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. PHOTO: JUAN PABLO LUQUE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID/COLOMBIA PROGRAMA DE ALIANZAS PARA LA RECONCILIACION Prepared by Democracy International, Inc. USAID/Colombia Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation (C-AME) Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00017, Order No. AID-514-TO-17-0010 Submitted to: USAID/Colombia Prepared by: Olga Nazario, Team Lead William Orlando Prieto, Senior Performance Evaluation Local Expert Juan Camilo Rivera, Performance Evaluation Local Expert Katherine Pineda, Logistician USAID/Colombia Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation (C-AME) Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00017, Order No. AID-514-TO-17-0010 USAID Contracting Officer’s Representative: Hernando Sanchez February 17, 2021 Contractor: Democracy International, Inc. 7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1010 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-961-1660 www.democracyinternational.com CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................I PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.......................................................1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS........................................................4 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................5 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 ...................................................................................9 FINDINGS 9 CONCLUSIONS 17 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 .................................................................................19 FINDINGS 19 CONCLUSIONS 22 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 .................................................................................23 FINDINGS 23 CONCLUSIONS 28 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................29 ANNEX A: EVALUATION SOW .............................................................................1 ANNEX B: LIST OF PROJECTS AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.....................3 ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ..............................................................6 ANNEX D: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED20 ANNEX E: TEAM MEMBER DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST23 LIST OF ACRONYMS C-AME Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation CDCS Colombia Country Development Strategy CNMH National Center for Historical Memory DI Democracy International DO Development Objective ET Evaluation Team FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia GOC Government of Colombia INDEPAZ Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Paz LBGTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning PAR Program of Alliances for Reconciliation PE Performance Evaluation PPA Public-Private Alliance USAID United States Agency for International Development I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USAID/Colombia, through the Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation Activity (C-AME) implemented by Democracy International (DI), commissioned a Performance Evaluation (PE) to provide empirical evidence to support learning from the Program of Alliances for Reconciliation (PAR) progress in achieving sustainable results. PAR, implemented by ACDI/VOCA, promotes transformative alliances that provide Colombians with a greater sense of awareness, respect, trust, and empowerment, which lead to reconciliation. A DI Evaluation Team (ET) of international and Colombian evaluators conducted data collection and analysis between September and November 2020. The team interviewed more than 40 key informants and surveyed another 116. All work was carried out virtually due to travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation addresses three sets of questions posed by USAID and provides findings, conclusions, and recommendations to improve the coherence, effectiveness, and efficiency of USAID reconciliation programming. The questions are: 1. Communication and Positive Messages a. How effective were PAR’s communications and outreach strategies to change perceptions and build reconciliation? Why? b. What lessons learned can USAID take from these strategies for future programming? 2. Private Sector Engagement a. To what extent did private sector engagement effectively contribute to fostering reconciliation in municipalities prioritized by PAR? Why? b. What were PAR’s main challenges engaging with the private sector and what lessons learned can be drawn for future programming (e. g. sustainability)? 3. Sustainability of Results a. To what extent have individual changes toward trust and reconciliation generated as a result of PAR’s interventions, translated into broader community reconciliation and trust? b. To what extent have these individual changes been sustainable over time? Why? c. What, if any, are the differences in age, sex or regional perspectives on trust and reconciliation? FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION Most implementers mentioned the DecidoSer methodology in responses to questions about communication tools. Implementers, PAR regional Respondents described visible, positive effects on trust and communication among participants and their communities, which they PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing support—implementers understand the differences between DecidoSer and the communications strategy, and their role in carrying out the II FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION directors, and beneficiaries indicated that DecidoSer was useful (beyond the life of PAR) and effective for improving participants’ self-knowledge, positive interactions, and trust in communities. attribute to DecidoSer. Given their responses, it is likely respondents saw DecidoSer and the communications strategy as a single concept. strategy. Given the promising results from DecidoSer indicated by this small sample, PAR should examine these activities and others that produced similar results to inform future applications of this approach. COMMUNICATION AND POSITIVE MESSAGES PAR’s communications strategy, including the Ambassadors for Reconciliation, effectively disseminated new narratives and positive messages that contribute to countering stereotypes and negative news about violence￾affected communities. Localities with negative reputations benefited from positive media attention and association with well-known Ambassadors for Reconciliation, in some cases driving tourism and community involvement in activities, although it is not possible to determine whether this contributed to drivers of reconciliation outside the cases described to PAR by some Ambassadors. While contributing to rehabilitate the image of some communities in the eyes of locals and outsiders is positive, USAID and PAR should continue to explore whether debunking stereotypes about places and communities (as opposed to, for example, specific groups of people) is linked to driving results for reconciliation. PAR’s communications strategy included approaches to disseminate information about activities beyond what the activities or implementers alone may have been capable of, including the use of local and national media. In some cases, this drove collaboration with the public and private sectors. PAR’s communications strategy effectively increased visibility of the implemented projects and in some cases drove participant interest. Among the most effective communication channels were local and national media and opinion leaders. PAR and future USAID activities should leverage local and national media and opinion leaders to continue driving participation in and cross-sectoral collaborative opportunities for reconciliation activities. Some implementers used the full range of communications tools offered by PAR; others adapted PAR’s strategy to their existing communications practices; and some were unable to incorporate any of PAR’s practices. The communications strategy was not fully or effectively implemented across all activities. This might have been due to a lack of clear messaging, or a lack of capacity among implementers to adopt communications tools and approaches. Semana Rural in particular could have been used more effectively for dissemination, especially in light of the positive results that stemmed from other national media coverage, as seen elsewhere in this evaluation. PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing, tailored support—that implementers understand the range of communications tools available to them, the support they could access to make use of them, and the purpose of communications within PAR’s overall strategy. Larger partners like Semana Rural may be able to provide broader coverage of reconciliation activities and could be a resource for training implementers as well as disseminating content about them. Some implementers were not well informed about the range of communications tools available to them through PAR, nor of their importance, and conversely, Semana Rural staff reported that they were not informed about some implementers’ activities. The ET III FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION did not find evidence of PAR adapting their assistance with the communications strategy for smaller implementer organizations. In general, almost all of the interviewees emphasized the importance of messaging that includes the language and expressions representative of the territories. Some respondents found cultural practices enriched activities and drove youth participation. The cultural and artistic expressions utilized by different communities to contextualize communications were an important contribution to the overall communications strategy and enhanced activities, particularly for youth. PAR and implementers should record and collect positive messages from the territories where emphasizing culture and folklore as a vehicle for positive messages has been successful for promotion of trust and improved communication. The communications strategy contributed to the development and empowerment of community leaders, some of whom gained visibility for themselves and their activities promoting reconciliation in local and national media outlets, however, this visibility may also present security risks for some leaders. The strengthening of local leaders was a positive result in itself, and communications amplified the impacts of their outreach and contributed to community support for reconciliation initiatives. Given the threats that social leaders face in Colombia generally and in some regions specifically, increased attention can also bring increased risk. PAR and USAID should continue to engage with the Ambassadors and so￾called “rockstars of” reconciliation, who can continue to bring attention to reconciliation initiatives. However, future programming that engages and draws attention to community leaders should incorporate approaches to monitor security risks and proactively offer safety training and/or protective measures. Consider the role transformative alliances, potentially with local or national government entities, could play in offering protection and support. Most implementer activities were not set up to capture the effects of communication on behavior for reconciliation. Nevertheless, implementers largely believed project implementation, including communications activities, has produced indirect effects that have yet to be registered by their own or by PAR’s monitoring systems, such as the emerging effects of elevating community leaders. Registering the effects of disparate implementer communications on behaviors supporting reconciliation was not possible given the short duration of implementer activities and the lack of measurement strategies for this purpose. As above, PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing support— implementers understand the communications strategy and work with implementers to establish relevant media and communications indicators for their projects. PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT Private sector respondents were not fully aware of what was expected from them in terms of promoting the drivers of The contributions of the private sector to fostering reconciliation are not easily identifiable at the PAR and future USAID reconciliation activities can improve the private sector business-reconciliation promotion model by limiting the private sector entities’ IV FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION reconciliation, and participants did not connect the private sector’s involvement with reconciliation. community or municipal level by implementers or participants. roles to their strong suits (employment and entrepreneurship support). At the same time, each private sector economic activity should pair with a purposeful application of DecidoSer by a skilled implementer to emphasize and develop: (1) participants’ skills in dialogue and their capacities for trust and respect as a means to reconciliation, as well as (2) the connection between participants’ increased economic savvy and the role that their attitudes and behaviors play in their empowerment, both economically and as actors engaged in reconciliation. As a result of private sector activities, participants acquired skills, experiences, and exposure to markets and innovation that improved capacity among small businesses and entrepreneurs, and the majority of participants surveyed praised PAR’s involvement of the private sector. PAR’s participants valued and many saw material gains from the opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship support from private sector partners. DecidoSer workshops implemented within the context of private sector partners’ activities contributed to changes in attitude—some of which enhanced participants’ business skills—and improved dialogue and trust among them. While the private sector was not directly responsible for improvements in drivers of reconciliation, participants of their activities gained skills and attitudes that promote both reconciliation and economic activity. A range of implementers that collaborated with private sector actors increased their institutional capacity. Implementers also stand to gain from the business administration and entrepreneurship skills imparted by the private sector, not just participants. Activities seeking to leverage private sector collaboration should focus on the strengths of the private sector in offering individual and institutional capacity for economic activities. Implementers consider that transformative alliances cannot be achieved in the short term and private sector partners indicated they had difficulty adapting to the project timelines. Time was seen as a limiting factor, and if collaborating with the private sector is meant to establish an alliance beyond implementing a project, creating the conditions for such an alliance can take longer than a typical activity may allow. PAR and similar activities aiming to establish alliances that contribute to transformation in the long term should engage private sector actors in the design of alliance and activity types that are realistic for them within the project’s timeframe, given the peculiarities of many private sector entities in terms of bureaucracy and decision making. Respondents expressed a desire for opportunities for projects and organizations to create networks and establish links among the alliances and partners that facilitate collaboration and exchange of experiences, which they thought ensure better chances for sustainability. Given the positive results of some private sector activities described above, and the mandate to develop alliances that transform and affect reconciliation over time, networks or learning exchanges may be seen as a way to strengthen and multiply positive PAR and USAID should structure opportunities, even if they fall outside PAR’s implementation timeline, to allow existing alliances and private sector partners and implementers to network and share information about their activities and promotion of reconciliation. V FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION effects and mitigate challenges faced by private sector partners. SUSTAINABILITY Implementer respondents believe PAR has had positive effects on changing perceptions of reconciliation primarily at the individual level, but also at the family level and among co￾workers. However, this does not translate to the community level. Though implementers recognized positive effects on perceptions of reconciliation among participants, in communities, these effects may only be visible among non-participant indirect beneficiaries such as families of beneficiaries or community members. PAR and USAID should consider conducting additional data collection from indirect beneficiaries at the time of activity close and/or at the conclusion of PAR to capture emerging, radiating effects of changes in perception within communities. Most beneficiary respondents reported that participation in PAR activities changed their behavior at home and improved their engagement in community reconciliation, increased their trust in their community, and improved respect and dialogue among members of their community; some respondents described instances of interpersonal reconciliation. Though PAR participants overwhelmingly reported positive effects of PAR participation on their behavior and some drivers of reconciliation, examples were limited to their personal thoughts and actions and not those of their communities. PAR and USAID should consider collecting ex post data from participants after PAR ends, or conducting an ex post assessment of beneficiaries from PAR’s earliest projects, to capture persistent changes in