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems, including 
development of indicators, benchmarks, targets, and data collection instruments. Kuiper has worked 
on peacebuilding issues on several levels, including at the grassroots with Israeli/Palestinian 
nonviolent movements, organizationally in support of field assessments for the Nonviolent 
Peaceforce (unarmed civilian protection), institutional policy in supporting the World Bank’s 
development of approaches to trauma sensitive programming in FCS, program evaluation of USIP’s 
work with ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq, and evaluation practices in serving on the 
Peacebuilding Evaluation Project working group (sponsored by USIP and the Alliance for 
Peacebuilding). She has interviewed and coordinated with religious stakeholders in past evaluations 
and field research, including imams, rabbis, priests, ministers, traditional leaders, and heads of 
religious institutions. 
MARK ROGERS, SENIOR CONFLICT/SUBJECT MATTER SPECIALIST (PHASE 1, PHASE 2, AND PHASE 3 
CAR)
Mark Rogers is a peacebuilding and community development expert with over 25 years of 
experience consulting on peacebuilding design and implementation. He has led external evaluations 
of peacebuilding programs that address capacity building in Southern Nations Nationalities and 
People Region (SNNPR) Ethiopia for Mercy Corps, community stabilization in Gambella Region, 
Ethiopia for Pact, internal evaluations of faith-based peacebuilding in Burundi for Catholic Relief 
Services, and peace media and conflict resolution training in the Democratic Republic of Congo for 
Search for Common Ground. Under the auspices of MSI, Mr. Rogers led an assessment team 
contracted by USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation to explore the relationship 
between development, conflict, instability, and the potential for terrorism in Niger, Chad, and 
Mauritania. Mr. Rogers has published numerous works on capacity building and program design and 
evaluation including Designing for Results- Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict 
Transformation Programs, a manual for peacebuilding field practitioners. As Country Director in 
Burundi for Search for Common Ground, Mr. Rogers was responsible for the overall direction and 
management of a large multi-faceted peacebuilding program, including strategic planning, program 
development, fundraising, finance, host government relations, and representational duties. As 
Program Director for the Life & Peace Institute in Sweden, Mr. Rogers provided technical assistance 
and quality oversight to the programs in the DRC, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, and the region. 
As Program Director, he also led development of a handbook on Participatory Action Research for 
Conflict Transformation. Mr. Rogers has designed and implemented numerous workshops for 
peacebuilding practitioners, covering topics such as needs assessments, de-briefing, lesson planning, 
monitoring, and adult learning. 
PHAISON DA-OH, LOCAL CONFLICT SPECIALIST (THAILAND)
Phaison Da-oh is an accomplished Thai academic with nearly a decade of experience conducting 
research on conflict and peacebuilding, with a particular focus on inter-religious peacebuilding and 
religious identity. He has worked extensively in the Deep South Thailand to examine and analyze 
peacebuilding efforts and investigate drivers of conflict. Mr. Da-oh conducted a public opinion survey 
on the incidence of violence, peacebuilding efforts, and the current political situation in the Deep 
South. He is also engaged in research on the role of local administration in supporting the 
peacebuilding process in the Deep South. In 2014, Mr. Da-oh conducted a situational assessment in 
the Deep South, during which he conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups with at-risk men 
and youth to determine their motivations and means of engagement in violent conflict. Mr. Da-oh 
has presented and written extensively on issues of peacebuilding and conflict, focusing on the roles 
of democracy, religion, and local leadership in the peacebuilding process. In addition to his work in 
Southern Thailand, Mr. Da-oh has conducted research on conflict and civil society in Indonesia and 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | H-3
Malaysia. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the Aligarh Muslim University in 
India and his Master’s degree in Political Science from the Jamia Milia Islamiah University in India. Mr. 
Da-oh is currently pursuing his doctorate in Peace Studies from the Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is 
fluent in Thai, Malay, and English. 

UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | I-1
ANNEX I: PROGRAM THEORIES OF CHANGE 
KENAN INSTITUTE ASIA: HEALING, OPPORTUNITY, PEACE AND ENGAGEMENT FOR YOUTH IN 
YALA (HOPE-YALA)
To address the lack of trust between Muslims and Buddhists in six communities in Yala, the project’s 
theory of change draws heavily from the attitudinal theory of change and holds that “If youth 
(students in 7th-9th grade, boys and girls, Muslim and Buddhist) are used as an important connector 
to create social space where people can interact naturally, then people will address their grievances 
through non-violent political discourse, because their attitudes toward those they are in conflict with 
will change to be more accepting, as barriers are be broken down, trust is established, and links to 
the home, community and future are be enhanced.” The project goal in support of peace writ-large 
is: Build trust between Muslim and Buddhists in six communities in Yala by changing the attitudes of 
individuals and groups. The Healing, Opportunity, Peace and Engagement for Youth in Yala (HOPE￾Yala), Thailand Project is designed with a significant amount of input from local leaders and experts 
working in the deep South and draws heavily on lessons learned from the HOPE-Pattani project. For 
example, key to the success of HOPE-Pattani was carefully structured interactions with community 
and religious leaders by using trusted members of society (such as the project advisors and partners 
from the deep South) to explain project details, and then having the leaders present the project at 
community meetings. Another key lesson learned was carefully structuring community meetings to 
ensure meetings remained positive and focused and did no harm – for instance, meeting times were 
much longer than originally planned to ensure all participants had a chance to be heard. Additionally, 
it became apparent quickly under HOPE-Pattani that even though a “go slow” approach has been 
utilized, even the original estimates were optimistic and quickly changed to meet local cultural 
expectations and ensure buy-in. All of these techniques will be utilized in HOPE-Yala.
