FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON 
ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES ACTIVITY
June 24, 2021
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was
prepared independently by the Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES) activity of Social
Impact, Inc., which is contracted by USAID/Ethiopia.
SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS, WALKING FOR PEACE RALLY AT BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
PHOTO CREDIT: USAID
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN 
CAMPUSES ACTIVITY
ETHIOPIA PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SERVICE (EPMES) ACTIVITY 
OF USAID/ETHIOPIA 
Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-663-C-16-00010-EPMES
Prepared for:
United States Agency for International Development/Ethiopia
American Embassy
Entoto Street
P.O. Box 1014
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Prepared by:
Social Impact, Inc.
Bole Sub City, Woreda 13
House # 478, 4th Floor 
Authors: 
Adam Reisman, Evaluation Team Leader
Brooke Hill, Program Manager 
Shiferaw Nede Fujie, Evaluation Specialist
Kalewongel Minale Gedamu, Conflict Mitigation Expert
Yirgalem Mengistu Belay, Conflict Mitigation Expert
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for
International Development or the United States Government.
i | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ABSTRACT
This final Performance Evaluation of the Sustaining Dialogue on Ethiopian Campuses (SD) Activity applied
qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, which included document review, key informant 
interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a remote Computer-Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (CATI) survey. The overall goal of the SD Activity was to establish a culture of trust and 
collaboration on select Ethiopian university campuses and facilitate increased resilience to triggers, 
produce more broad-minded graduates, and reduce negative relational social patterns and inter-group 
violence. 
Despite the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic shutting down universities in 2020 and curbing the final
year of the SD Activity, the evaluation found that the Activity contributed to positive attitudinal and 
behavioral changes among SD participants, including greater trust and understanding of individuals from 
other groups as well as increased cross-ethnic friendships. The Activity also contributed to conflict
mitigation efforts between different ethnic and religious groups on campus. Despite several positive
outcomes on the target campuses and among the SD student participants, evaluation respondents linked
few changes in attitudes and behavior off-campus to SD’s peace incubation activities. 
Most SD-supported universities demonstrated commitment to continuing SD activities through use of 
their own budgets and piloting dialogue sessions, but COVID-19 restrictions interrupted this capacity￾building and handover process to university administrations. Seventy-six percent of SD stakeholders think
the Activity should continue at the universities, but some raised concerns that lack of administration-level
political will could obstruct this continuation and that Ethiopian government support would be necessary
to support SD-type work in the future. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... v
Purpose and Background.......................................................................................................................................... v
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ v
Findings and Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ vi
Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................................xi
Introduction and Evaluation Purpose.......................................................................................... 1
Activity Background................................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Evaluation Questions................................................................................................................................................. 2
Evaluation Design and Methodology ........................................................................................... 3
Data Collection........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Document Review ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Key informant interviews......................................................................................................................................... 4
Focus Group Discussions......................................................................................................................................... 5
Survey............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Qualitative Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 6
Quantitative Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 7
Data Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Limitations and Biases............................................................................................................................................... 7
Findings and Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 9
Evaluation Question 1............................................................................................................................................... 9
Evaluation Question 2.............................................................................................................................................14
Evaluation Question 3.............................................................................................................................................22
Evaluation Question 4.............................................................................................................................................29
Evaluation Question 5.............................................................................................................................................31
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 35
Annex I: Evaluation Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 38
Annex II: Full Methodology ........................................................................................................ 52
Data Collection.........................................................................................................................................................52
Sampling......................................................................................................................................................................55
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................................................57
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................58
Limitations and Biases.............................................................................................................................................60
Dissemination and Utilization................................................................................................................................61
Annex III: Data Collection Tools ............................................................................................... 63
Annex IV: CATI Brief................................................................................................................ 113
Annex V: Sources of Non-primary Information..................................................................... 115
SD Activity Documents Reviewed.................................................................................................................... 115
Other Source Materials Reviewed.................................................................................................................... 115
Annex VI: Statements of any Conflict of Interest.................................................................. 116
iii | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Annex VII: Evaluation Team Member Bios ............................................................................ 121
Annex VIII: List of Persons Interviewed ................................................................................. 123
USAID/Ethiopia:..................................................................................................................................................... 123
Implementing Partners: ........................................................................................................................................ 123
University Stakeholders:...................................................................................................................................... 123
Off-Campus Stakeholders: .................................................................................................................................. 123
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sample and Distribution of KIIs .......................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Sample and Distribution of FGDs........................................................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Profile of Examined Peace Incubation Projects................................................................................................20
Table 4: Factors Affecting SD Interventions in On-Campus Conflicts...........................................................................27
Table 5: SI EPMES & HQ Team Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................................ 122
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: University Data Collection Samples.................................................................................................................... vi
Figure 2: SD Participants Enabled Moot Court Truce at University of Gondar............................................................ ix
Figure 3: University Data Collection Samples.................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4: The CATI Process ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 5: Survey Responses on SD Goal Achievement ..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Survey Responses on SD Activity Format.........................................................................................................12
Figure 7: FGD Responses on Behavior Change...............................................................................................................15
Figure 8: Participant Behavior Changes Toward Others................................................................................................16
Figure 9: Challenges to Building Buy-in and Trust Among Local Leaders.....................................................................19
Figure 10: Attitudinal and Behavioral Changes Among Participants (SD Participant Survey)....................................22
Figure 11: FGD Responses on Conflict.............................................................................................................................22
Figure 12 Examples of SD Participants Supporting Minority Students........................................................................24
Figure 13: Survey Responses on Role in Conflict Mitigation..........................................................................................26
Figure 14: Survey Responses on Engaging in Peaceful Dialogue by Gender ...............................................................26
Figure 15: SD Participants Enabled Moot Court Truce at UoG....................................................................................28
Figure 16: Survey Responses Demonstrating Belief that the SD Activity Results Will Be Sustained ........................29
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | iv 
ACRONYMS
AU Ambo University
ADS Automated Directives System
BDU Bahir Dar University
CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
CDC Center for Disease Control
CO Contracts Officer
COP Chief of Party
COVID-19 2019 Novel Coronavirus
CSO Civil Society Organization 
CSP Charities and Societies Proclamation
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DG Democracy and Governance
EPMES Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Service
EPRDF Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front
EQ Evaluation Question 
EQUI Evaluation Quality Use Impact
ET Evaluation Team
FCR Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GHUMI Oromo Cultural Club
HQ Headquarters
HU Haramaya University
IP Implementing Partner
IRB Institutional Review Board 
JU Jimma University
KII Key Informant Interview
LPI Life & Peace Institute 
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
MOP Ministry of Peace
MOSHE Ministry of Science and Higher Education
ODK Open Data Kit
PDC Peace and Development Center
PII Personally Identifiable Information 
QA Quality Assurance
SD Sustaining Dialogue on Ethiopian Campuses
SI Social Impact, Inc.