attitudes and behaviors over a longer time period and, along with the indirect beneficiary input suggested above, whether these sustained changes among individuals have permeated into the broader community context. The ET did not find evidence of how individual or family changes have been sustainable. However, beneficiaries reported that they experienced improved trust and dialogue and that they changed their perceptions of others in their community and trusted them more, and there is likewise no evidence that these changes in perception might diminish. Without a baseline for comparison, the degree of shifts in attitudes and behaviors cannot be determined, but indications of changes in attitude paired with reporting of ongoing participation and continued use of skills indicate participants remain changed, at least in the short term, by their participation in PAR activities. The majority of participant respondents reported they were currently involved in at least one activity related to reconciliation in their communities and nearly all indicated that they have used knowledge and abilities learned in PAR’s workshops. Implementers reported changing their attitudes and behaviors DecidoSer is valuable not just for participants, but also for If this is not already part of the DecidoSer model, PAR and USAID VI FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION within their own organizations after participating in DecidoSer workshops. implementers (who are themselves members of communities whose contributions to reconciliation are worthwhile and necessary), and the changes in trust and dialogue that contributed to improved business practices are a positive (and perhaps unexpected) result. should consider whether implementers, who possess capacities for facilitation of reconciliation while being actors within reconciliation processes themselves, may be better positioned to sustain changes in attitudes and behaviors and provide DecidoSer support and tools accordingly. While implementers that the ET interviewed established links with local governments, universities, and other actors, these were only in the context of the implementation of the project and have not outlived it. Contrary to the notion that multi￾sectoral relationships within a community might contribute to sustainability, the ET did not find evidence of a correlation between PAR’s activities in a community and long-term engagement with other community actors. If this area of inquiry is of interest, PAR should work with implementers to explore whether they sought links that were, based on PAR’s experience, likely to promote sustainability beyond a project funding cycle, and why this may not have been achieved. Beneficiaries agreed with implementers that training workshops, such as DecidoSer, are relevant to ensure the sustainability of reconciliation in their community. Respondents generally saw the conceptual benefits of both DecidoSer and Ambassadors for Reconciliation for contributing to sustainability of reconciliation, however, they presented this belief without specific evidence and after insufficient time had elapsed since the conclusion of activities to generate or register long-term sustainability. PAR should work with those implementers who demonstrated capacity to implement DecidoSer effectively to design activities that might be sustained beyond PAR’s period of performance. PAR should also consider whether the Ambassador program could be “inter￾generational” with experienced Ambassadors transferring knowledge and experiences to newcomers. Beneficiaries and implementers saw Ambassadors for Reconciliation as an important element that helps keep the topic of reconciliation alive in their communities. Perceptions of PAR effects on improved trust and reconciliation were not meaningfully different between male and female—or between rural and urban— respondents to the participant survey. More than twice as many men as women (27% and 11%, respectively) believed that PAR did not increase their income opportunities. Urban and rural participants generally participated in different kinds of interventions from each other. Given the diversity of communities and individuals who engaged with PAR and provided data for this evaluation (though not representative), the consensus between men and women and between urban and rural populations indicates activities that did produce results (DecidoSer workshops, most importantly) were equally effective in a range of contexts and activity types, across many implementers. At the same time, a differentiated approach was a Future USAID activities seeking to blend economic and development activities with progress toward reconciliation should center an approach like DecidoSer while ensuring activities, and communication within and about them, are tailored and contextualized for the specific languages, cultures, and institutional capacities that comprise their context. VII FINDING CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION successful strategy to overcome regional differences. Overall PAR should consider designing transformative alliances in phases. Phase 1 could entail establishing links with local actors, municipal authorities, etc. and training them in PAR’s methods for creating transformative alliances. In Phase 2, PAR could guide and support the implementation of the methodologies linked to the creation of transformative alliances. The final result should be the establishment of a lasting, impactful alliance rather than the conclusion of a project. The alliance should include diverse interest groups within a community committed to promoting reconciliation in the long term. Rather than many small-scale, short-term projects, PAR should consider investing in permanent alliances that may be better positioned to sustain community impact. 1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT POLITICAL BACKGROUND After more than fifty years of armed conflict, the Government of Colombia (GOC) signed a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in September 2016. The treaty went into effect in November 2016, following a series of changes to the original accord, which was rejected by 50.2% of the Colombians who voted in a referendum on popular acceptance of the agreement. The peace treaty provided for the FARC’s demobilization, including turning in weapons and ammunition, and for the GOC to establish a Special Peace Jurisdiction and to address pending social and economic issues that had served as justification for the conflict. Despite the treaty, Colombia has not reached peace. More than 1,000 social leaders have been killed since the signing of the treaty and more than 60 massacres have been reported, particularly in Antioquia, Cauca, and Nariño.1 According to INDEPAZ, 2 FARC dissidents in defiance of the peace treaty are active in 93 municipalities, while paramilitaries and criminal groups are present in 342 municipalities, particularly in Cesar, Córdoba, Chocó, and Sucre.3 Violence is also increasing due to the police’s response to the massive peaceful protests that have flooded the streets in Bogotá and in other Colombian cities throughout 2019 and 2020. Moreover, Colombia has seen an influx of returnees and immigrants from Venezuela during the last few years as a result of the deteriorating political and economic situation in this neighboring country. It is in this context that PAR has sought to engage citizens, as well as the public and private sectors, to promote reconciliation among all Colombians. PROGRAM BACKGROUND According to the 2014-2018 United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Colombia Country Development Strategy (CDCS), PAR supports the Mission’s Development Objective (DO) 2: Reconciliation advanced among victims, ex-combatants, and other citizens.4 It also supports DO 2’s IR 2.3: Truth-telling processes effectively launched, and its sub-intermediate results including Sub-IR 2.3.1: Improved capacity of the GOC and civil society to ensure that truth and reconciliation processes reach citizens at the local levels, and Sub￾1R 2.3.2: Improved capacity of the National Center for Historical Memory (Spanish acronym CNMH) to document experiences and build awareness of citizens of the conflict.5 1 Christian Sandoval, “Colombia, cuatro años de una paz en agonía,” El Nuevo Herald (Miami); October 4, 2020, p. 15A. 2 Instituto de Estudios Para el Desarrollo y la Paz; in English, Institute of Studies for Development and Peace. 3 Ibid. 4 PAR: Year Four Implementation Plan, October 1-2019 to May 30, 2020, p. 3. 5 Ibid. 2 PAR’s main expected results were: (1) Improved capacity for developing truth-telling and memory mechanisms, (2) Awareness and mobilization increased through inclusive initiatives, and (3) Local reconciliation initiatives strengthened through strategic public-private alliances (PPAs). PAR worked alongside two key public institution allies, the National Center for Historical Memory (CNMH), and The Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence, and Non-Repetition, and four national partners, Fundación ANDI, Semana Projects, Javeriana University, and Reconciliation for Colombia, to achieve its main expected results. PAR responded to the challenges posed by the implementation of the peace agreement. The program was “designed under the assumption that addressing the painful past, acknowledging and understanding it, and transcending it together, is a way to guarantee that cycles of violence, leading to human rights violations and crimes against humanity, do not happen again.”6 PAR’s Theory of Change PAR’s theory of change hypothesizes that Colombians will become increasingly involved in actions that strengthen reconciliation if (transformative) alliances are created and capable of fostering and increasing dialogue, respect, trust, and empowerment. 7 Transformative alliances are defined as partnerships among people, organizations, and businesses, used as reconciliation vehicles to raise reconciliation awareness, promote economic opportunities, and strengthen reconciliation skills. PAR had alliances in 27 target municipalities, implementing 168 projects from 2016 to 2020. 8 Projects differed in terms of reconciliation dimensions; in rural areas, projects focused on livelihood initiatives that promoted spaces for community development and reconciliation. In urban areas, projects aimed for: (1) Contributing to security and peaceful coexistence, (2) Increasing economic inclusion for young people and in border municipalities, and (3) Helping to prevent outbreaks of xenophobia. All projects implemented in urban and rural areas had access to reconciliation methodologies that sought to bring about changes in behaviors and perceptions, promoting trust, empowerment, dialogue, and respect. Four of the most relevant PAR activities in terms of results were: (1) Transformative Alliances, (2) Communications, (3) DecidoSer Workshops, and (4) Ambassadors of Reconciliation. Transformative Alliances The foundation of the strategic approach responding to PAR’s theory of change, these alliances included partnerships among individuals, organizations, and companies to boost economic and social opportunities and support awareness raising and mobilization initiatives on dialogue, respect, trust, and empowerment. 6 Ibid. 7 PAR: Year Four Implementation Plan, October 1-2019 to May 30, 2020, p. 4. 8 According to ACDI VOCA Projects Database made available for the ET in October 2020. 3 Communications The purpose of PAR’s communications strategy was to change narratives by promoting awareness and mobilization through positive messages and communication to influence attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors around reconciliation. A relevant aspect of the communications activities is that they are continuous and integrated into PAR’s implementation strategy. In this regard, the communications strategy has a more significant and broader scope in terms of social transformation than typical project communications might entail. PAR’s communications strategy is multidimensional and comprises different levels that include (1) interpersonal, (2) digital, (3) media, and (4) influencers. Among the theoretical advantages of an integrated and multidimensional communications strategy is promoting dialogue and discussion among different project stakeholders. 9 PAR’s communicationsstrategy was designed as a comprehensive communication effort to change divided reconciliation narratives in favor of a new positive history of transformation of Colombia’s conflicts. PAR’s communications strategy was carried out across all projects and throughout all project implementation phases with integrated activities in information gathering, strategic communication, alliance building, and the reconciliation approach to improve tolerance, coexistence, and reconciliation between Colombian society and, later, the migrant population from Venezuela as well. To achieve its purpose of social change, the communications strategy used a suite of tools it called 360, which included specific communications tools to promote positive messages and new narratives through complementary media resources. 10 DecidoSer Workshops The DecidoSer Workshops were designed to promote an individual’s active role in building a life plan understood as an opportunity to contribute to reconciliation. This “life’s contribution” was conceptualized as a personal decision to change perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors around reconciliation. Workshop participants were expected to develop skills for understanding that such personal choices and the commitment that comes with them could be critical aspects of becoming part of a collective effort to achieve common goals. During the workshops, dismantling harmful 9 The design contains communication activities for (1) Closing gaps between local and national reconciliation agendas, (2) Supporting local leaders to achieve an active role, (3) Broadcasting and publishing inspiring personal narratives, (4) Promoting positive conversations about reconciliation on social media networks, and (5) Innovating using apps to encourage participation, strengthening technical experts participation, and improving unlikely discussions among people with different views of reconciliation, among others. 10 Among those media resources were: (1) Promoting positive news and new narratives in national and local media, mass media, (2) Networking and empowering of digital influencers, (3) Managing content and live coverage on local and national RA events on social networks, (4) Publishing updates of PAR's implementation on ACDI VOCA webpage, (5) Search positioning of positive news using keywords such as trust, being part, and reconciliation approach, (6) Publishing local and community narratives, (7) Improving possibilities to achieve awareness and to mobilize direct contacts between implementers, participants, and other stakeholders interested in working together on economic and social ventures, (8) Broadcasting and publishing videos, photographs, and other multimedia material, (9) Promoting alliances and synergies with traditional mass media, (10) Direct communication with social leaders in rural areas using WhatsApp messages, and (11) Networking with national and local opinion leaders. 4 paradigms and creating narratives of reconciliation were considered standard inputs and outputs of the participation process within which they were implemented. Ambassadors for Reconciliation Ambassadors for Reconciliation was an initiative in which Ambassadors—often internationally, nationally, or locally well-known individuals—were selected to promote positive messages about reconciliation, support community projects, solve community conflicts, and advocate for reconciliation among community members. Their endorsement was meant to strengthen trust and confidence in reconciliation activities. The program was not a part of the communications strategy, but relied on several of the communications channels available to increase their visibility among community members. Among some of the Ambassadors’ communications channels for reconciliation were social media networking, local and national news coverage, and positive media content about reconciliation EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The Democracy International (DI) Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation Project (C￾AME) has been conducting external monitoring, dedicated evaluations, and producing knowledge products throughout PAR implementation to inform decision-making and adaptive management relevant for PAR’s success.11 Among its responsibilities to PAR and USAID is the Performance Evaluation (PE). PURPOSE The purpose of the PE is to answer questions posed by USAID related to PAR’s activities carried out by its Colombian partners, and their results. The PE provides empirical evidence to support learning and continuous improvement associated with the performance of PAR in achieving sustainable results. It also offers recommendations to improve the coherence, effectiveness, and efficiency of future USAID programming focused on reconciliation. To achieve these objectives, DI proposed an evaluation design and work plan that were deemed appropriate for and responsive to the Colombian context. DI also took specific steps to ensure that the planning, data collection and analysis processes take into account the gender-related dimensions of the implementer’s work. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation addressed the following questions, specific to three areas: 1. Communication and Positive Messages a. How effective were PAR’s communications and outreach strategies to change perceptions and build reconciliation? Why? b. What lessons learned can USAID take from these strategies for future programming? 11 C-AME Newsletter, Vol. III., Issue 5, July 2020. 