In support of the project goal, three intermediate results have been identified that when achieved 
will mean the project goal has been achieved:
I.R.1: Creating Social Space: Social space where people of different religious beliefs can interact 
naturally and discuss community needs, centered on youth and community development, is created.
This IR is based on the sub-theory of change that “If the important connectors are used to create 
social space where people can interact naturally, then people will address their grievances through 
non-violent discourse, because their attitudes toward those they are in conflict with will change to 
be more accepting.”
It is premised on two important assumptions: 1. Connectors are important enough to participants to 
overcome currently held attitudes about others. 2. The attitude change will extend beyond the 
connector to understanding of conflict grievances.
These activities take place in safe locations and are run with the presence of project advisors, 
partners and/or local community and religious leaders.
I.R.2: Building Youth Leaders: Youth leaders use their leadership skills to settle grievances and build 
trust. This IR is based on the sub-theory of change that “If opportunities are provided for youth to 
interact with youth from the other conflict groups using interesting connectors, improve links to the 
home, community and future by giving them important leadership skills to help organize community 
members for positive change, then trust between Buddhist and Muslim students can be increased.”
It is premised on four important assumptions: 1. Youth are willing to join a project that has 
interaction with others of a different religious group. 2. The target is on the appropriate “Good 
I-2 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
Youth” youth leaders. 3. Connectors are strong enough to bring youth from different religious 
backgrounds together for a common purpose.
I.R.3: Building Key Actors: Civil society leaders are confident to lead activities in support of 
community needs. This IR is based on the sub-theory of change that “If the capacities are built on 
key actors to communicate and work with others effectively in meeting community needs in support 
of youth, then they will have more success in influencing each other’s actions, because they will have 
the skills and experience to engage in dialogue.”
It is premised on two important assumptions: Training is relevant and participants choose to apply 
the methodologies in their work and to assist youth. 2. The skills and experience gained are 
sufficient to influence key actors.
Key to this approach is the use of respect community members and leaders who have been 
recruited to support the project, such as the project advisors and the local partners. Utilizing these 
key people as advisors helps been project credibility and ensures community expectations are met 
and do no harm.
THE ASIA FOUNDATION: PROMOTING PEACE IN SOUTHERN THAILAND
The protracted subnational conflict in southern Thailand is rooted in the vertical cleavages that 
divide the Malay-Muslim population and the failure of the central government to address the 
grievances of that community. Ongoing conflict has accentuated horizontal cleavages that, as 
symptoms of the conflict, reflect the complex dynamics of elite relations and the impact of violence 
on secular relations between Malay-Muslims and Thai-Buddhists. While high-level negotiations such 
as those briefly transacted in 2013 are critical, other interventions are required to mitigate contests 
among local elite actors and rising inter-communal tensions that could undermine high-level 
initiatives. They are necessary to limit day-to-day violence, enhance community and local elite 
support for future peace efforts, and to bolster resuming high-level talks. To this end, civil society 
organizations (CSOs), in particular women’s organizations, and trusted community-based religious 
and secular leaders are well- placed to act as conveners of secular people-to-people (P2P) 
engagement to facilitate dialogue and build trust amongst conflicting groups at the community and 
local elite levels—a critical step in addressing horizontal societal cleavages. Improvements in these 
horizontal relationships will contribute to an enabling environment for the State and insurgent 
groups to resume peace talks. To this end, the project’s theory of change posits that if trust and 
common understanding among conflicting groups at the community and local elite levels are 
increased, it will help ameliorate day-to-day violence and will result in bottom-up pressure in 
support of peace that will improve the likelihood of higher-level peace talks succeeding in future. 
This will also include top-down elements in that trusted leaders whose capacity and confidence are 
developed will be positioned to serve as conduits of information and understanding of high-level 
conflict-related events and other developments associated with senior government leaders and 
other stakeholders back to their communities. The trust and common understanding building that 
guides the theory of change and project plan is for the secular purpose of ending conflict and 
promoting peaceful relations among all community groups in the South.