SOW Scope of Work
TL Team Leader
UoG University of Gondar 
v | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ethiopia’s Democracy and Governance
(DG) Office commissioned the Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES) contract, 
implemented by Social Impact (SI), to conduct a performance evaluation of the Sustaining Dialogue on 
Ethiopian Campuses (SD) Activity. Life & Peace Institute (LPI) and the Peace and Development Center
(PDC) implemented the Activity with a total budget of $1,591,070 from March 10, 2016 to January 31, 
2021 under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-663-A-16-00009. This performance evaluation: 1) examined 
the overall progress of the SD Activity in meeting the project goal and objectives; 2) reviewed, analyzed,
and evaluated the design, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SD Activity; and 3) provides specific
recommendations for possible future USAID activities regarding peacebuilding/conflict mitigation and 
management in Ethiopian universities. 
METHODOLOGY 
The EPMES Evaluation Team (ET) used a mixed-methods design of both qualitative and quantitative data 
collection to address the Evaluation Questions (EQs) and used the data collection methods which included
document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a remote 
Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey. 
Data collection was conducted both in-person and remotely at five SD-supported Universities (Ambo, 
Bahir Dar, Gondar, Haramaya, and Jimma) and in Addis Ababa1 from March 17-April 13, 2021. In all, the 
ET conducted 69 KIIs with 142 SD Activity stakeholders, including USAID, LPI, PDC, SD University 
Coordinators, Peace Forum leaders, university administrators, Peace Incubators, local government 
leaders, and Ministry of Peace (MOP) and Ministry of Science & Higher Education (MOSHE) officials. The 
EPMES ET also conducted 25 FGDs with 176 SD-participant students, graduates, and moderators. A CATI 
survey was administered to 2,187 current and former students (a representative sample of the 11,153 SD 
participant population), with questions focused on the participants’ experiences and perceptions prior to 
and after the SD Activity. (See Figure 1 below for breakdown of KIIs, FGDs, and survey samples by university). 
1 Data collection conducted in Addis Ababa involved FGDs with former SD university students who graduated from their 
respective universities and now live in Addis Ababa. These FGDs in Addis Ababa included students from all five SD-supported 
universities. Note that the map does not include KIIs from non-university stakeholders. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | vi
The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic limited the evaluation design in the following ways: SI￾Headquarters based ET members were unable to travel to Ethiopia and the ET had to conduct FGDs
outside or in well-ventilated locations with standard COVID-19 protocols in place. The pandemic’s
interruption of the 2019-2020 academic year decreased the available pool of on-campus students able to 
participate in the SD Activity (which required several Addis-Ababa-based FGDs with student graduates).
The evaluation process began on January 13, 2021 and ended on June 24, 2021.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant 
for conflict mitigation and peacebuilding in universities?
Appropriateness and relevance for affecting on-campus change:
The selection process for students and moderators was largely seen as fair and inclusive: Most 
stakeholders (73 percent for the student participant selection process, 62 percent for moderators) saw
the selection process for choosing participants for its SD dialogue sessions as fair and inclusive. All
stakeholder groups the ET engaged commented that the dialogue sessions’ diversity was a strength of the 
Activity’s design. Dialogue sessions were organized to be representative of Ethiopia’s numerous
ethnicities, religions, and geographic regions and aimed to achieve a 50-50 gender balance, including
selecting a woman moderator in each dialogue group. 
Design of SD dialogue sessions viewed favorably: (1) Frequency: Almost 72 percent of participants
thought that meeting bi-weekly was appropriate, although several groups modified this schedule to meet
weekly; (2) Group Size: Approximately 73 percent stated that the size of the SD dialogue sessions (10
participants and two moderators) was appropriate, allowing for both sufficient participation and level of 
Figure 1: University Data Collection Samples1
vii | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
comfort for sharing personal details; (3) Participation: Approximately 88 percent of SD participants stated 
no issues with punctuality, attendance, or dropout of participants. 
Appropriateness and relevance of design for broader campus-wide change:
The number of dialogue groups viewed as too few: The SD Activity budgeted for 600 students 
per university per year.2 Most (93 percent) SD stakeholders believed that the number of dialogue groups
convened on campus each year was too small to significantly change student attitudes and behavior across 
the campus and support conflict mitigation efforts at the five universities.
SD Peace Actions not conducted frequently enough: While approximately 45 percent of SD
participating students noted the utility of Peace Action events to bring large groups of students together 
to convey peace messaging (e.g., for plenary sessions) or to help other students apply to be SD participants 
the following year (e.g., during coffee ceremonies), the remaining percentage noted that they were not 
held frequently enough or did not convey peace messaging directly enough. 