5 2. Private Sector Engagement a. To what extent did private sector engagement effectively contribute to fostering reconciliation in municipalities prioritized by PAR? Why? b. What were PAR’s main challenges engaging with the private sector and what lessons learned can be drawn for future programming (e. g. sustainability)? 3. Sustainability of results a. To what extent have individual changes toward trust and reconciliation generated as a result of PAR’s interventions, translated into broader community reconciliation and trust? b. To what extent have these individual changes been sustainable over time? Why? c. What, if any, are the differences in age, sex or regional perspectives on trust and reconciliation? EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS OVERVIEW PE Evaluation Team (ET) consisted of three MEL specialists and one logistician. The ET carried out a preliminary review of secondary sources such as PAR and C-AME technical documents, press, and the web pages of the implementing partners and stakeholders to be interviewed. The fieldwork was conducted between September and November 2020, with a total of 160 PAR stakeholders contacted. Of these, a total of 62 stakeholders were interviewed through semi￾structured interviews and focus groups, and 98 participants and 18 implementers responded to surveys. Most interviews were recorded, with the permission of interlocutors. The team conducted all interviews and surveys virtually, due to international and domestic travel restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys were designed and conducted on the KOBO platform. By using multiple evaluation methods and triangulation of results, the team strengthened its findings in response to the evaluation questions proposed by USAID. Following data collection, the team reviewed the materials and analyzed it statistically and qualitatively. The team drew findings from the data and developed preliminary conclusions and recommendations. The results of our research are presented in this report. TARGET PROJECTS The 32 PAR projects selected for the PE correspond to 19% of the total PAR projects (168 total projects). These projects were selected, not from a statistically representative sample, but with the goal of representation of all PAR voices. The PE sought to consider numerous perspectives to answer the evaluation questions and did not aim to find representative patterns. 6 The project’s selection considered the Alliance Index, the Municipal Reconciliation Index, the Pre￾Post Activity Evaluations—all PAR monitoring and measurement tools—and the number of beneficiaries of each activity, based on the Monitoring and Evaluation System (M&E) of PAR. The ET also considered the recipient population groups, types of implementing organizations, geographic diversity, the duration of the projects, the execution status, the national coverage of implementers, and a representation of the activities among the four dimensions of reconciliation according to PAR’s theory of change. Projects with different time scales—both in terms of the length of the activity and how much time had passed since it concluded—were chosen, allowing variability in the consultation instruments’ responses. From an evaluation perspective, the selection of projects also included as a criterion the ease of applying surveys to beneficiaries of the project, as this facilitates the use of information capture instruments. Among the 32 selected projects were projects implemented by the National Center for Historical Memory, Corporación Reconciliación Colombia, Fundación ANDI, Semana Projects, The Truth Commission, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, considered PAR’s strategical implementation allies. The regional distribution of the 32 selected projects was the following: • 28% of national scope • 16% in Bogotá • 16% in the Pacific Region (Chocó and Valle del Cauca departments) • 16% in the Caribbean region • 13% in Antioquia • 6% in Norte de Santander • 3% in Caquetá • 3% in Arauca A Table of the list of selected projects and information on implementing partners and location is included in Annex B. The main features of the chosen projects were the following:  Most of the projects had more than one dimension of reconciliation. The most common projects were related to economic empowerment and economic inclusion (28%), citizen coexistence (28%), human rights (14%), art and culture as tools for social transformation (11%), communications (11%), education (4%), mental and psychosocial health (2%), citizen security (2%), and tourism (2%).  Most of the projects had more than one target population. While 21% were designed for the general population, the most prevalent targeted sub-populations were youth (21%), migrants (17%), women (10%), and victims of the conflict (10%), followed by small 7 producers (5%), afro population (5%), social communicators (3%), Colombian returnees (3%), disabled individuals (2%), and members of the LGBTI population (2%).  In terms of reconciliation dimensions, considering that all projects worked around more than one driver, the order of most promoted drivers were trust (35%), empowerment (28%), respect (20%), and dialogue (18%).  50% of the chosen projects were closing, 28% were finalized, and 22% were in progress.  13% of the chosen projects lasted six months or less; 34% between six months and one year; 25% between one and two years; 19% between two and three years; and 9% more than three years. Also, the characterization of all interviewed organizations by type and location, which includes organizations that collaborated and project implementing organizations (39 in total), indicates that by type of organization, 67% are associations, corporations, and foundations, 15% public entities at the national and local levels, 8% universities and training centers, 5% chambers of commerce, and 5% media organizations. PARTICIPANT AND IMPLEMENTER SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS The ET implemented three different instruments—two anonymous online surveys and virtual semi-structured interviews—to measure participants’ and implementers’ perceptions of communications activities, private sector engagement, and community impact of the PAR project. The ET used a participant survey and another tailored for implementers, both collected in October and November, 2020. It is important to note that results are not representative of all projects. A total of 98 participants and eighteen implementers responded to the respective surveys and both surveys were implemented online, with the ET making follow-up calls to ensure implementer participation. The ET conducted 63 semi-structured interviews with: 32 PAR implementing partner organizations; seven organizations in the collaborative environment of alliances; five Ambassadors for Reconciliation; twelve ACDI/VOCA PAR Regional Directors, Managers, and Specialists; six PAR activity participants in a focus group format, and a group interview with the Fabiola Morera Comunicaciones team, which was in charge of the communications strategy implementation. The ET also held meetings with PAR staff, C-AME, and USAID. The ET applied protocols to preserve ethical data management. DOCUMENT REVIEW The ET also conducted a review of key documents, including technical and non-technical documents related to PAR implementation. Among these documents were: • PAR annual work plans; 8 • C-AME quarterly reports; • The Alliances Index technical document; • The Reconciliation Index technical document; • The study of the Reconciliation Barometer; • The study of the alliance index; • Communications Newsletters; and • Evaluation documents from ACDI/VOCA. ANALYTICAL APPROACH The document reviews, interviews, and surveys produced substantial quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluation team used qualitative and descriptive quantitative methods to categorize, synthesize, and summarize the raw data captured from interview notes, recordings, and surveys. The data analysis was driven by the evaluation questions described in the Evaluation Scope of Work. The report is in English, but data collection was done in Spanish. Moreover, data collected was registered in a matrix of analytical categories and evaluation questions, and data analysis used notes and tapes to triangulate sources. All participants were informed about the evaluation’s purpose and signed a consent form before beginning interviews. LIMITATIONS AND MINIMIZING BIAS The main limitation in conducting the PE was the travel restriction imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Team Lead could not travel to Colombia at all for this evaluation, and the local experts could not move around the country or conduct in-person interviews. This limitation reduced the opportunity for observation and for interviewing more implementers and beneficiaries in situ, resulting in a missed opportunity for detailed observation and the chance to include feedback from many beneficiaries who have no access to the Internet. Thus, all work was carried out remotely using Teams as a communication platform, including the consultations and collaboration among evaluators. Because most beneficiary responses were collected via online surveys, it was not possible to ask beneficiaries to elaborate on or provide evidence for many of their answers in the way that is possible in an interview. Very few beneficiaries could be located online for focus group discussions. Likewise, given the semi-structured nature of the key informant interviews, it was less feasible, though not impossible, to construct quantitative analyses of implementer responses, though there was some triangulation made possible with the eighteen online survey responses. As in other evaluations, there is always the risk of cognitive biases. Respondents may answer questions in the way they think the interviewer wants them to rather than according to their beliefs. To overcome this limitation, the team designed the data collection instruments to elicit open, honest, and unbiased participation and avoid leading questions. The team confirmed findings by 9 probing similar topics with various stakeholders and with available documentation to see whether findings converged. EVALUATION QUESTION 1 1. a. How effective were PAR’s communications and outreach strategies to change perceptions and build reconciliation? Why? FINDINGS The Impact of DecidoSer Almost unanimously, PAR stakeholders interviewed agreed that DecidoSer is the backbone of the PAR activities. The ET has included this analysis under the communications section because when the ET asked implementers during interviews which elements of the 360-communications strategy they used, the response was consistently, DecidoSer. Though respondents are aware that it is a psychosocial tool, it is not part of PAR’s communications strategy. However, having a communications strategy designed to promote social transformation creates a thematic link between these two project activities from the perspective of the participants and implementers. Implementers and PAR regional directors interviewed indicated that DecidoSer training helped people to open up and get to know themselves better; to change how they interact with their families; accept diversity (including women and LGBTI groups); and improve trust in other people and in their communities. Among beneficiaries surveyed, 94% indicated that DecidoSer is among the most commonly used skills they learned from PAR. It appears that DecidoSer has a greater impact than the communications strategy, at least in terms of participants’ and implementers’ own reflections on these results, on changing attitudes, perceptions and behavior regarding reconciliation. Project implementers and PAR regional directors provided several examples of how these changes took place. Through numerous interviews, the ET learned about a group of youth victims of the armed conflict in Cartagena, who learned to trust themselves through DecidoSer workshops, felt empowered, and were able to achieve reconciliation with their families. The project manager in charge of this project told the team that DecidoSer “changed all of us,” including the project implementers. In Cali, a project implementer indicated during an interview that the focus on the individual and his/her environment, facilitated by DecidoSer, “marked the difference” in how her team operates. In Santa Marta, young men participating in a PAR project were able to change their attitudes toward the young women participants in the project and now talk about their experiences in learning about dialogue and respect. In rural Bojayá, DecidoSer helped members of a community achieve an agreement to share land and work hours to generate income through a collective harvest effort. Community members used DecidoSer skills to engage in dialogue and exchange resources based on acknowledging each other’s emotional wounds and economic needs and decided to work together collaboratively, led by female community leaders. While the ET 10 could not verify these stories with the activity participants, the similarities in so many of the participant stories about the positive effects of DecidoSer workshops provides credibility for the impact of these workshops on PAR stakeholders in providing skills that may drive reconciliation. Changes in Perception and Knowledge of Reconciliation According to the beneficiary survey respondents, 92% considered the content of the communications strategy relevant to promote positive messages that improve attitudes and behaviors towards reconciliation activities. Among PAR participants surveyed, 93% considered that PAR encouraged communities to get involved in reconciliation activities. Similarly, 96% agreed that participating in PAR activities improved their understanding of reconciliation. It is important to note, however, that most respondents had prior knowledge of reconciliation before participating in a PAR project, making it challenging to isolate any effect of PAR communications on their awareness of reconciliation (at least of the term).12 Further, the responses did not specify in which PAR activity the beneficiary had participated. The ET found that the communications strategy contributed to changes in attitude and built drivers of reconciliation through several successful initiatives. Among these initiatives, as will be discussed below, are the dissemination of positive messages to debunk stereotypes; the Ambassadors for Reconciliation; and coverage of PAR activities and of the communities where they take place by local and national media, among others. The communications strategy has been effective in disseminating and strengthening results of PAR activities, including new narratives and positive messages that debunk stereotypes and counter negative messages. In several instances, communications tools and approaches yielded an indirect amplification effect for the positive messages produced by PAR activities. For example, projects implemented by Semana Magazine,13 one of PAR’s main partners, and Fundación Gabo,14 have played important roles in disseminating the positive messages and in training journalists to avoid overly focusing on negative news that can contribute to negative stereotypes. All the evidence from participant surveys was triangulated with interviews with project managers, who confirmed results concerning new narratives and positive messages debunking stereotypes. In particular, projects related to the empowerment of women and youth at national and local levels provided specific examples of how positive message communications were critical to achieving project goals on employment, women’s rights, and youth engagement. 12 Many of the participants have worked with implementers in previous projects to develop trust-based relationships, making it even more challenging to attribute both perceptions and behavioral changes, particularly around trust, to PAR communication activities. 13 The Semana Magazine implemented a project called “Semana Rural” with national coverage. 14 Fundación Gabo implemented a project called (in English) “Journalism, Communication, and Peacebuilding in Colombia (Phase II)” in the municipalities of Apartadó, Arauca, Arauquita, Bogotá, Bojayá, Buenaventura, Cali, Cartagena, Cartagena Del Chairá, Ciénaga, Cúcuta, Florencia, Maicao, Medellín, Mesetas, Puerto Rico, Quibdó, San Carlos, San Vicente Del Caguán, Santa Marta, Turbo, Uribia, and Vistahermosa. 