MERCY CORPS: ADVANCING SOLUTIONS FOR PEACE THROUGH INTERCOMMUNITY 
RECONCILIATION AND ENGAGEMENT (ASPIRE)
Mercy Corps recognizes that until the above-mentioned sources of grievance, particularly 
inter­ group tensions and the lack of economic opportunities, are addressed, the population 
of Bouar will remain vulnerable to violence and conflict. Therefore, ASPIRE aims to support 
the Bouar Inter-religious Platform in building and strengthening community-based Peace 
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | I-3
Committees comprised of leaders of all faiths as well as women and youth. The goals of these 
Peace Committees are to manage inter-group tensions, rebuild community cohesion, and 
strengthen pluralism. To achieve these goals, ASPIRE is built on three theories of change:
• Theory of Change 1: If community leaders and disaffected youth from across lines of 
division collaborate to monitor and peacefully respond to conflicts, then they will be 
better able to help their communities resolve disputes and mitigate rising tensions, 
and violence will be reduced in targeted areas. Amidst sporadic lootings, killings, and
attacks against civilians, community leaders of all faiths have come together as the 
Bonar Inter­ Religious Platform to mitigate conflict. The Platform has potential to play a
much greater role in establishing community-based mechanisms to successfully resolve 
disputes. At the same time, disaffected youth and women remain critically on the 
margins. Mercy Corps believes that by building the conflict mitigation skills of 
influential community leaders, women, and disaffected youth in Bonar, there is a 
greater chance of effectively resolving disputes and rebuilding social cohesion.
• Theory of Change 2: If community leaders and disaffected youth identify and 
implement inter-group social and economic development projects, then they can have
a direct impact on inter-group tensions and social cohesion at the community level.
Conflict destroys economic infrastructure, disrupts trade, and distorts markets. It also 
leads to a winner­ take-all mentality that destroys the trust necessary for business to 
flourish. When communities are trapped in cycles of violence, it is often hard to
imagine that cooperation with an adversary can lead to economic or social benefits.
Mercy Corps has implemented programs that integrate peacebuilding and economic 
development in a wide range of conflict and post-conflict contexts. Using market 
development tools to rebuild economic ties that have been severed, we work to 
create economic incentives for peace. Projects that bring together different groups will
help people earn income as well as respect within communities, thereby promoting
them as agents of peace.
• Theory of Change 3: If community leaders and disaffected youth speak out in favor of 
peace, then community members will be less likely to view violence as a legitimate 
way to resolve differences, and strong constituencies for peace will connect with 
national decision-makers. Mercy Corps' experience has shown that working with local 
stakeholders to resolve disputes and promote economic cooperation enables them to 
promote peace locally but also contribute to national conflict mitigation efforts. Mercy 
Corps will train and mentor the most influential leaders to speak out in favor of peace
and present a positive vision for the future to their peers. Young people can take on 
more prominent role in promoting pluralist youth voices in support of peace both in 
their community andbeyond.
SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND: ZO KWE ZO: ALL PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE 
This project is underpinned by three theories of change, closely tied to the conflict dynamics within 
CAR. The first is within the ‘Changing Institutions’ family, and is based on the analysis of CAR as 
historically lacking functioning formal and informal institutions that could meet the basic needs of 
I-4 | UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM
the population. The absence of such mechanisms has meant that citizens have often turned to 
violence or criminality as a solution to their grievances. This project thus posits that the 
transitional structures in place in CAR must be supported to be able to respond to popular 
expectations; otherwise a return to violence is highly likely. The “transitional institutions” theory 
of change is thus:
• If capacity and strategic support is provided to civil society to participate in transitional 
processes, then both civil society and transitional institutions will be better equipped to 
design and implement durable peace strategies.
The other two theories are within the family of ‘Shifting Attitudes’, focusing on changing 
perceptions about the perceived enemy and about the value of peace versus violence:
• If conflicting parties engage collaboratively and constructively in their community through 
joint learning and action, then they will become less distrustful, more understanding of each 
other, and more resistant to violent mobilization.
• If women and men are exposed to non-violent voices and to messaging that promotes 
inclusive community-building, then they will be better able to accept and peacefully 
coexist with individuals from different identity groups.
These theories tackle the relationship between conflicting parties, positing that social contact, 
combined with public normative messaging on inclusivity, enables the breaking down of 
stereotypes and the humanizing the “Other”. This then has the effect of discouraging violence as a 
solution to conflict. It is a process that is critical to CAR, not only to restore peaceful cohabitation 
between currently segregated communities, but also to lay the foundation for a peaceful return 
and reintegration of displaced people.
UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS IDENTITY AND PEACEBUILDING IN THE P2P RECONCILIATION FUND PROGRAM | J-1