Appropriateness and relevance of design for influencing off-campus change: 
SD’s design provided limited ability to facilitate off-campus changes: In the views of SD stakeholders, 
SD’s peace incubation projects had less direct connection to the immediate conflict mitigation and 
peacebuilding needs of universities. Most lacked familiarity with peace incubation projects because of the 
limited number of spaces available for students to participate (16 in 2018-2019, 10 in 2017-2018).
Additionally, only 10 percent of students and moderators described conducting off-campus charity work 
in towns surrounding their universities with other campus groups, including Peace Forums and student￾run charity clubs.
Evaluation Question 2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and
behavioral changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? 
The SD Activity has significantly contributed to positive changes in attitudes and
behavior among SD participants: 
Out of 176 FGD participants who took part in this evaluation, 76 percent of them mentioned the 
effectiveness of the Activity in changing their attitudes and behaviors, stating that it had provided a platform 
for them to have extended interactions, learn about the culture, language, and identity of others, and 
develop mutual understanding and positively reinforcing relations. These attitudinal changes in turn have
led to increased cross-ethnic associations, friendships, mutual support, and other demonstrations of
behavioral changes. During periods of tension on campus, SD members provided refuge, protection, and 
support for minority students who felt threatened. 
The SD Activity enabled major changes in participants’ attitudes and behavior
toward others, but only small-scale changes among different university communities:
2 600 students per university account for between one to two percent of the total student population at the target universities
(Bahir Dar is the largest and Gondar is the smallest university). 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | viii 
The evaluation found that most SD students spread peace messages to friends, room/dorm mates, 
classmates, and to those in their own ethnic group. Approximately 67 percent of SD-participating students
at the five universities stated that the understanding and trust built within their dialogue sessions enabled
them to accept those of different ethnic and religious backgrounds outside of these groups as well.
However, about half (53 percent) of participants faced challenges in attempting to change attitudes and 
behavior among broader campus communities. Interviewed non-SD university students agreed that SD 
participants demonstrated positive attitudinal and behavioral changes amongst themselves, but these 
changes did not extend to the non-SD university community. The non-SD students said that they believed 
that this limitation was due to a lack of awareness of the SD Activity on campus, a lack of a platform for 
reaching students, and a lack of comprehensive SD training of students to enable them to apply skills
learned. 
Respondents linked few changes in attitudes and behavior off-campus to peace
incubation activities: 
The nine incubation projects analyzed by the ET aimed to significantly contribute to the redressal of long￾standing social and security problems, including cattle raiding, blood feuds, and religious and ethnic
tensions. The ET determined that of the nine incubation projects it analyzed, seven (78 percent) were
found lacking the necessary “critical mass” of concerted and sustained intervention measures, sufficient
resources, active public participation, and local government administrative support to significantly affect
these communities’ conflict dynamics. Two of these nine projects, however, demonstrated greater 
effectiveness. One of these projects, for example, was implemented in Amhara region, Dega Damot 
Woreda, and made significant strides establishing a peace committee and contributing to minimizing
incidents of blood feuds. 
Evaluation Question 3: To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation
and peacebuilding on and off campus? 
The SD Activity contributed significantly to conflict mitigation and peacebuilding
efforts between different groups on campus: 
All (100 percent) SD students/moderators in FGDs stated they have not participated in any on-campus 
conflicts since being involved in the SD Activity. Additionally, SD students cited several examples of 
attempts to mitigate micro-level conflicts, including small, interpersonal conflicts that could have grown 
into larger ethnically driven ones if not addressed. More than half (53 percent) of SD participants from 
the five universities also articulated examples of protecting minority students during periods of on-campus 
conflict.
SD stakeholders collaborated effectively with Peace Forum 3 representatives on
specific conflict-mitigation activities: 
3 Peace Forums are a government-created (Ministry of Peace) body composed of students and university administration staff 
established at each public university in Ethiopia, including the five universities of the SD Activity. The organization was formed to
address rising levels of violence within university campuses with a goal to institutionalize peace and resolve conflict amicably. 
Peace Forums at the five SD Universities were entrusted with the day-to-day management and operations of the SD Activity. 
Executive student members of the Peace Forums are SD participants and act as facilitators and moderators in the Activity. 
ix | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
The Forums coordinated peacebuilding and conflict mitigation activities with SD participants, and led
coordinated peacebuilding activities on all campuses, e.g., charity work in surrounding communities. In
some cases, they helped the SD Activity's implementation during periods of conflict. However, this 
partnership has also generated tensions with student unions on all five campuses, who have objected to 
being left out of the management of SD activities.
Direct mitigation efforts by SD students are limited during actual conflicts between 
different campus groups: 
SD participants’ role in the settlement of on-campus, ethnically driven intergroup conflicts has been low.
The two most common explanations for this are the high intensity of the conflict and the lack of
comprehensive training and guidance provided to SD students on how to deal with inter-ethnic and 
intergroup conflicts. One promising initiative, however, was the law students’ “moot court” truce at the 
University of Gondar (UoG), which stakeholders stated not only resulted in the cessation of hostilities, 
but also the peaceful conclusion of the academic year.
Evaluation Question 4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be
scaled up by SD beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What
evidence exists to demonstrate this sustainability?
Most SD-supported universities demonstrated commitment to continuing SD
activities: 
In 2019-2020 in four out of the five targeted universities, the SD Activity was training administrative and 
Peace Forum staff to take over the SD Activity, and universities were using their own budgets to pilot
dialogue sessions (180 students with 40 moderators) on their satellite campuses. However, COVID-19
significantly interrupted this process after all five universities were shut down in March 2020 due to
pandemic risk. Both university officials and Peace Forum staff at the five universities see post-COVID-19
“refresher” training/support from the SD Activity as necessary, and SD’s implementing partners said that 
their recommended plans include such trainings with the five universities. 