11 Respondents found less biased and more locally-focused reporting was instrumental in making vulnerable communities “visible” and placing a positive spotlight on them at the local, regional and national levels. Implementers the ET interviewed described how marginalized communities are perceived as dangerous because most news about them focuses on violence, including the presence of armed conflicts in the area. Interviewees told the ET numerous stories of how some of the negative images of the communities changed, and connected these changes to PAR activities. For example, Ciénaga, a disenfranchised community in the Magdalena Department, was transformed by the visit of one of PAR’s Ambassadors for Reconciliation. In this case, the ambassador was the well-known Colombian national cyclist champion Mariana Pajón, who conducted a bicycle tour of the region that received national media coverage.15 Subsequently, cyclists have returned to this area, making it a tourist attraction that may in turn generate economic opportunities that have the potential to underpin reconciliation. Implementers and local authorities recounted to the ET similar experiences from Cartagena, Santa Marta, Buenaventura and several other places where communities or neighborhoods with a bad reputation due to high rates of crime or armed violence changed when positive messages in local and national media helped to debunk these negative stereotypes. They said they saw more willingness of people to enter certain communities and connected this to the positive communications about them. Implementers and PAR regional directors interviewed similarly reiterated how a positive national story can help shine a more favorable light on a community. One of the best-known stories is that of Chocó’s School of Robotics, supported by PAR. Some of the girls who studied there were invited to China to display their skills at an international robotics competition, and they have been profiled by national Colombian media as well as by Forbes Magazine.16 According to the designer of PAR’s communications strategy, the impact of the media coverage of this development in Chocó changed the life of the girls as they now see themselves with potential and opportunities beyond the limitations of their impoverished community. PAR regional directors and PAR’s implementers told the ET that Ambassadors for Reconciliation have been instrumental in changing the image of vulnerable communities. This perception was also registered in a telephone survey17 conducted by ACDI/VOCA to measure PAR’s impact in fourteen selected projects. The survey interviewed sixteen regional Ambassadors for Reconciliation in Arauca, Vista Hermosa, Quibdó, and Cartagena del Chairá. The study highlighted the Ambassadors’ activities to promote new community projects18 that positively 15 According to the EL HERALDO newspaper, Mariana Pajón led a bike tour around Ciénaga, passing through Cordobita, Jolonura, Costa Verde, and Plaza Centenario. Almost 300 bikers made the 52-kilometer tour. 16 Forbes Magazine, La escuela de robótica que está llevando el futuro a Chocó, December 18, 2020. https://forbes.co/2020/12/18/emprendedores/la-escuela-de-robotica-que-esta-llevando-el-futuro-a-choco/ 17 An independent consulting firm implemented the survey between April 14 and May 5, 2020. Fourteen projects were consulted in the municipalities of Arauca, Vista Hermosa, Quibdó, and Florencia, resulting in 295 surveys. Among these, 107 were collected through online forms. 18 The study mentioned that in Arauca the Ambassadors were successful in promoting tourism, whereas in Vista Hermosa Ambassadors were successful in promoting community productive projects. 12 impact youth who now have more opportunities to participate in reconciliation. Moreover, the study showed how Ambassadors for Reconciliation helped communities solve community conflicts and family struggles to achieve peaceful agreements and promote cultural identity and self-esteem among community members. The survey results also coincided with the program’s experience described by regional ambassadors in a workshop led by ACDI/VOCA. According to the workshop report, Ambassadors believed that being part of the program has increased their confidence to work with the community, strengthened their relationships with community members as social leaders, and increased the visibility of their community work.19 The ET’s conversation with several Ambassadors confirmed these findings. The media coverage of Ambassadors for Reconciliation, as well as the dissemination of messages through mass media, can reach indirect beneficiaries that cannot be identified or measured. While the journalist training, robotics school, and Ambassadors for Reconciliation activities were not considered part of the communications strategy directly, the positive messages and attention that resulted from the activities are outcomes that may have been indirectly strengthened by the communications strategy complementing these direct interventions. The PAR communications strategy was also designed to use tools that motivate social change focused on a trust-building process to achieve a meaningful impact. In this regard, there may be positive indirect effects of communications activities associated with the exchange of positive project participant experiences that has not yet been visible. According to the PE implementer survey, thirteen implementers out of eighteen believed there are [as-yet-unregistered] indirect effects of project implementation, and twelve of them reckon new narratives emerged during project implementation. Because projects implemented communications across all implementation phases, there may be emerging indirect effects associated with communications activities linked to previous findings. PAR’s communications strategy has increased the coverage and visibility of the activities proposed by the implementers and of their communities. Practically all implementers interviewed by the ET as well as PAR’s regional coordinators agreed that the communications strategy was useful to increase coverage and visibility of implementers’ activities. The interviewees pointed to two communication channels as the most useful in disseminating PAR messages: opinion leaders and media coverage. The representative of the firm that designed PAR’s communications strategy also told the team that these two were the most effective communication channels in their design, based on the notion that having an opinion leader talking and writing about PAR initiatives or reconciliation either on TV or in a widely recognized magazine is instrumental in bringing attention to the particular initiative and to the locality where it is being implemented. This media coverage can also call private sector attention to issues of reconciliation. Interviewees claimed that national coverage regarding local news about PAR activities happening in neighborhoods and 19 Informe Encuentro de Embajadores de la Reconciliación, ACDI VOCA- USAID, p. 10 13 communities is the most effective way to make the community more visible and encourage PAR’s participants and the community in general. From the perspectives of PAR implementers surveyed by the ET, 31% considered opinion leaders to be the most effective as a communication channel while 28% said social media, Internet searches, and the ACDI/VOCA webpage were most effective, and 24% referred other information resources. Another 88% of respondents considered communications a relevant tool to increase private sector participation in reconciliation activities. Project implementers interviewed in Medellín, Cúcuta, and Bogotá indicated that the communications strategy was effective in increasing the scope and visibility of their projects and in attracting the interest of potential participants who learned about the project through webpages, word of mouth, or through the media. Implementers in Santa Marta and Cartagena, who talked about this development, indicated that they received more interest in their activities than they had spots for participants. Moreover, implementers in Quibdó were able to connect the public sector, private sector, and participants through PAR projects, according to interviews. PAR project manager interviewees told the ET how communications changed their view about communicating their work to other private organizations and the public sector. The regional coordinator and the public sector representatives interviewed by ET confirmed similar results in Quibdó. Communication strategies are enriched by the cultural and artistic identity linked to the collective memories of the inhabitants of their local context. In territories with deep and broad artistic traditions, such as the Caribbean Coast, Arauca, and Quibdó, the ET found that communications strategies were enriched by the cultural and artistic identity of the inhabitants of those areas. In these communities, art and music are elements that bring people together to talk about memory, and contribute to dialogue, respect, and trust. For example, in Cartagena, PAR contributed to engaging vulnerable youth in the renovation of the Independence Festival, which continues its celebrations periodically. Similar developments took place in Quibdó and Arauca. In Cartagena and Quibdó, youth from the same or different communities came together to work on community activities, helping to build dialogue and trust. Similarly, during interviews with one of the Reconciliation Ambassadors, the ET was told about the relevance of cultural activities in Arauca to promote reconciliation and understanding among communities. These activities included dancing, singing, painting, and theatre as well as youth doing audiovisual productions for dissemination. Project implementers found that youth responded to these artistic activities better than to training workshops. In general, almost all of the interviewees emphasized the importance of generating messages that include the language and expressions that are representative of the territories, and to this end, they identified an opportunity in the cultural expressions of each territory. 14 The communications strategy had an effect on strengthening leadership skills for community leaders. In interviews with practically all project managers, the ET heard testimonies that communication activities throughout project implementation were successful in creating "rock stars" of reconciliation among communities, referring to local activities or individuals who have received broad national or even international attention. Regional PAR coordinators pointed out how the projects were able to highlight communities’ leaders on local and national media, which then contributed to community support for reconciliation initiatives, especially in diverse neighborhoods with different backgrounds, such as in Quibdó and Cúcuta. The regional coordinator in Quibdó cited how an urban community leader developed leadership skills by designing and organizing several events to promote trust and confidence among community members supported by communication tools. One event mentioned was the “Abrazaton” (big hug) aimed to give free hugs among community members to emphasize the value of life. Moreover, communication tools were also useful to strengthen leaders’ support for reconciliation initiatives. According to regional coordinators interviewed in Quibdó, youth leaders of the LGTBI community achieved the social status of “community influencers” in an urban neighborhood after using the PAR communication platform. Simultaneously in Cúcuta, the regional coordinator told the ET how communications were an effective channel to promote alliances with the local leader newspaper to assemble a communication platform for the migrant population called “Soy Migrante,” facilitating access to information about available services for migrants. Local leadership emerged as the visibility of individual communities and/or the activities of specific groups gained local or national media coverage. This was particularly true among the Ambassador for Reconciliation, once recognized by local and national media. The increased visibility and interaction of emerging leaders gained through PAR’s activities, however, also places them at higher security risk, considering the number of social leaders who have been killed recently in Colombia. According to the last report on social leader assassinations published by the Institute of Peace and Development Studies (Indepaz, 2020) between 2016 and 2020 there were 971 killings of social leaders which mainly took place in the departments of Nariño, Cauca y Antioquia. The relative risk of intimidation or violence from armed groups depends on the local and regional context; as indicated by the figures above, taking on responsibility and attention as a social leader is less risky in some areas than in others. The Ambassadors for Reconciliation with whom the ET spoke are particularly concerned about their security. On the other hand, greater visibility can also protect social leaders. A social leader in Chocó told the ET how communications helped him increase protection by visibility20 of his work through messages on social networks such as Twitter, and at the same time improved his role as a social leader among youth in his community. In addition, an implementer of a Bogotá project highlighted 20 The visibility of social leaders work in national mass media operates as a protection mechanism because illegal arm groups avoid capturing public attention when controlling territories by the use of violence. 15 the approach of doing no harm21 when promoting positive messages in municipalities that lack confidence in mass media. Moreover, an Ambassador of Reconciliation in Antioquia told the ET how communications empowered her to promote positive messages about reconciliation that have been very useful to increase the dialogue among community members and between the community and illegal armed groups. Some implementers used the full range of communications tools offered by PAR, while others adapted PAR’s strategy to their existing communications practices, and some were unable to incorporate any of PAR’s practices. According to interviews with project managers in Bogotá and Medellín, PAR’s communications tools were relevant to increase implementers’ capacity for communications. This was particularly true for entities, like local or national media, which already had communications experience and resources. For entities with less or no experience, the ET was told by implementers of those projects, that it was more difficult to understand and implement the broad PAR communication strategy. Good examples of those with experience are national projects such as Semana Rural and Journalism, Communication and Peacebuilding in Colombia, implemented by Fundación Gabo, which were able to better adjust their communications capabilities to PAR’s 360-communication strategy. Both projects aimed to train local journalists to move away from the more sensationalist negative stories and cover local events in a way that would show less bias, mainly regarding gender and discrimination. According to the project managers, PAR provided tools and methodologies through workshops to empower local journalists in “silenced territories”22 for including new narratives to be disseminated on national platforms. In some cases, however, some PAR partner organizations had difficulties operationalizing the full range of communications tools due to the lack of community managers and journalists that could take advantage of media resources that are considered critical for PAR’s communications strategy. For example, in the municipalities of Turbo and Apartadó, implementers of a reconciliation initiative called “Dare to Dream” needed to develop a media plan to connect the full 360- communication strategy with their communications resources. Most implementers indicated that they combined PAR’s communication strategy with their own, which they consider an approach that is better adjusted to the realities of the population and communities they served. For most implementers interviewed, the most effective communication methodology happened when there was a combination of both PAR communication strategy and the organization’s own existing communication practices. In some cases, it was difficult for the implementer to adopt and use PAR’s communication channels effectively because they lacked the skills or capacity to apply them. For example, PAR 21 The concept of do no harm acknowledges a program's responsibility to recognize unanticipated adverse effects on participants. Although implementers might be neutral, the intervention results might have negative consequences. 22 A silenced territory refers to a territory where doing community work, journalism, and rightfully expressing concerns about community development issues is considered a high-risk activity due to social control that illegal arms groups exert through violence. 16 regional coordinators explained that organizations more accustomed to traditional communication tools, such as banners and newsletters, had difficulties understanding the importance and reach of social media. Some channels of communication are underutilized because the partners are unfamiliar with the activities and resources required for the full development of the strategy’s potential. In such cases, implementers said they would have had to engage expert consultants to manage the operations, which is beyond the project’s budget allocation and their own. These smaller implementers did not indicate to the ET that they received extra assistance from PAR to implement the communications strategy to compensate for their capacity gaps in these areas. There was only one case in which a large implementer, Fundepaz, described bringing on additional support for communications by hiring external consultants to improve implementation of the communications strategy. Implementers may not be fully conscious of the importance of disseminating information on their projects. PAR regional coordinators told the ET that there are cases in which project implementers do not fully recognize their own achievements and, thus, do not seek all available channels to disseminate them. Several interviewees claimed to be unaware of the broad range of channels offered by PAR’s communication strategy to disseminate their activities. A few commented to the ET that they learned of these opportunities, such as reaching out to Semana Rural to communicate project achievements, for example, only when the project had closed. On the other hand, Semana Rural told the ET that they wished they had known more about some projects so that they could have disseminated information about them. Focus on regional diversity for the utilization of communication channels and messages. The ET heard from implementers that PAR messages could not be disseminated uniformly throughout the country. Messages for mass audiences at the national level, such as a media campaigns, can be more generic, while local messages need to be tailored to each region taking into account its context, such as the security situation, languages, and local issues. This combination of factors makes it harder for the communications strategy to be crosscutting across drivers and across regions. Implementers and, especially, Ambassadors for Reconciliation in Bogotá, Chocó, and Antioquia explained to the ET that not all communication is equal and that in dealing with local organizations and small, rural communities that have no access to Internet, face-to-face communication is essential, but for which resources are often limited. At the same time, Ambassadors believe that if their activities received more media coverage, it could raise the visibility of their work. PAR in the time of the Pandemic. Remote project implementation demonstrated the relevance of PAR’s 360-degree communication strategy as it offered alternative mechanisms to maintain communication during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. The access to a broad range of communication options allowed for an effective activity adaptation once in-person work became extremely limited or totally unavailable. Managers of projects implemented in Quibdó and Medellín told the ET how communications activities from PAR’s strategies allowed them to adjust 17 to the new COVID-19 environment. In particular, they were able to use virtual communities to continue working remotely towards the project’s goals, making the communication platform a useful resource to stay in touch with project activities. 1. b. What lessons learned can USAID take from these strategies for future programming? (e.g., metrics to measure effectiveness) The ET found that while the communication strategy has had positive results on changing perceptions, it could not gather evidence on changes in behavior. Changes of behavior would have to be measured over a longer term. PAR’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan lacks a baseline for activities, products and communications results on which to base the impact of the strategy on the behavior of implementers and beneficiaries. In fact, survey results collected by the ET showed that more than 50% of beneficiaries already had a relatively good knowledge of reconciliation before participating in PAR activities. Based on what the evaluation has learned, however, the communication strategy has deepened communication within families, co-workers and social environments. Given participant and implementer confusion at times, during interviews, around what specifically constituted the communications strategy (as opposed to DecidoSer), activities interested in measuring effectiveness of communications specifically may need to ensure stakeholders understand explicitly what the communications strategy entails, their role in engaging with it, and the expected results that are to be monitored. Dispelling stereotypes, as well as changes in behavior, requires being able to see how the changes hold over time. This implies that it would require following up on the results of positive messages over a longer period of time in order to measure concrete changes in behavior. CONCLUSIONS The conflating of DecidoSer methodologies with the communication strategy indicates that project implementers are not familiar with the full range of the 360-communications strategy and the ways it differs from DecidoSer. It also suggests that DecidoSer workshops may have been seen as more useful by implementers for their activities and to produce desired results than the communication tools. This could be the result of the differences in how PAR implementers learned to utilize the communication tools compared with their training on DecidoSer methodologies. Despite confusion, implementer respondents described visible, positive effects on trust and communication among participants and their communities, which they attribute to DecidoSer. From the participants’ perspective, the confusion could be related to the nuanced differences between the communications strategy and DecidoSer, particularly because the communications strategy involves breaking down previous beliefs participants may hold about participating in reconciliation activities. To debunk prior beliefs, participants learn— through DecidoSer workshops—how to better communicate about their conflict experiences and 18 overcome the social and emotional wounds inflicted by the conflict. They might have seen DecidoSer and the communications strategy as two sides of the same concept. The increased visibility that results from the messages of opinion leaders and influencers, including the Ambassadors for Reconciliation, promotes the community’s empowerment and engagement in reconciliation activities. Localities with negative reputations benefited from positive media attention and association with well-known Ambassadors for Reconciliation, in some cases driving tourism and community involvement in activities, though it is not possible to determine whether this contributed to drivers of reconciliation outside the cases described to PAR by some Ambassadors. Ultimately, due to the design of the communications strategy as a cross￾cutting element meant to complement PAR activities, it is difficult for both the ET and implementers to separate the direct effects of the communications strategy from the indirect effects of communications on activities and outcomes of implementation that drive reconciliation. The communication strategy may not have been fully or effectively implemented across all activities, either due to lack of clear messaging, or lack of capacity among implementers to adopt communications tools and approaches. Semana Rural in particular could have been more effectively used for dissemination, especially in light of the positive results seen elsewhere by this evaluation that stemmed from other national media coverage. The cultural and artistic expressions utilized by different communities to contextualize communications were an important contribution to the overall communication strategy and enhanced activities, particularly for youth. In some instances, youth were more responsive to activities that included cultural and audiovisual activities rather than training. The use of the communication channels by local leaders strengthens their leadership, which in turns serves to motivate the community to engage in reconciliation activities and the increased visibility of the leader sheds light on the community. The strengthening of local leaders was a positive result in itself, and communications amplified the impacts of their outreach and contributed to community support for reconciliation initiatives. However, given the threats facing social leaders in Colombia, especially in select territories where armed groups are active, increased attention can bring increased risk. The degree to which the visibility resulting from participation in PAR activities may put a social leader at risk depends on the specific dynamics of conflict and violence in their local context. In the shorter term, the empowerment of local leaders brought about by increased visibility is an important indirect impact and a positive result that may be sustainable long-term and that goes beyond those recognized by PAR and partners’ M&E Plan(s). Indeed, registering the effects of disparate implementer communications on behaviors supporting reconciliation was not possible 19 given the short duration of implementer activities and the lack of measurement strategies for this purpose. EVALUATION QUESTION 2 2. a. To what extent did private sector engagement effectively contribute to fostering reconciliation in municipalities prioritized by PAR? Why? FINDINGS The private sector’s expected contributions to changes in perception and behavior toward reconciliation are not fully defined at the implementation level. PAR’s Year Four Implementation Plan, for example, calls for Fundación ANDI, its main private sector partner to, “play an active role in social transformation as part of their commitment to reconciliation,” but it does not define how this will be done. In fact, PAR and Fundación ANDI sought to, “promote shared value strategies in the private sector that generate trust, security and peaceful coexistence at the local and national level.” Thus, the focus of the alliance was to improve the private sector’s awareness of the reconciliation drivers rather than awareness within the community. The primary goal of the private sector, in general, is to make businesses profitable and operational. While Colombia has a long history with socially responsible businesses, PAR’s regional coordinators mentioned that private sector participants had a hard time understanding their role in fomenting reconciliation. For that reason, the contributions of the private sector to fostering reconciliation are not easily identifiable, especially at the community or municipal level. Of participants surveyed, 88% indicated that PAR’s decision to include the private sector in reconciliation processes was right, while 10% saw it otherwise. These respondents, however, could not provide evidence of how the private sector had engaged in reconciliation activities. When asked for examples of successes, beneficiaries surveyed mentioned the private sector’s participation in employment and productive activities in their communities. During interviews, implementers indicated that it was difficult to link activities that focus on processes of employability and entrepreneurship to issues of reconciliation. DecidoSer workshops contributed to drivers of reconciliation. In productive initiatives where the private sector participated, it was the DecidoSer workshops, when these were offered, that fostered the reconciliation drivers. In Santa Marta, for example, while an entrepreneurship project helped participants gain business skills, DecidoSer workshops helped these same participants, who were part of vulnerable populations that refused to talk to each other, to start dialogues where they shared life stories that led to trust and eventually, to longer term relationships within the community. Their perceptions changed, according to interviews with project managers. These results are in line with the implementation of PAR’s theory of change, which centers DecidoSer workshops in program implementation to improve the effectiveness of positive messages about reconciliation, and increase economic and social opportunities. 20 Chambers of Commerce officials interviewed for this PE indicated that the links with the private sector helped those starting small businesses to learn the ropes of operating businesses, but made no mention of reconciliation activities. These same respondents were, however, familiar with DecidoSer as a critical tool for helping young entrepreneurs understand how they could move ahead. Survey respondents indicated that employment and entrepreneurship were the second most important aspects of the project, after the DecidoSer workshops. This was particularly true for the youth, on whom many of the private sector initiatives focused. In an interview with the Valle del Cauca PAR team, the importance of youth participation in the employability processes was highlighted. Young people from very vulnerable neighborhoods in the city of Cali were linked to training and employment processes that they otherwise would have been unable to access. In addition, in an interview with Unipanamericana, the participation of young migrants in the employment process and the approaches of the private sector to work on stigmas towards migrants were highlighted. Several implementers interviewed, particularly those in the Caribbean Coast, indicated that one of PAR’s strengths lies in being able to link business and psychosocial activities, which result in much more well-rounded young entrepreneurs. Overall, however, the improvement in trust, dialogue, and empowerment that emerged in those communities or enterprises where the private sector collaborated with PAR was mostly a result of the DecidoSer workshops, as indicated by implementers and PAR staff during interviews. Implementers that collaborated with the private sector gained institutional capacity. The ET did find that the private sector’s alliance with PAR contributed to strengthening the infrastructure and operating methods of the local organizations with whom they collaborated. PAR specifically identified contributing to the strengthening of local organizations in its Year Four Implementing Plan. For 67% of the implementers surveyed for this PE, one of the advantages of participating in the PAR program was that their organization was internally strengthened. This included local businesses, production enterprises and private sector foundations. Results may be limited by short activity duration. During interviews, implementers argued that PAR’s objective of promoting “transformative alliances that boost economic and social opportunities and support awareness and mobilization initiatives at the regional level,” are difficult to achieve under projects that are short-term. In fact, when implementers were asked for recommendations for future programming during interviews and later on a survey, they almost invariably asked for projects to have a longer implementation time. Another two recommendations were aimed at promoting support networks among organizations for the exchange of experiences and the search for connections to promote community projects. 2. b. What were PAR’s main challenges for engaging with the private sector and what lessons learned can be drawn for future programming? (e.g., sustainability) 21 In interviews conducted by ET with PAR staff, including regional directors, they did not identify major challenges for engaging with the private sector. They did mention that, in their experience, not all private sector partners have the capability or interest to engage in reconciliation initiatives and not all are capable of taking on activities that would support and foster all four drivers of reconciliation as defined by PAR. In some cases, PAR staff found that the private sector had difficulty understanding the role they would play in seeking reconciliation. In other cases, companies were concerned with their reputation within the communities, where they may be known as not too friendly with their employees or may have a history of damaging the environment in those communities. PAR regional directors also pointed out that it is important to understand that decision-making in large companies can be slow and some have complex administrative processes. These two factors often can delay the availability of resources that the private sector can provide to PAR initiatives. Implementers interviewed by the Team who are private sector partners and those in projects that worked with the private sector indicated PAR needs to understand that the timing and methodologies common in the operations of the private sector are different from those of social organizations or PAR itself. According to the ET’s survey of implementers, project managers identified several challenges for private sector engagement. They emphasize that private engagement might be enhanced by having more opportunities to exchange lessons learned, promote flexibility for approving communication messages in social media, and strengthen networking with non-implementer allies in the education and health sectors. They also pointed out difficulties in adapting PAR methodologies to their own in a short period of project implementation and the lack of enough time to develop mechanisms to work with communities. PAR staff indicated that, once engaged, the company directors became more sensitive to social issues in the communities in which they had businesses. One of the implementers of a PAR project interviewed, mentioned that PAR has become a reference point for business owners and union leaders on topics related to trust and respect. Moreover, the role some of those businesses were critical in helping producers become aware of their marketing opportunities and in helping them bring their products to bigger markets, as was the cases of the local producer of avocados and the national Crepes and Waffles connection with small agricultural producers. In interviews with implementers, they mentioned that private sector representatives have opened the door for some of the small entrepreneurs they supported in national fairs and in making their products known through local and national media. Also, a couple of local municipalities told the ET that for small local business owners to have the opportunity to mingle at meetings or at fairs with well-known business owners had a tremendous impact on their views of future opportunities. Among lessons learned regarding the role of the private sector in reconciliation activities, the ET found: 22 1. There is a need for more opportunities for projects and organizations to create alliances and networks that may ensure better chances for sustainability. Establish links among the alliances and partners that facilitate collaboration and exchange of experiences. 2. It is important to find out what a private enterprise knows about reconciliation, gauge its level of interest in working on such topics, and identify the strongest areas of their contribution before engaging them in an alliance. 