A majority (76 percent) of SD stakeholders think the Activity should or will continue
at the universities but disagree on who should lead this effort. 
Respondents identified four options regarding what leadership arrangement would best ensure SD’s
sustainability: (1) continuing with the current Peace Forum management arrangement, (2) make SD a club
under the jurisdiction of the Student Union, (3) place it under the administration, such as within the 
student services office, and (4) a hybrid administration arrangement involving support by the MOP and/or 
MOSHE. However, 40 percent of qualitative respondents said factors such as lack of administration-level
political will or capacity could prevent the SD Activity from continuing. 
Figure 2: SD Participants Enabled Moot Court Truce at University of Gondar
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | x 
Evaluation Question 5: What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant
challenges to the success of the SD Activity? 
Lessons Learned from the SD Activity:
• The SD Activity did not sufficiently involve university administration or non-SD groups
(e.g., student unions) from the beginning. This engagement improved toward the Activity’s end, as
more of these groups were invited to participate.
• More “real world” training on conflict mitigation is needed for participants to be better
prepared when actual violence breaks out.
• SD stakeholders have conducted only limited cross-campus sharing of their SD
experiences among the five target universities, although SD did hold a large exchange workshop in
December 2018. More efforts like this, but smaller scale, are needed to enable the sharing and
“pooling” of stakeholders’ rich experiences regarding what has or has not made the SD Activity
effective on their campuses.
Best Practices from the SD Activity:
• Language was an issue in early years of the SD Activity. During those early years, SD Moderators
conducted sessions in Amharic which had the potential to alienate Oromiffa speakers,
particularly in Oromia-based universities (Ambo/Jimma). Once this issue was identified, SD adapted,
materials are now provided in Oromiffa, and bi-lingual participants can provide translation support.
• SD dialogue groups' 50-50 gender balance and appointment of a woman moderator for each
group helped female participation and confidence-building as sessions continued.
Challenges to the Success of the SD Activity: 
• COVID-19 shut down universities across Ethiopia for a year beginning in March 2020 and halted
all SD activities, including key university administration/Peace Forum capacity building that was
intended to ensure a smooth continuation of university funding for SD activities.
• On-campus conflict during SD implementation (2018-2019 in particular) resulted in dozens
killed/injured, damage to property, universities temporarily closed, and students leaving campuses out
of safety concerns. This delayed the kickoff of SD’s sessions until December 2019 at four of the
universities and until February 2020 at Haramaya University (HU).
• Lost academic time from both COVID-19 shut-down and campus-based violence has
forced returning students to take additional classes and has consequently pushed back
the universities' reengagement on dialogue activities until the 2021-2022 academic year at the
earliest. This heavier course load requirement has restricted student availability for dialogue sessions;
forced moderators to hold sessions weekly, evenings, or weekends; resulted in participants missing
some sessions; and sometimes compromised the quality of the sessions.
• The SD Activity faced ongoing perceptions among non-participating students that the
Activity had hidden political or religious aims, especially in the early years of implementation.
Students and facilitators from Bahir Dar University (BDU), for example, stated that they faced hostility,
and even in the case of one facilitator, an attack by students with knives and stones, due to perceptions
xi | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
that the SD Activity was working through its panel discussions and dialogue sessions to undermine
ethnic federalism.
• Some (at least seven) SD facilitators did not discharge their responsibilities effectively.
Several respondents identified issues which included not providing proper guidance for moderators,
following up, or taking corrective remedial actions when necessary. These issues were linked to some
moderators failing to undertake SD sessions with all the requirements in place, e.g., convening at least
eight people. Additionally, several stakeholders stated facilitators were placing their friends and
acquaintances in SD dialogue sessions when other participants dropped out of the Activity.
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Reach more students on campus. Increase the number of dialogue groups to boost the number
of participating students. These future increases could be implemented each year and be based on
the capacity of the university SD coordinators, Peace Forums, and university administrations to
sufficiently manage these larger numbers of groups.
Boost visibility of the SD Activity on campus. Conduct more frequent Peace Actions
throughout the academic year. These could include convening panel discussions with
influential/popular speakers to boost awareness of the SD Activity. Build on the micro-Peace Actions 
that participants began at specific universities after three dialogue sessions.
Increase engagement with local, off-campus communities. This could include strengthening
ties with local leaders and direct assistance efforts that build foundations for future, dialogue-based
work beyond the university campuses. Continue to build on the cooperative ventures between 
university Peace Forums and SD participants in the surrounding communities.
Increase SD participants’ capacity to mitigate conflict. Add more practical, “real world”
training in conflict mitigation scenarios that allow students to learn and practice de-escalation and
other mitigation techniques.
Integrate other university groups into the SD process. Dialogue sessions were conducted at
least two times per month; but these could be held more frequently especially when tensions increase
on campus. During such periods, increased sessions could be held not only with current participants,
but also with representatives of specific ethnic groups that might be more likely to instigate violence.
Increase use of social media: Establish a dedicated SD website to enable SD Administrators to
provide accurate information about the Activity, establish and maintain group and university SD
communication, and provide a platform for sharing SD experiences and achievements.
Leverage SD’s extensive alumni network: Expand and strengthen SD Activity’s nascent alumni
network. Specifically, strengthen linkages to and between alumni to enable SD to maintain contact
among graduates and organize peacebuilding events. 
Increase use of art and music in SD activities: To make use of art’s peacebuilding potential, the
SD Activity should work in collaboration with university art, music, literature, and theater
departments and clubs to create an informal and relaxed environment for spreading the message of
peace and positively affecting people’s attitudes.