3. Be aware of the scale, timing and decision-making process of the private sector and how it may hinder or support reconciliation initiatives. CONCLUSIONS It appears that the private sector participating in PAR was not fully aware of what was expected of them in terms of promoting the four drivers of reconciliation along with initiatives that would increase employment and entrepreneurship. Not all businesses are interested or capable of engaging in social activities because of their own limitations, be they the characteristics of the business or implications on their brands and markets. The contributions of the private sector to fostering reconciliation were likewise not easily identifiable at the community or municipal level by implementers or participants. PAR’s participants valued and many materially gained from the opportunities for employment and entrepreneurship support from private sector partners. Private sectors contributions to young entrepreneurs and small businesses are important in the sense that they help participants be more innovative, expose them to markets and brands that would normally be beyond their reach, particularly in vulnerable communities, and leave behind capacity for those emerging entrepreneurs and businesses. While the private sector was not directly responsible for improvements in drivers of reconciliation, DecidoSer workshops implemented within the context of private sector partners’ activities contributed to changes in attitude—some of which enhanced participants’ business skills—and improved dialogue and trust among them. Participants of their activities gained skills and attitudes that promote both reconciliation and economic activity. The combination of using DecidoSer training along with development of business practices shows the promise of a model that combines business and personal development to have a positive impact on entrepreneurs, especially those who are young. Further, implementers stand to gain from the business administration and entrepreneurship skills imparted by the private sector, not just participants. Implementers asked PAR and USAID to be more flexible in responding to the unexpected demands, requirements, and adaptations of a reconciliation project. For those private sector entities that participate, the complexity of their operations, administrative and decision-making processes may not be compatible with those of a reconciliation project, creating delays and misunderstandings. Time was seen as a limiting factor, and if collaborating with the private sector 23 is meant to establish an alliance beyond implementing a project, creating the conditions for such an alliance can take longer than a typical activity may allow. If such flexibility is not possible, then implementers and the private sector need to know from the start about the constraint in time and resources, which it seems they may not have. Transformative alliances not only require time but, they also require creating the proper conditions to form. Respondents expressed a desire for opportunities for projects and organizations to create networks and establish links among the alliances and partners. Given the positive results of some private sector activities described above, and the mandate to develop alliances that transform and affect reconciliation over time, networks or learning exchanges may be seen as a way to strengthen and multiply positive effects and mitigate challenges faced by private sector partners. EVALUATION QUESTION 3 FINDINGS 3. a. To what extent have individual changes towards trust and reconciliation generated as a result of PAR’s intervention translated into broader community reconciliation and trust? Individual changes toward trust and reconciliation may not translate into broader community reconciliation and trust because Colombians do not identify trust as a key reconciliation variable; ACDI/VOCA’s Colombian Reconciliation Barometer indicates that at the national level only 39% of Colombian rank trust as an important element for reconciliation.23 In most municipalities, the same Barometer shows that trust runs at the lower end of the scale of variables for reconciliation. In Quibdó, it ranks as the least important variable at 30%; while in Cartagena it ranks at 44%; in Arauca at 37%; in Buenaventura at 34%; in Ciénega at 42%; in Apartadó at 40%; and in Bogotá at 29%. Instead, reparation, reciprocity, truth, and identity rank among the top five variables for reconciliation in most municipalities.24 During interviews, implementing partners told the ET about PAR’s positive effects on changing perceptions of reconciliation, but mostly at the individual level. Interviewees did not provide evidence of transformations regarding greater reconciliation and trust at the community level. In fact, implementers mentioned that it generally takes about two years for community impact to be evident. Still, beneficiaries—as opposed to implementers—believe that PAR initiatives led to increased trust, dialogue, and respect within their communities. Table 3 shows the responses to a survey completed by 98 PAR beneficiaries. Their responses show that participation in PAR had an impact on their perspectives on reconciliation and their willingness to engage in community reconciliation 23 https://www.acdivoca.org.co/barometro/barometro-municipal/ 24 Idem. 24 activities. For example, 94% of respondents indicated that participation in PAR projects increased visibility of reconciliation in their communities; 96% said that it improved their understanding of reconciliation; and 95% opined that it motivated them to participate in reconciliation activities. Increasing trust, respect, and dialogue are three of PAR’s four drivers. In that sense, 94% of respondents indicated that participating in PAR activities increased their trust in reaching reconciliation in their community while for 93% it improved respect among members of their communities, and for 93% it improved dialogue among members of their communities. Moreover, 91% of respondents indicated participation in PAR activities changed their personal behavior, and 83% indicated PAR activities changed their behavior at home. While the survey did not collect specific examples of those behavior changes, nor their direction—whether positive or negative—these responses indicate that participation in PAR activities had an effect on behavior that participants recognized in themselves. As a result, beneficiaries and implementers told the team about how parents who learned about dialogue were able to talk to their children and how relationships among siblings improved. A young man from Quibdó, for example, told the team that he was able to reconcile with his brother after not talking to him for eight years after participating in workshops that taught him about reconciliation. TABLE 3 - RESULTS OF PARTICIPATION IN PAR INITIATIVES # Participation in the PAR project… Totally Agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Totally Disagree Did not respond 1 Increased the visibility of reconciliation in my community 51% 43% 3% 0% 0% 3% 2 Improved my understanding of reconciliation 70% 26% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3 Improved my trust in my community 56% 39% 1% 1% 0% 2% 4 Helped me change my personal behavior 53% 38% 4% 0% 2% 3% 5 Increased my trust in reaching reconciliation in my community 48% 46% 2% 1% 0% 3% 6 Changed my personal behavior 46% 44% 4% 1% 1% 4% Changed my behavior at home 52% 35% 5% 2% 1% 4% Changed my behavior in the community 46% 44% 4% 1% 1% 4% 7 Motivated me to participate in reconciliation initiatives 74% 21% 2% 0% 0% 2% 8 Improved respect among members of my community 50% 43% 3% 0% 0% 3% 9 Improved dialogue among members of my community 44% 49% 5% 0% 0% 2% Source: Survey of 98 PAR beneficiaries conducted by the ET between October and November 2020. Most implementers interviewed told the ET that for a project to have community impact it has to be implemented for more than a year—preferably at least two years—and that this impact also depends on the type of project as well as on the security situation in the region. Productive projects 25 have greater immediately recognizable economic impact on the community (in the form of new or improved businesses or ventures), while those that try to build trust and dialogue require longer periods of implementation. 3. b. To what extent have these individual changes been sustainable over time? Why? The ET did not have an attitudinal baseline to compare changes nor did it conduct a longitudinal survey to evaluate changes overtime. The ET has no evidence of how individual or family changes have been sustainable. PAR activities beneficiaries, however, reported that they experienced improved trust and dialogue, that they changed their perceptions of others in their community and as a result, respected them. While it is not possible to conclude that these changes will certainly be sustainable over time, they signify a shift in mindset that is an important achievement of the activity as a step toward reconciliation. Further, the impact on the community may depend on the capacity of an alliance to connect with other key actors in the territory, particularly with indirect beneficiaries or supporters of PAR projects. For example, this might be more likely for projects in cities like Bogotá and Cúcuta with a higher prevalence of institutions with the institutional capacity to take over and continue specific activities that have proven successful in PAR (such as DecidoSer or Ambassadors for Reconciliation). However, several of the implementers indicated that they had reached out to universities, local government, and civil society organizations, but the established links did not lead to sustainability of results. These links with community actors are sought to fulfill a project’s objectives, such as raising awareness and implementing actions against gender based violence or helping with productive and employment tasks. The contacts do not contribute to promoting alliances and networks at the institutional or community level in the mid to long-range, thus reducing the chance of transferring individual changes into collective change. The ET found evidence, however, on the ongoing level of engagement of beneficiaries in reconciliation activities. Table 4 shows that of those beneficiaries surveyed, 69% indicated they were currently involved in at least one activity related to reconciliation in their communities and 94% indicated that they have used knowledge and abilities learned in any of PAR’s workshops. These engagements, if maintained long-term, can lead into sustainable changes. TABLE 4 - ENGAGEMENT AFTER PAR PARTICIPATION Sustainability Yes No No response Are you currently engaged in reconciliation activities? 69% 24% 6% Have you used the knowledge and abilities that you learned in PAR workshops (i.e., DecidoSer, Gender Workshops, Semilleros, etc.) in your daily life? 94% 3% 3% Source: Survey to 98 PAR participants conducted by PE Team between October and November 2020. 26 For most implementers interviewed, the DecidoSer methodology is particularly relevant for positive impacts on the sustainability of reconciliation in their community. This tool helped individuals know themselves better and taught them how to trust and respect others, which implementers perceived as having a sustained impact on the beneficiaries and their families and eventually, they theorized, their communities. Moreover, the impact of DecidoSer methodologies was significant in changing how some implementers conducted their own businesses, particularly on how they handled human resources. The director of an enterprise in Santa Marta, for example, told the ET that DecidoSer helped them realized and correct mistakes they were making in dealing with conflicts with their employees. This was not an isolated case; other implementers related similar experiences following the DecidoSer trainings. Beneficiaries agreed with implementers in that training workshops, such as DecidoSer, are relevant to ensure the sustainability of reconciliation in their community. Table 5 shows that 56 out of 98 respondents indicated that the workshops are relevant for ensuring sustainability of reconciliation in the community; 36 of them also thought that elements of dialogue, such as truth and memory exercises and positive messages, are relevant for sustaining reconciliation in their community. TABLE 5 – Activities That Ensure Sustainability of Reconciliation in the Community Activity No. of Beneficiaries Training workshops (For example, Gender Workshops and DecidoSer) 56 Employability and entrepreneurship 26 Dialogue -- Truth and memory mechanisms; positive messages about reconciliation 36 No response 4 Source: Survey of 98 PAR participants. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. Also, while not asked in the survey, implementers and beneficiaries referred to the presence of Ambassadors for Reconciliation as an important element that helps keep the topic of reconciliation alive in their communities and, thus, contributes to sustainability. Their recognition as leaders in their communities, as in the case of Ambassadors for Reconciliation Leyner Palacios, Teresita Gaviria, and others, allows them have the respect of the community and serve as reminders of the need to reconcile. 3. c.. What, if any, are the differences in age, sex or regional perspectives on trust and reconciliation? In terms of gender and regional differences among participants, the PE’s participant survey allowed for comparison of perceptions of PAR’s results on trust, empowerment, dialog, and respect by gender and municipality. Among the 98 survey respondents, there were 57 women and 41 men, which makes 58% and 42% of the total respondents, respectively. Also, the regional 27 perspective analysis considered urban and rural municipalities. Bogotá, Cartagena, Cúcuta, Medellin, and Santa Marta were classified as urban municipalities, while Apartadó, Arauca, Bojoyá, Buenaventura, Cienaga, and Quibdó were considered rural municipalities. A total of 77 urban participants and 21 rural participants were surveyed. According to PE’s survey to participants, 95% of women and 98% of men considered that participation in PAR’s activities increased trust among community members. Only 2% of women and 1% of men reckon that participation was not effective in increasing community members’ trust levels. Also, 2% of the surveyed women did not share their opinion about PAR’s effect on trust. From a regional perspective, 96% of urban areas surveyed participants and 95% of the rural regions surveyed participants considered PAR’s activities were relevant to increase trust among their communities. Moreover, 1% of urban respondents and 5% of rural respondents thought PAR’s activities’ effect on community trust was not strong enough to increase their confidence in their communities. In terms of empowerment, 72% of surveyed women and 71% of surveyed men considered that PAR’s activities increased their income opportunities. In comparison, 11% of surveyed women and 27% of surveyed men thought PAR’s actions were not strong enough to increase their income opportunities. 6% of the surveyed women and 2% of the surveyed men disagreed with PAR’s positive effects on their current economic prospects. From a regional perspective, 71% of the observed urban and rural participants believed PAR’s activities increase their economic opportunities. In comparison, 21% of urban respondents and 14% of rural respondents considered that PAR’s actions were not relevant to increase economic chances. Also, 5% of surveyed participants and 14% of rural surveyed participants disagree with having more economic opportunities due to PAR’s activities. 93% of surveyed women and men considered PAR’s activities improved dialogue among their communities. In comparison, 2% of surveyed women and 1% of surveyed men thought PAR’s actions did not change their communities’ dialogue. From a regional perspective, 92% of the urban respondents and 95% of the rural respondents considered PAR’s activities increased dialog among their communities. In comparison, 4% of the urban respondents believed PAR’s activities’ effect on community dialog was irrelevant. There are not registered opinions associated to irrelevant impacts of PAR’s activities on community dialog in rural areas. Also, 93% of surveyed women and men reckon that PAR’s activities increased respect among their community members. In comparison, 4% of surveyed women and 7% of surveyed men considered PAR’s activities on community dialogue were neutral. From a regional perspective, 93% and 94% of the surveyed urban and rural participants believed PAR’s activities increased respect among their communities. 5% and 4% of urban and rural respondents were indifferent to declare PAR’s 28 activities improve respect among their communities. 