Strengthen monitoring and oversight capacity of campus-based actors: Monitoring
implementation of the SD Activity should be strengthened. More training on monitoring and
evaluation could be given to campus facilitators, university SD coordinators, and the Peace Forum.
Facilitators could also be trained on time management and strategic prioritization of tasks.
1 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
INTRODUCTION AND EVALUATION PURPOSE 
ACTIVITY BACKGROUND
CONTEXT
The university campus is a pivotal space in Ethiopian society, beginning movements and setting trends,
while also being highly influenced by national, regional, and international dynamics. Ethiopian campuses are 
characterized as places of intense intergroup competition, mistrust, and misunderstanding, where students
arrive socialized with ideas of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that are then solidified by informal socialization processes
on campus. This is exemplified in the Oromia and Amhara regions where identity-based social groups 
quickly mobilize in response to a range of triggers that tap into historical grievances or root causes of the 
competition and divisions. As divisions in campuses replicate and exacerbate tensions from the larger 
Ethiopian society, conflict escalates from interpersonal disputes or knowledge of events external to the
campus and sometimes surrounding communities. Critically, such unhealthy cultures on campuses not 
only occasionally explode in violence and result in loss of life, but also consistently produce graduates who
return to lead their communities and the nation more hardened toward other groups than before.4
Hence, there is a need to continue to spread and institutionalize processes for intergroup sustained
dialogue on university campuses. A strategic peacebuilding approach recognizes the role that university
students play in Ethiopian society as change agents in their home communities, on campuses, and in the 
national scene. Accordingly, in October 2016, the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID) awarded Life & Peace Institute (LPI) a $1,591,070 budget to implement, the Sustaining Dialogue 
on Ethiopian Campuses (SD) Activity. Over the course of a four-year intervention, LPI implemented the
SD Activity, in partnership with the Peace and Development Center (PDC), in five universities across the 
country, specifically, Ambo, Bahir Dar, Gondar, Haramaya, and Jimma. The SD Activity focused on 
supporting local stakeholders to establish a sustained dialogue process that sought to contribute to a shift
in campus culture across the selected Ethiopian universities. The intervention sought not only to change
attitudes and behavior of dialogue participants, but also to position key young men and women to have a 
catalytic multiplier effect to reach more people on and off campus. The SD Activity aimed to contribute
to efforts toward transforming the Ethiopian university campus from a place of hyper, and sometimes 
violent, inter-group competition to a space for trust-building, dialogue, and cooperation to address deeper
relational issues.5 
ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES
● Strategic Objective 1: Institutional changes – civil society: PDC is able to ensure the quality of
the Sustaining Dialogue process and continue to build partnerships with universities.
● Strategic Objective 2: Institutional changes – universities: Ethiopian universities (administration
and student clubs) can run the SD Activity independently.
● Strategic Objective 3: Individual changes: Young women and men participants in the Sustaining
Dialogue process have been transformed in their views across identity lines.
4 USAID/Ethiopia Sustaining Dialogue Evaluation Statement of Work, 1.
5 USAID/Ethiopia Sustaining Dialogue Evaluation Statement of Work, 2.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 2 
● Strategic Objective 4: Individual changes: Student opinion leaders have a positive multiplier
effect on their peers.
● Strategic Objective 5a: Relationship changes: Sustaining Dialogue participants have developed
positive relationships across identity groups.
● Strategic Objective 5b: Spreading to more people: Collaborative actions by Sustaining Dialogue
participants spreads a culture of trust and understanding amongst diverse identity groups.
● Strategic Objective 6: Innovative peace ideas have contributed to social cohesion and address
negative socialization patterns off campus.
THEORY OF CHANGE
The SD Activity’s overarching theory of change states that “if Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained
dialogue projects on campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust, and understanding in universities, then
this will reduce the reinforcing of negative relational patterns and prevent violence on campuses that can spread
to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal and national contexts; this is because
changing culture on campus will produce broad-minded future leaders and the university will become an institution
for inter-group collaboration and exchange rather than further divisive competition.”
EVALUATION PURPOSE
USAID/Ethiopia’s Democracy and Governance (DG) Office commissioned the Ethiopia Performance 
Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES) contract, implemented by Social Impact (SI), to conduct a 
performance evaluation of the SD on Ethiopian Campuses Activity. The Activity was implemented by LPI
and PDC under the Cooperative Agreement No. AID-663-A-16-00009. This performance evaluation: 
1. Examined the overall progress of the SD Activity in meeting the project goal and objectives,
specifically how it affected behavior in and outside university campuses.
2. Reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated the design, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SD Activity.
3. Provides specific recommendations for future activities and directions that the Mission may wish
to explore regarding peacebuilding/conflict mitigation and management in Ethiopian universities.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation addressed the following Evaluation Questions (EQs), drafted by USAID/Ethiopia and 
finalized in consultation with the EPMES evaluation team (ET). 
1. To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the ET should review how well
the design of the Activity and its theory of change corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect
to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral changes among SD
participants, university communities, and non-university communities? (To address this question, the
ET should first assess the efforts or approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess
how the SD Activity affected these attitudes and behavior.)
3. To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation and peacebuilding on and
off campus? (To address this question, the ET must assess whether SD alumni/participants actively sought
to be peacemakers during incidents of inter-ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
3 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
4. To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD beneficiaries
and university partners after it ends? What evidence exists to demonstrate this sustainability?
5. What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the success of the
SD Activity?
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
DATA COLLECTION 
The EPMES ET used a mixed-methods design for this evaluation that collected both qualitative and 
quantitative data to address the EQs, which included: document review, key informant interviews (KIIs),
focus group discussions (FGDs), and a remote Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey.