2% of surveyed participants in rural and urban areas decided not to share their opinions about it. CONCLUSIONS Colombia’s history of violence and armed conflict has eroded people’s trust in each other and trust, which ranks low among the components that Colombians consider important for reconciliation, is difficult to restore during the course of a project. Still, PAR has achieved changes in perception that represent an important component in changing mindset that could eventually extend through the communities where participants live and work. Though implementers recognized positive effects on perceptions of reconciliation among participants, these further effects in communities may only be visible among non-participant indirect beneficiaries. Similarly, though PAR participants overwhelmingly reported positive effects of PAR participation on their behavior and some drivers of reconciliation, examples were limited to their personal thoughts and actions and not those of their communities. Without a baseline for comparison, the degree of shifts in attitudes and behaviors cannot be determined, but indications of changes in attitude paired with reporting of ongoing participation and continued use of skills indicate participants remain changed, at least in the short term, by their participation in PAR activities. DecidoSer workshops and the Ambassadors for Reconciliation initiatives are successful tools that provide the opportunity to identify lessons learned and good practices in the management of community changes beyond individual changes. DecidoSer is valuable not just for participants, but implementers (who are themselves members of communities whose contributions to reconciliation are worthwhile and necessary) as well, and the changes in trust and dialogue that contributed to improved business practices are a positive (and perhaps unexpected) result. Respondents generally saw the conceptual benefits of both DecidoSer and Ambassadors for Reconciliation for sustainability of reconciliation, though without specific evidence for believing this, or enough time to demonstrate it. Contrary to the notion that multi-sectoral relationships within a community might contribute to sustainability, the ET did not find evidence of a correlation between PAR’s activities in a community and long-term engagement with other community actors. While multi-sectoral relationships within a community are conducive to supporting an individual project’s goals, the ET did not find evidence to conclude that multi-sectoral relationships have improved a long-term commitment towards reconciliation, likely due to the short length of the projects and the lack of a plan for ensuring sustainability of the transformative alliances within communities. There seem to be no relevant differences among genders, urban and rural respondents regarding PAR’s positive effects on trust, empowerment, dialog, and respect by gender and municipalities. However, the empowerment dimension related to economic opportunities shows less agreement about PAR’s positive effects than the other reconciliation dimensions. Participants’ sentiment 29 about PAR’s relevance to increase reconciliation has to do with the relevance of having a different approach to rural and urban areas. In urban areas, projects aimed for: (1) Contributing to security and peaceful coexistence, (2) Increasing economic inclusion for young people and in border municipalities, and (3) Helping to prevent outbreaks of xenophobia. All projects implemented in urban and rural areas had access to reconciliation methodologies that seek to bring about changes in behaviors and perceptions, promoting trust, empowerment, dialogue, and respect. Having a different approach has been a successful strategy to include gender and regional differences among surveyed participants. RECOMMENDATIONS DECIDOSER PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing support—implementers understand the differences between DecidoSer and the communication strategy, and their role in carrying out the strategy. Given promising results from DecidoSer indicated in this small sample, PAR should examine these activities and others that produced similar results to inform future applications of this approach. 1. COMMUNICATION  While contributing to rehabilitate the image of some communities in the eyes of locals and outsiders is positive, USAID and PAR should continue to explore whether debunking stereotypes about communities (as opposed to, for example, specific groups of people) is linked to driving results for reconciliation.  PAR and future USAID activities should leverage local and national media and opinion leaders to continue driving participation in and cross-sectoral collaborative opportunities for reconciliation activities.  PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing, tailored support—implementers understand the range of communications tools available to them, the support they may access to use them, and the purpose of communications within PAR’s overall strategy.  Larger partners like Semana Rural may be able to provide broader coverage of reconciliation activities and could be a resource for training implementers as well as disseminating content about them.  PAR and implementers should record and collect positive messages from the territories where emphasizing culture and folklore as a vehicle for positive messages has been successful for promotion of trust and improved communication.  PAR and USAID should continue to engage with the Ambassadors for and so-called “rockstars of” reconciliation, who can continue to bring attention to reconciliation initiatives. However, future programming that engages and draws attention to community leaders should incorporate approaches to monitor security risks and proactively offer safety 30 training. Consider the role transformative alliances, potentially with local or national government entities, could play in offering protection and support.  As above, PAR should ensure—through training and ongoing support—implementers understand the communication strategy and work with implementers to establish relevant media and communications indicators for their projects. 2. PRIVATE SECTOR  PAR and future USAID reconciliation activities can improve the private sector business￾reconciliation promotion model by limiting the private sector entities’ roles to their strong suits (employment and entrepreneurship support). At the same time, each private sector economic activity should pair with a purposeful application of DecidoSer by a skilled implementer to emphasize and develop not only: (1) participants’ skills in dialogue and their capacities for trust and respect as a means to reconciliation, but also (2) the connection between participants’ increased economic savvy and the role their attitudes and behaviors play in their empowerment both economically and as actors engaged in reconciliation.  As above, activities seeking to leverage private sector collaboration should focus on the strengths of the private sector in offering individual and institutional capacity for economic activities.  PAR and similar activities aiming to establish alliances that contribute to transformation in the long term should engage private sector actors in the design of alliance and activity types that are realistic for them, given the peculiarities of many private sector entities in terms of bureaucracy and decision making.  PAR and USAID should structure opportunities, even if for beyond PAR’s implementation timeline, for existing alliances and private sector partners and implementers to network and share information about their activities and promotion of reconciliation. 3. SUSTAINABILITY  PAR and USAID should consider additional data collection from indirect beneficiaries at the time of activity close and/or at the conclusion of PAR to capture emerging, radiating effects of changes in perception within communities.  PAR and USAID should consider collecting ex post data from participants after PAR ends, or conducting an ex post assessment of beneficiaries from PAR’s earliest projects, to capture persistent changes in attitudes and behaviors over a longer time period and, along with the indirect beneficiary input suggested above, whether these sustained changes among individuals have permeated into the broader community context.  If this is not already part of the DecidoSer model, PAR and USAID should consider whether implementers, who possess capacities for facilitation of reconciliation while being actors within reconciliation processes themselves, may be better positioned to sustain changes in attitudes and behaviors and provide DecidoSer support and tools accordingly. 31  If this area of inquiry is of interest, PAR should work with implementers to explore whether they sought links that were, based on PAR’s experience, likely to promote sustainability beyond a project funding cycle, and why this may not have been the case.  PAR should work with those implementers who demonstrated capacity to implement DecidoSer effectively to design activities that might be sustained beyond PAR’s period of performance. Relatedly, PAR should consider whether the Ambassador program could be “inter-generational” with experienced Ambassadors transferring knowledge and experiences to newcomers.  Future USAID activities seeking to blend economic and development activities with progress toward reconciliation should center an approach like DecidoSer while ensuring activities, and communications within and about them, are tailored and contextualized for the specific languages, cultures, and institutional capacities that comprise their context. OVERALL  PAR should consider designing transformative alliances in phases. Phase 1 could entail establishing links with local actors, municipal authorities, etc. and training them in PAR’s methods for creating transformative alliances. In Phase 2, PAR could guide and support the implementation of the methodologies linked to the creation of transformative alliances. The final result should be the establishment of a lasting, impactful alliance rather than the conclusion of a project. The alliance should include diverse interest groups within a community committed to promoting reconciliation in the long term. Rather than many small-scale, short-term projects, PAR should consider investing in permanent alliances that may be better positioned to sustain community impact. 1 ANNEX A: EVALUATION SOW Conducting a summative performance evaluation of PAR is included as a specific task in the contract of the USAID/Colombia Complexity-Aware Monitoring and Evaluation (C-AME) activity. The language describing the scope of the evaluation in the C-AME contract is as follows: C.8.2. Evaluation Task No.2: Performance Evaluation The Contractor must: 1. Design and conduct a Performance Evaluation that: a. Answers questions related to the Activity’s influence on its results (contribution or attribution). b. Assesses the influence of the USAID Activity on the activities implemented by Colombian partners (and their results). c. Uses the Developmental Evaluation as the basis to inform the design of the Performance Evaluation. d. Makes use of data collected during monitoring. Performance Evaluation Questions: The next are illustrative questions for the Performance Evaluation. Nevertheless, these questions can be modified and adjusted according to the refinement and ongoing adjustment of the Theory of Change and the adaptations and changes that may occur during the implementation of the Activity. Reconciliation Activity Component I: Improved GOC capacity for truth-telling and memory mechanisms 1. Did the Reconciliation Activity improve the capacity of the GOC for truth-telling and memory mechanisms? And if yes, how? 2. Did the Reconciliation Activity improve the capacity of the civil society for truth-telling and memory mechanisms? 3. Is the Truth Commission meeting international standards? And if so, what is USAID’s part in achieving these standards? 4. To what extent has USAID involvement contributed to the achievement (or failure) of the expected results of the truth-telling and memory mechanisms (if at all)? 5. Is the truth commission contributing to the reconciliation process? And if so, how? Reconciliation Activity Component II: Improved GOC increase civil society’s knowledge and awareness of the consequences of the internal armed conflict and the importance of reconciliation 1. To what extent have the awareness and positive messaging strategies supported reconciliation processes? 2. Did the awareness and positive messaging strategy increase the degree of awareness of the consequences of the conflict and have these changed perspectives towards reconciliation? 3. And if so, on a local level, is there a link between increased awareness and transformational behaviors? 2 Reconciliation Activity Component III: Enhanced strategic alliances among the public sector, the private sector, CSOs, and other donors to support local-level reconciliation activities 1. What were the challenges and lessons learned in the process? 2. Did the strategic alliances contribute to strengthening the capacity of local reconciliation activities? 3. Did the technical assistance provided by the Reconciliation Activity contribute to strengthening the capacity of local reconciliation activities? 4. To what degree did the initiatives at the local level affect the rebuilding of the social fabric on a national level? Performance Evaluation Deliverables: 1. Work Plan: The Contractor will be required to propose a Work Plan for the implementation of the Performance Evaluation. 2. Interim briefing. The Contractor will be required to make a presentation to USAID/Colombia at the mid-term of the evaluation to provide preliminary results. 3. Exit briefing: The Contractor will provide an oral exit briefing of its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the USAID/Colombia Front Office, Reconciliation and Inclusion Office, and Program Office, as well as other interested USG agencies at the conclusion of the Performance Evaluation. 4. Draft Evaluation Report. The Contractor will submit an electronic MS Word version, in Times New Roman 12-pt font, of a draft report in English and Spanish of findings and recommendations. The report should include an Executive Summary of no more than 2 pages. The report will be limited to no more than 40 pages. USAID/Colombia estimates that it will review and provide comments within ten working days of receipt. 5. Final Evaluation Report. Within five working days after receiving comments from USAID/Colombia, the Contractor will submit its final report, incorporating or addressing all comments provided by USAID. 6. Delivery of Databases (uploaded into Colombia’s MONITOR system). The Contractor will upload all reports, any and all data collection, and complete analyses of all data. In essence, any and all information that was compiled and used in conducting the evaluation will be uploaded into the MONITOR system. All evaluation documents should reflect criteria found in USAID’s Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report. This includes USAID’s expectations regarding the structure, format and length of the final report. Audience and intended uses: The primary audience for this Performance Evaluation is USAID/Colombia Front Office, RIO Management, as well as the Government of Colombia and relevant institutions. Secondary audiences, such as other donors and NGOs, could also benefit from the results of the evaluation. 3 ANNEX B: LIST OF PROJECTS AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Implementing Partner Project Location 1 Fundación ANDI Competitividad inclusiva para la reconciliación y construcción de memoria con el sector privado Nacional 2 Proyectos Semana Rural Semana Rural- Subconvenio con Semana Rural Nacional 3 Asociación Tejido Humano Promoviendo liderazgos desde la educación para la paz y la reconciliación Medellín 4 Fundación Gratitud Arte, cultura y empatía como herramientas para el trabajo colaborativo Bogotá 5 Fundación Surtigas Jóvenes con Valores Productivos: dinamizando el Emprendimiento Cultural recuperando prácticas ancestrales como aporte a la Reconciliación en Cartagena Cartagena 6 Colombia Diversa Memoria de las víctimas LGBT como aporte a la verdad y la reconciliación Bogotá 7 Fundación Universitaria Unipanamericana Compensar Integración al mercado laboral de Colombianos desempleados, migrantes Venezolanos y Colombianos retornados a través de empleo para la reconciliación. Bogotá 8 Fundación Espacios de Convivencia y Desarrollo Social FUNDESCODES Fortalecimiento de la Red de Lugares de Memoria para el empoderamiento comunitario, la verdad y la no repetición en municipios del programa PAR Bogotá, Bojaya, Buenvantura, Cali, Cartagena, Cartagena del Chaira, Florencia, San Carlos, Santa Marta 9 Corporación Reconciliación Colombia Reconciliación Colombia Nacional (Santa Marta, Cartagena, Florencia, Medellín, Cúcuta, San Vicente del Caguán, Cartagena del Chaira, Apartadó) 10 Nuestro Flow S.A.S Bogotá Vive el Decenio Afro desde la Reconciliación Bogotá 11 Fundación Social de Sintrainagro FUNDAMILENIO El Turno es Mío: estrategia de empleabilidad y relevo generacional con jóvenes de Turbo y Apartadó Apartadó 12 Fundación Natalia Ponce de León Cambio de narrativas y construcción de mensajes positivos a través de la campaña "La Vida Renace" Cali, Turbo, Quibdó 13 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Estrategia de Apoyo Psicosocial - Actividades año 2 Nacional 14 Fundación Mi Sangre Promover el ecoturismo en el municipio de Arauca, como oportunidad económica de reconciliación e integración social y vehículo de desestigmatización Nacional (Arauca y Cienaga) 15 Fundación Social Grupo Daabon Empoderamiento de 25 mujeres del Barrio El Líbano de Santa Marta, a través de la producción de jabón artesanal para mejorar la calidad de vida Santa Marta 16 Fundación Casa del Pensamiento - Construyendo Territorios de Paz TEJIENDO TERRITORIOS DE PAZ, MEMORIA Y RECONCILIACIÓN” fase 2 Florencia 17 Fundación Creata Promoción de Jóvenes como agentes de cambio y reconciliación en Turbo y Apartadó a través de la iniciativa Atrévete a Soñar Turbo 18 Fundación Puerto Aguadulce Emprender Paz: Fortalecimiento de 1e emprendimientos de comunidades Buenaventura 4 afrodescendientes de la zona rural de Buenaventura, con enfoque reconciliador 19 Detonante SAS Fortalecimiento de las capacidades del programa PAR en Quibdó Quibdó 20 Fundación Juan Pablo Gutierrez Caceres Chocó to Dance: más oportunidades de educación para jóvenes desde la promoción de activos culturales y el cambio de narrativas Quibdó 21 CNMH Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica Cooperación estratégica a la Comisión de Esclarecimiento de la Verdad Nacional (Cali, Cartagena, Arauca, Florencia) 22 Comisión para el Esclarecimiento de la Verdad, la Convivencia y la No Repetición Cooperación Estratégica con el Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica Arauca 23 Corporacion Minuto de Dios Integrandonos construimos futuro, estrategia de recolección e integración económica en Cúcuta. Cúcuta 24 Fundemicromag Fortalecimiento del tejido social y empresarial para la inclusión de comunidades migrantes, retornados y de acogida en Santa Marta Santa Marta 25 Gente Estrategica Empleo para la Reconciliación Fase 2 en alianza con la Alcaldía de Bogotá Bogotá 26 Cámara de Comercio de Cartagena EmprendeSTAR Fortalecimiento de habilidades empresariales y comerciales de emprendimientos liderados por jóvenes Cartagena 27 Coorporación GEInnova Tejedores de Sueños del barrio El Reposo Quibdó 28 Cámara de Comercio de Cali Cali Prospera - Fortalecimiento de emprendimientos de jóvenes de bajos recursos para su empoderamiento como agentes de cambio y reconciliación Cali 29 Fundación Conconcreto Voz con Reconciliación. Estrategia de reconciliación y convivencia con jóvenes en Medellín Medellín 30 Fundación Nuevo Periodismo (Fundación Gabo) Periodismo, Comunicación y Construcción de Paz en Colombia Nacional (Apartadó, Arauca, Arauquita, Bogotá, Bojayá, Buenaventura, Cali, Cartagena, Cartagena Del Chairá, Ciénaga, Cúcuta, Florencia, Maicao, Medellín, Mesetas, Puerto Rico, Quibdó, San Carlos, San Vicente Del Caguán, Santa Marta, Turbo, Uribía, Vistahermosa) 31 Fundación Casa en el Árbol Fortalecimiento de capacidades transformadoras y de comunicaciones juveniles para el desarrollo y la reconciliación en Ciudad Equidad Santa Marta 32 Diario la Opinión Plataforma Migracion Venezuela para Norte de Santander Cúcuta DOCUMENTS REVIEWED PAR DOCUMENTS  WORK PLAN, YEAR 3 & 4  M&E PLAN, 2016-2020  QUARTERLY REPORTS FROM 2016 TO 2019 5  DECIDOSER, GUIAS, ENCUENTROS AND WEBPAGE  MARCO CONCEPTUAL ALIANZAS TRANSFORMADORA  INDICES ALIANZAS Y RECONCILIACION  GENERO/INCLUSION (MANUALES/ENCUENTROS)  DATABASE: BENEFICIARIOS, INDICES, PRE-POS PERCEPCION  SEMANA RURAL  ESTRATEGIA DE COMUNICACIÓN Y MOVILIZACIÓN PAR C-AME DOCUMENTS  DEVELOPMENT EVALUATIONS: 1, 2, 3, AND 4  C-AME Newsletters OTHER DOCUMENTS  Barómetro Colombiano de la Reconciliación, https://www.acdivoca.org.co/barometro/barometro_acdivoca/barometro_de_la_reconc iliacion.  