Data collection took place between March 17 and April 13, 2021, with the evaluation process beginning 
on January 13, 2021, and ending on June 24, 2021. Figure 3 below illustrates the data collection sample 
size and methodologies spread across the five SD Activity target locations.6
DOCUMENT REVIEW
6 Note that the participant numbers from the five Addis-based FGDs have been added to each university’s numbers in the figures. 
These totals are of university-based stakeholders only. The map does not include the following stakeholders: USAID, Ministry of 
Peace, Ministry of Science and Higher Education, and implementing partners. 
Figure 3: University Data Collection Samples 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 4 
The ET undertook a review of documents produced by and relevant to the SD Activity to better 
understand its design and implementation, extract findings relevant to the EQs, and inform development
of the evaluation’s data collection protocols so that the instruments appropriately supplement or cross￾check against information in the background documents. The ET triangulated information from the 
documents with the data extracted from the KIIs, FGDs, and surveys. Please see Annex V for a full list of
documents reviewed for this evaluation.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
The ET conducted KIIs through a mix of in-person, virtual, and phone-based interviews, with the 
communication methods dependent on the stakeholder group and/or the quality of the key informant’s 
internet connection. The in-person KIIs were conducted at the five SD universities – Ambo, Bahir Dar,
Gondar, Haramaya, and Jimma. The targeted interview groups included: 1) SD Activity University
Coordinators (and other University Administrators such as Presidents, Vice-Presidents, campus security
chiefs and academic deans); 2) Peace Forum leaders/representatives; 3) current students who participated 
in and implemented SD peace incubation projects; and 4) students who did not participate in the SD
Activity, drawn from student unions, clubs, and ethnic groups on campus. 
The ET’s local specialists conducted off-campus interviews with 1) university graduates who participated 
in and implemented SD peace incubation projects; and 2) local government/community leaders from the 
towns or cities in which the incubation projects were conducted. The ET conducted most of these
interviews by phone, with few in-person interviews in select locations, which depended on schedule
availability. Detailed sampling is provided in Table 1. 
Additionally, the ET conducted interviews with Addis-based staff from USAID, implementing partners (IPs)
LPI and PDC, and Ethiopian Government representatives (the Ministry of Peace [MOP] and the Ministry 
of Science and Higher Education [MOSHE]). These Addis-based KIIs were held remotely and led by the 
Team Leader (TL). The ET conducted remote KIIs using Microsoft Teams, a communications software. 
Table 1: Sample and Distribution of KIIs 
Bahir
Dar
Jimma Haramaya Gondar Ambo Off
Campus
Total
USAID/Ethiopia -- -- -- -- -- 2 2
Implementing Partners -- -- -- -- -- 8 8
SD University
Coordinators/Administrators
2 4 1 3 3 -- 13
Peace Forum leaders 2 2 3 1 4 -- 12
Facilitators 3 4 3 4 4 -- 18
Local Community &
Government Leaders
-- -- -- -- -- 5 5
Peace Incubators7 -- -- -- -- -- 7 7
Non-SD Students8 18 15 13 14 15 -- 75
7 Selected from both current SD participant students and SD participant graduates. 8 Non-SD Students will include representatives from student unions, clubs, and ethnic groups.
5 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Ethiopian Government (MOP,
MOSHE)
-- -- -- -- -- 2 2
Total 25 25 20 22 26 24 142
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The ET conducted 25 FGDs across the five campuses as well as in Addis Ababa. The team conducted
FGDs with 1) students that have participated in the SD Activity dialogue sessions and Peace Action
projects (participation in peace incubation projects was not a requirement, as very few students have
implemented these); 2) student moderators who have led these sessions; and 3) a sample of 2016-2017,
2017-2018, and 2018-2019 graduates of these five target universities now living in Addis Ababa that 
participated in or moderated these SD Activity groups while they were students. The ET selected students,
moderators, and graduates for its FGDs from all four years of the Activity’s period of performance, and 
from among the multiple dialogue groups formed on each campus each of those years. 
Table 2: Sample and Distribution of FGDs
Bahir
Dar
Jimma Haramaya Gondar Ambo Addis
Ababa9
Total
Students 21 (3)10 24 (3) 21 (4) 22 (3) 15 (2) -- 103 (15)
Graduates -- -- -- -- -- 33 (5)11 33 (5)
Moderators 9 (1) 7 (1) 7 (1) 8 (1) 9 (1) -- 40 (5)
Total 30 (4) 31 (4) 28 (5) 30 (4) 24 (3) 33 (5) 176 (25)
9 Number of FGDs conducted in Addis with graduates of these universities that participated in SD Activity.
10 The first number represents the total number of participants who took part in FGDs based on eight people per FGD; the 
number in parenthesis is the total number of FGDs. 11 Approximately five FGDs were conducted with SD Activity student graduates living in Addis Ababa, from each of the targeted 
universities. Note that the map includes the number of Addis Ababa-based participants in the university total. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 6 
SURVEY
The ET also conducted a quantitative Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey targeting 
the SD student participants. Figure 4 illustrates the CATI process, and Annex IV provides further detail 
on CATI best practices and lessons learned. The survey is a close-ended series of 20–3012 questions on 
all EQs with special focus on EQs 2 and 3 – assessing students’ and moderators’ attitudes and behaviors
and their engagement in conflict mitigation and peacebuilding. Questions focused on the participants’ 
experiences prior to and after the SD Activity. The CATI survey was conducted by a local data collection
firm selected via a competitive solicitation. The data collection firm, led by the ET, surveyed 2,187 students,
a representative sample of the 11,153 SD participant population. This surveyed sample, clustered by
university and cohort year, achieved a two percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence interval. 
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
The ET took notes during KIIs and FGDs conducted with SD Activity stakeholders. The ET cleaned and 
synthesized electronic summaries on a rolling basis after each interview or focus group. The ET conducted
internal online working sessions to identify and discuss emerging findings and themes and categorized 
conclusions and recommendations by EQ. Data analysis methods such as content and comparative analyses 
(see more on these in full methodology) were used to identify response categories and patterns and to 
elucidate emergent themes and contextual factors among qualitative data. In turn, the ET used these
discussions to inform completion of the internal preliminary Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 
(FCR) matrix, which was developed, revised, and expanded upon during the data collection process, then 
12 Depending on how participants respond, the survey length can vary. 
Figure 4: The CATI Process
7 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
finalized during the data analysis phase. The FCR matrix 1) ensured that the ET collected data that 
systematically and thoroughly answers each EQ; 2) verified that preliminary analysis accounts for gender
and social dimensions; 3) identified gaps where additional clarification or analysis may be necessary; 4) 
ensured that each recommendation was supported by evidence; and 5) served as the basis for the Interim
Findings presentation and the Draft Evaluation Report. 
QUANTITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
During data collection, the ET monitored incoming survey responses daily to verify that the survey
operated as planned, flagged completion rates, and detected any preliminary data collection concerns such
as valid phone numbers. The ET conducted a final cleaning process before analysis to review potential data
quality concerns in the final dataset. The team conducted quantitative analysis using Stata 15, a statistics 
software, ensuring all data was weighted by gender to ensure representativeness. The survey, designed as
a performance evaluation, is a brief series of before-after styled questions. Respondents self-reported and 
recalled their experience or opinions of the SD Activity before and after their participation in the SD
Activity. These responses were compared at a two percent margin of error and 95 percent level of 
confidence. Thereby, the responses are within two percentage points, with a 95 percent level of 
confidence, of how the SD participant population of 11,153 would respond. The ET disaggregated all data
by gender, university, cohort year, and ethnic group. These disaggregations were analyzed with chi-squared
statistically significant testing and, when significant,13 are presented in the Report findings. 
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
The ET employed several qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods to identify key findings from 
the collected data, as well as to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Specifically, the ET utilized
the following types of analysis: trend, comparative, content, and crosstabulations and significance testing.14
Wherever possible and/or relevant, the ET conducted a gender and social (e.g., ethnic group) analysis to
examine distinctions and similarities in experience/results by gender and social groupings. 
LIMITATIONS AND BIASES
1. Recall Bias – Due to COVID-19, the most recent student cohort of SD participants were
involved roughly one year prior to the evaluation – i.e. March 2020 – because SD Activity
interventions were suspended when universities closed. The evaluation’s quantitative survey
enabled the ET to address recall bias by ensuring a larger number of respondents, thus mitigating
individual challenges with recall. Primary data collection was also triangulated with the SD
Activity’s desk review documents.
2. Selection Bias – The ET purposively selected students and moderators at each of the five
universities – as well as graduates in Addis and other off-campus stakeholders – who were available
to meet within a specific timeframe to accommodate the ET’s data collection timeline, while also
maintaining a gender balance and diversity among ethnic, religious, and geographic groups. Such
selection was necessary but may lead to bias. The ET effectively selected a balanced FGD
participant group by ensuring balance in gender, ethnicity, religion, and university. For the
13 Findings with significance are presented at a 95 or 90 percent level. 14 Crosstabulations and significance testing was only utilized for the quantitative survey.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 8 
quantitative survey, the ET randomly selected respondents clustered by university, cohort year, 
and gender. The final sample was analyzed for balance. The total proportions of university, cohort 
year, and gender equaled that of the total SD population indicating a representative sample. 
3. Response Bias – The ET mitigated the risk of response bias (ex. a stakeholder withheld a
negative response because they believed their response may affect future support of the SD
Activity) by utilizing data triangulation to note discrepancies in responses through different data
sources (desk review, survey, FGDs, KIIs) and prepared follow-up questions for KII and FGD
respondents that encouraged more specific responses.
4. Effects of COVID-19 and Instability – Both COVID-19 and recent political instability had
several implications for the ET’s data collection and sampling for this evaluation. COVID-19 forced
the government-mandated closure in March 2020 of all higher-learning institutions in Ethiopia,
including the five targeted universities under the SD Activity, thus halting implementation of the
SD Activity.
• Political instability during 2018-2019 delayed the start of the 2019-2020 SD Activity dialogue
sessions until December 2019 at four of the universities and until February 2020 at Haramaya
University (HU), which further shortened the duration of the student/moderator experience
during the 2019-2020 dialogue cycle. This instability also interrupted classes and caused some
students to leave the campuses for their home areas, preventing the convening of regular
dialogue sessions for several weeks. This interruption in the SD dialogue cycle caused by
COVID-19 and political instability resulted in the 2019-2020 student sample only experiencing
roughly half of the dialogue sessions (less in the case of Haramaya) and none of the culminating,
year-end events (e.g., Peace Action exercises) that the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019
student cohorts did. The ET compensated for this by ensuring that most students and
graduates in its FGD sample consisted of those from these first three years of the SD Activity
– i.e., those who experienced the full SD programming cycle. This did not skew the ET’s FGD
sample in any way, as a balanced sample has roughly three out of four students and graduates
drawn from the first three years of the SD Activity.
• The COVID-19 interruption of the 2019-2020 academic year decreased the available pool of
on-campus students that have participated in the SD Activity. For example, of the last cohort
to have participated in the full, year-long SD dialogue cycle (2018-2019), all but first-year
students from this cohort have already graduated, because most students at the five
universities were enrolled in three-year academic programs. The ET compensated by seeking
out these students with longer programs (i.e. four to six year programs) in order to create a
viable FGD sample. The ET also conducted FGDs in Addis with graduates of the five
universities from 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 that participated in the SD activity.