Barómetro de las Américas--Colombia 2018: Paz, Conflicto y Reconciliación (LAPOP 2018), www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/colombia/Colombia_2018_Informe_Paz_Conflicto_y_Rec onciliación_W_11.07.19.pdf  Daniel Flechas Buriticá, “Programa de Alianzas para la Reconciliación—PAR,” October 2017.  Fundación Gabo, “Percepción impacto (resultados) de proyectos del Programa de Alianzas para la Reconciliación -PAR-, liderados por USAID y ACDI/VOCA,” Informe Final, Cartagena de Indias, March 2020.  Fabiola Morera Comunicaciones, “Estrategia de comunicación y movilización PAR,” no date.  “Programa de Alianzas para la Reconciliación de USAID y ACDI/VOCA recibe reconocimiento global por su campaña de Confianza.” (copy)  RCN: No olvidarás mi nombre….no olvidará el rating!, https//www.las2orillas.co/rcn￾no-olvidaras-nombre-no-olvidaras-rating/  Reconciliación Colombia, “Así entendemos la reconciliación,” https://reconciliacioncolombia.com/sobre-nosotros/#enfoque  Christian Sandoval, “Colombia, cuatro años de una paz en agonía,” El Nuevo Herald (Miami, FL), 4 October 2020, p. 15A.  Christian Sandoval, “‘Las Doñas’,” mujeres unidas contra la violencia en Medellín, El Nuevo Herald, (Miami, FL), 19 May 2020, p. 9A.  Hector Velasco, “Ex guerrilla FARC admite que perpetró magnicidio,” El Nuevo Herald (Miami, FL), 5 October 2020, p. 18A.  USAID, “Índice de la Reconciliación,” www.confio.com.co. 6 ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS SURVEY OF PAR ACTIVITY BENEFICIARIES 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Survey of PAR Implementers Encuesta a Implementadores PAR Evaluación del Programa de Alianzas Transformativas para la Reconciliación (PAR) Democracy International Hola, buen día, esperamos que te encuentres bien de salud al igual que tu familia. El día de hoy estamos contactando algunas empresas y organizaciones para hacer una encuesta sobre su participación en el Programa de Alianzas Transformativas para la Reconciliación (PAR) de USAID que implementa ACDI VOCA. Esta encuesta tomará un tiempo aproximado de 20 minutos y el objetivo principal es conocer desde la experiencia de las organizaciones y empresas la participación en el programa. Los datos recolectados ayudaran a comprender las posibilidades de mejora del programa. La encuesta es anónima, es decir que el nombre de tu empresa u organización no será utilizado ni en el análisis de datos ni en los reportes finales de la evaluación. Estás de acuerdo con continuar esta encuesta Sí No Nombre de la Empresa: ¿De qué manera se enteró la empresa/organización del proyecto en el cuál participó? a. Publicaciones en periódicos, revistas o artículos en medios locales y nacionales. b. Influenciadores reconocidos en medios digitales o Blogs. c. Por Redes Sociales. d. Página web de Acdi Voca. e. Buscadores en la web. f. Por ver historias de otros participantes. g. Eventos realizados en versión en línea o presencia. h. Por videos, fotografías, infografías o libros. i. Por mensajes de texto o Whatsapp j. Líderes de opinión de la comunidad o del país. k. Otro, ¿Cuál? ¿Hace cuánto tiempo participó la empresa/organización en el proyecto PAR? Hace menos de 3 meses Entre 3 a 6 meses Entre 6 a 12 meses 15 Hace más de 12 meses ¿Antes de participar en el proyecto, ¿La empresa/organización había participado en otro proyecto orientado a la reconciliación? Si No Por favor, evalúa las siguientes afirmaciones en una escala de Acertada, Poco Acertada o Nada Acertada. Afirmación De acuerdo Indiferente Desacuerdo ¿Porqué? (Si responde desacuerdo o indiferente) La estrategia de comunicaciones ofreció una plataforma efectiva para promover los mensajes positivos acerca de la reconciliación La empresa ha usado lo que aprendió en el programa PAR en iniciativas de reconciliación comunitaria Por favor, evalúa las siguientes afirmaciones en una escala de Acertada, Poco Acertada o Nada Acertada. La participación en el proyecto ha: De acuerdo Indiferente Desacuerdo ¿Porqué? (Si responde desacuerdo o indiferente) influenciado las prácticas de responsabilidad social al vincularse con iniciativas de reconciliación. permitido identificar fortalezas organizacionales de la empresa para vincularse efectivamente a los procesos de reconciliación en su municipio. permitido a la organización identificar y aprovechar oportunidades para vincularse más efectivamente a iniciativas de reconciliación en su municipio. facilitado el cambio de estereotipos que dificultan una participación efectiva en las iniciativas de reconciliación en su municipio. generado oportunidades para reconocer otras miradas de la reconciliación en su comunidad 16 En su opinión, ¿Cuáles son las actividades del proyecto que considera más relevantes para garantizar la sostenibilidad de la reconciliación comunitaria? Talleres de formación (Género y decido Ser) Diálogo en la comunidad Empleabilidad y emprendimiento Mecanismos de verdad y memoria Mensajes positivos sobre la reconciliación Otro, ¿Cuál? ¿por qué? ¿Cuáles son las lecciones aprendidas del proyecto, y de qué manera se pueden tener en cuenta en el futuro? En general ¿Describa las razones por las cuales la participación en PAR fortaleció sus prácticas de responsabilidad social frente a las iniciativas de reconciliación? Gracias por tu participación!! 17 PROTOCOL FOR KII (IN SPANISH) Consentimiento Informado El entrevistador recibe el formato de consentimiento (Entrevista Telefónica o Virtual). Temáticas con Tiempos Asignados Tiempo para cada Sección en minutos Temática Tiempo acumulado de la entrevista 5 Introducción 5 5 Presentación del Entrevistado 10 15 Efectividad de la Estrategia de Comunicaciones 25 10 Efectividad en el Involucramiento del sector privado en iniciativas de reconciliación 35 15 Sostenibilidad de entornos comunitarios para la reconciliación a partir de cambios individuales 50 5 Recomendaciones and Lecciones Aprendidas 55 5 Conclusión 60 Introducción (5 minutos) El propósito de la entrevista es conversar acerca de los resultados del programa Alianzas para la Reconciliación PAR implementado por ACDI VOCA desde 2016 hasta 2020. Nos interesa conocer su opinión acerca de la relevancia del programa en el contexto municipal, regional y nacional en el logro de cambios en percepciones, actitudes y comportamientos relacionados con el alcance de un entorno colaborativo de reconciliación. En tal sentido estaremos conversando sobre tres áreas de interés para la evaluación: (1) La efectividad de la estrategia de comunicaciones y sensibilización 360, (2) el involucramiento del sector privado en las iniciativas de reconciliación posterior a la participación en el programa y (3) los cambios observados en el entorno comunitario promovidos por las acciones individuales generadas a través de la participación en el programa. En particular, nos interesa conocer los desafíos que la actual estrategia del programa enfrenta, los componentes exitosos, y como percibe los resultados alcanzados en los tres aspectos indicados y la manera como dichos resultados pueden perdurar en el tiempo. La entrevista tendrá una duración de 60 minutos. Con su permiso el equipo evaluador grabará la conversación para apoyar las notas de la entrevista. Ninguna persona fuera del equipo evaluador tendrá acceso al audio de la entrevista. La entrevista tendrá mejores resultados si usted realiza la mayor parte de la conversación. Siéntase libre de hablar abiertamente sobre los aspectos relacionados con las preguntas guía que realizará el facilitador, presentando su perspectiva acerca de los resultados del programa. Su participación es voluntaria, en cualquier momento si lo considera necesario puede retirarse de la entrevista. Para el facilitador: Si alguien se retira de la entrevista indíquelo en la hoja de seguimiento de la entrevista. Los datos recolectados serán reportados de manera agregada, señalando los aspectos relevantes, y positivos, así como una ruta de mejoramiento para los aspectos con posibilidades de mejoramiento y efectos no esperados que la implementación ha encontrado. Usted no será identificado con su nombre en los resultados agregados. El equipo de evaluadores le agradece por su participación. 18 ¿Tiene alguna pregunta antes de empezar? Proceso Logístico: Estrategia de Envío debería identificar al informante último dentro de los beneficiarios que cuente con la información adecuada. Debe quedar claro para la persona de logística no solamente el qué (emails, contactos, y persona idónea para responder a la pregunta) sino también el cómo (una estrategia que presenta la evaluación no como una auditoria sino como un ejercicio de generación de conocimiento). Presentación del Entrevistado (5 minutos) 1. ¿Cuál es su cargo o título dentro de la organización y qué organización representa? 2. Brevemente describa su relación con el programa “Alianzas para la Reconciliación PAR” 3. Describa brevemente cuál fue su rol de su organización en el programa. Efectividad de la Estrategia de Comunicaciones (10 minutos) 1. ¿Cómo ha sido recibida la estrategia de comunicaciones del programa por la comunidad? ¿Ha utilizado los canales de comunicación relevantes para la comunidad? 2. ¿Cuál fue el mayor reto para acceder a los contenidos de la estrategia de comunicaciones? 3. ¿La estrategia de Comunicaciones ha fortalecido a los líderes de la comunidad para participar en los diferentes procesos de reconciliación? ¿Ha crecido el número de líderes y personas interesadas en estos procesos? 4. ¿La estrategia de comunicaciones ofreció una plataforma para promover los mensajes positivos acerca de la reconciliación? ¿Cómo era el papel de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en esta conversación? 5. ¿La estrategia de comunicaciones les permitió conocer otras organizaciones y otras formas de entender la reconciliación? ¿De qué forma influyó esto en la visión de ustedes sobre los procesos de reconciliación? 6. ?Cuales de las iniciativas de la estrategia de comunicación le pareció la más efectiva para su comunidad? ?Por qué? Efectividad en el Involucramiento del sector privado en iniciativas de reconciliación (10 minutos) 7. ¿De qué forma participó la organización en los procesos de las iniciativas de reconciliación en colaboración con el sector privado? 8. ?Que beneficio le trajo a su organización la colaboración con el sector privado a través de PAR? 9. ¿Cuáles fueron los principales retos y fortalezas del trabajo con el sector privado en los proceso de reconciliación? ¿Qué aspectos podrían mejorarse? 10. ?Con que otro programa o iniciativa nacional o internacional ha colaborado? Sostenibilidad de entornos comunitarios para la reconciliación a partir de cambios individuales (15 minutos) 11. ¿De qué forma la participación en el programa ha impulsado nuevos procesos de reconciliación en la comunidad? 12. ¿Qué conocimientos obtenidos en el programa ha usado en iniciativas de reconciliación comunitaria? 13. ¿De qué forma el programa aportó para que la reconciliación fuera un objetivo de la comunidad? ¿Considera que ha cambiado el discurso al interior de la comunidad y ahora es más abierta a recibir estas iniciativas? 14. ¿La organización ha desarrollado nuevas iniciativas de reconciliación apoyando nuevas visiones e iniciativas individuales? 19 15. ¿Cuáles considera los aspectos más fuertes del programa? ¿Cuáles considera los aspectos más débiles del programa? Recomendaciones y Lecciones Aprendidas (5 minutos) 16. En su opinión, ¿Cuáles son las lecciones aprendidas del proyecto, y de qué manera se pueden tener en cuenta en el futuro? 17. ¿Conociendo lo que conoce del programa, que haría diferente en una nueva versiòn del programa? Conclusión (5 minutos) 18. ¿Hay algo más que considere importante del programa que quisiera compartir con el equipo evaluador? 20 ANNEX D: LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES INTERVIEWED 1. Alcaldía Florencia 1. Liliana Gasca 2. Alcaldía de Medellín 2. Sergio Velásquez 3. Alcaldía de Quibdó 3. Narem Chaverra 4. Klaus Colver 5. Yolanda Palacios 4. Asociación Tejido Humano 6. Luisa Fernanda Prieto Lizarazo (Coordinadora psicosocial Tejido Humano) 5. Cámara de Comercio de Cali 7. Andrea Catalina Rey 6. Cámara de Comercio de Cartagena 8. Andrea Piña 9. Miriam Almeida 10. Nicoll Garrido 11. Marian Palacio 7. Colombia Diversa 12. Gustavo Adolfo Pérez Rodríguez (Área de Derechos Humanos) 13. Daniela Vargas 8. Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (CNMH) 14. Juan Daniel Salazar 15. Andrea Buitrago 9. Comisión para el Esclarecimiento de la Verdad, la Convivencia y la No Repetición 16. Tatiana Pineda Piñeros 17. Erika Rivera 10. Corporación GEInnova 18. Johan Zapata 19. Berny Lucas Perea Gil 20. Leyova 21. Yeison Rojas 11. Corporación Minuto de Dios 22. Giovani Bolaños Ortiz (Coordinador Sede Cúcuta - Bucaramanga) 12. Corporación Reconciliación Colombia 23. Diana Guevara 24. Sergio Guarín 13. Detonante SAS 25. Viviana Mayor 26. María Lopez 14. Diario la Opinión 27. Estefanía Colmenares 28. Keila Paola Vílchez 15. Ejercito - Fe en Colombia 29. Karol Vanesa Caro 16. Embajadores de la Reconciliación 30. Teresita Gaviria 31. Aurora Martinez 32. Leyner Palacios 33. Luis Peraza 34. Alba Reyes 17. Fabiola Morera Communications 35. Marine Morera 36. Andrea Arias (FM comunicaciones) 37. Monica Parra (Prensa ACDI/VOCA) 18. Fundación ANDI 38. Liseth Beltrán Pitta (Directora de Proyectos) 39. Jaime Eduardo Garcia Vila (Equipo Fundación ANDI) 19. Fundación Casa en el Árbol 40. Martha Cala 20. Fundación Casa del Pensamiento - Construyendo Territorios de Paz 41. Camilo Buitrago 21. Fundación Conconcreto 42. Maria Isabel Valencia (Directora Ejecutiva) 22. Fundación Creata 43. Mauricio Rincón Falla (Director) 23. Fundación Espacios de Convivencia y Desarrollo Social FUNDESCODES 44. Adriel Ruiz Galván 24. Fundación Gratitud 45. Daniel Suárez 25. Fundación Grupo Social 46. Maristella Madero 21 47. Miguel Ángel Correa 48. Carlos Carrascal 49. Mildred Siriguero 26. Fundación Ideas para la Paz 50. Maria Acosta Vélez 51. María Lucia Mendez Lacorazza 52. Manuela Suarez Rueda 27. Fundación Juan Pablo Gutiérrez Cáceres 53. Juanita Sáenz 54. Alan Yecid Mosquera Palacios 28. Fundación Mi Sangre 55. David Vidal 29. Fundación Natalia Ponce de León 56. Natalia Ponce de León (Fundadora y Embajadora de la Reconciliación en el marco del PAR) Juliana Martinez (gestora social encargada del trabajo con los sobrevivientes de ataques con agentes químicos) 57. Laura Delgado (coordinadora del proyecto) 30. Fundación Nuevo Periodismo (Fundación Gabo) 58. Jessica Arrieta Majul 31. Fundación Puerto Aguadulce 59. Fabiola Lugo 60. Jhon Rentería 32. Fundación Social Grupo Daabon 61. Patricia Apreza (Jefe de Gestión Social y Coordinadora del Proyecto) 62. Andrea Brito (psicosocial, quien trabajó la metodología Decido Ser) 63. Johana Padilla (a cargo del tema empresarial) 33. Fundación Social de Sintrainagro FUNDAMILENIO 64. Ebelci barrios (psicosocial) 65. Jeison Andres Franco (director) 34. Fundación Surtigas 66. Maria Claudia Trucco, - Directora 67. Eduar Enrique Vargas Martinez - Coordinador de Proyectos 35. Fundación Tejido Humano 68. Juan Sebastián Cano 69. Remberto Ignacio Campos Calle 70. Leidy Johanna Hincapié 36. Fundación Universitaria Unipanamericana Compensar 71. Rosangela Adriana Blanco Rodriguez (Coordinadora del Proyecto Unipanamericana), 72. Jose Ricardo Amórtegui Perilla (Unipanamericana) 37. Fundemicromag 73. Marco Antonio Diaz 74. Angelica Picalua 38. Gente Estratégica 75. Patricia Castillo Avila 76. Luis Laiton 77. Nelly Rodriguez 78. Didier Quezada 39. Nuestro Flow S.A.S 79. Andrea Gonzalez (directora y cofundadora) 40. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana 80. María José Sarmiento 41. Proyectos Semana Rural 81. Alejandra Corchuelo - Gerente de Proyectos Semana Rural 82. Juliana Palacio - coordinadora de alianzas del proyecto 83. Andrés Rosales - editor 84. Adriana Sabogal - equipo Semana 42. Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar 85. Jorge Luis Alvis Arrieta PAR and USAID Stakeholders PAR Coordinadores regionales Hugo Báez (Norte de Santander) Flavio Carabalí (Valle del Cauca) Alejandro Velázquez (Antioquia) Diana Sierra (Caribe) Niza Uribe (Chocó) Luisa Vega (Arauca_ 22 PAR HQ Hernando Sánchez, Gerente M&E Andrés Zambrano, Especialista Editor Contenidos Sandra Sánchez, Gerente de Comunicaciones y Mensajes Positivos Gisella de Andreis, Gerente Apoyo Psicosocial Berci Barahona, Especialista en Construcción de Paz y Memoria Juliana Amaya, Especialista en Alianzas Público-Privadas USAID COLOMBIA Laura Calderón Camila Gómez C-AME Diana Mora Juan Luque Juan Ruíz Gina Rico 23 ANNEX E: TEAM MEMBER DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 24 25 26