9 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 
In the ET’s survey, 82 percent of surveyed SD participants15 report that the SD Activity was successful in
its goal of reducing and preventing violence on campus, building a culture of trust, and ultimately, repeating
this across the country. 
Key tensions identified on campus and key challenges to mitigating these tensions: The ET
first examined the key tensions and conflicts at work on Ethiopian campuses as articulated by SD
stakeholders within its KIIs and FGDs. Students, graduates, and moderators stated that campus-based
tensions and conflict were largely ethnically or religiously driven, deriving from long-standing rivalries and 
grievances among different Ethiopian population groups – e.g., Oromo versus Amhara, Muslim versus
Christians, Protestant versus Orthodox Christians, Tigrians versus Oromos and coalitions of other 
students. Several respondents noted, however, that the roots of such tensions and conflict had shifted in
recent years: prior to Abiy Ahmed becoming Prime Minister in early 2018, conflict had been more 
politically driven, with coalitions of student groups organizing against students from the Tigray region. The 
Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a political coalition dominated by the Tigray 
People’s Liberation Front, governed Ethiopia since it came to power in 1991 until Abiy’s ascendency. Since
Abiy became Prime Minister, however, such conflicts have been viewed as more ethnically rooted, in part
due to concerns over perceived shifts away from ethnic federalism, the system institutionalized within the 
country’s 1994 constitution that grants larger ethnic self-governance rights within their respective states.16
Other groups of students stated that tensions could originate from campus-based disagreements such as
issues with the quality of services provided by their university’s administration. Such issues could lead to 
student strikes, perceived inadequate responses by administrations, different student groups picking sides
in the dispute, and to conflicts becoming more ethnically driven. Students and moderators told the ET. “If
15 82 percent (1,785) said the program was successful. Six percent (134) unsuccessful. 12 percent (254) reported feeling neutral. 16 The 1994 constitution redefined the country’s structure as a multicultural federation of nine regional ethnic states and two 
federally administered city-states based on ethno-national representation.
To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict 
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities?
Figure 5: Survey Responses on SD Goal Achievement
82% of surveyed SD
Activity participants 
stated that they believe 
the SD Activity was 
successful in meeting its 
goal.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 10
we look deep into why the conflicts happen, they are not solely started because of ‘ethnic’ based issues, rather as
personal disagreements amongst students that will be coated as ‘ethnic’ conflicts and thus grow into bigger
conflicts,” one UoG SD participant stated. 
Overall appropriateness of design in meeting conflict mitigation and peacebuilding needs of
supported universities: The ET focused on the extent to which the SD Activity’s design had sufficiently
supported the five universities’ abilities to address the aforementioned tensions and sources of conflict.
The ET first assessed the Activity’s design in the context of the 2016 period when it was developed and 
launched. At that point, Ethiopia’s 2009 Charities and Societies Proclamation (CSP) was significantly
restricting civil society from engaging in peacebuilding work within the country. The ET therefore found
that the Activity’s central dialogue approach – to focus solely on students’ cultural differences and personal
histories – was important because it stayed away from contentious political themes much more likely to 
“trigger” negative reactions based on deeply-rooted, historical grievances among different ethnic and
religious groups. Additionally, LPI and PDC had been implementing this approach and demonstrating 
improved trust among participating students at other Ethiopian universities since 2009. Both factors 
earned LPI and PDC sufficient trust from the Ethiopian government, and PDC a rare exemption from the 
CSP, to move forward with the SD Activity. 
SD Activity’s application process functioned well, but greater early clarification needed 
about the purpose of the SD Activity: SD participants at all five universities told the ET that Activity
application forms for prospective student participants were distributed in different ways, including through 
events with banners; music; and, in the case of HU, refreshments. Forms were also provided at Peace
Action activities and by SD moderators and Peace Forum17 leaders going dorm to dorm or asking students
to apply anywhere on campus. This recruitment/application process for the 600 SD dialogue session spots
available per year at each university resulted in a large, diverse pool of applicants to draw from – for 
example, more than 3000 students per university applied for these spaces at the beginning of the 2018-
2019 academic year.18 During these efforts to register students, however, approximately six in ten SD
stakeholders, including participants, graduates, moderators, and facilitators, stated that little explanation 
about the Activity was provided when candidates received or were filling out their forms. Rather, some 
said they obtained clarification about it largely from friends, dormmates, or classmates who formerly 
participated. 
In general, SD’s IPs used kick-off events for the Activity at each university to provide an orientation for 
applicants selected to participate. Nevertheless, the evaluation findings indicated that a lack of earlier
awareness-raising during the application process was linked to several negative outcomes among 
approximately 20 percent of participants. These included, not being truly committed to the sessions, not 
having a good level of understanding of its objective, attending just for the refreshments, skipping sessions,
or dropping out of their groups. Relatedly, the ET noted that other reasons were also provided by
participants for missing sessions or dropping out such as preparing for exams, distances between
campuses, or sessions being viewed as boring, but gaps in understanding of the objective of the Activity
17 Peace Forums are a government-created (MOP) body composed of students and university administration staff established at 
each public university in Ethiopia, including the five universities of the SD Activity. The organization was formed to address rising 
levels of violence within university campuses with a goal to institutionalize peace and resolve conflict amicably. Peace Forums at 
the five SD Universities were entrusted with the day-to-day management and operations of the SD Activity. Executive student 
members of the Peace Forums are SD participants and act as facilitators and moderators in the Activity.
18 LPI SD Activity 2018-2019 Annual Report. 
11 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
when registering was mentioned prominently as well. “I think students joining SD groups are not well oriented
and some of them drop out quickly as they don’t understand the objectives,” said a HU participant.
Appropriateness of SD Activity’s design for internal/group change on campus:
The selection process for students and moderators was largely seen as fair and inclusive. Most
stakeholders19 saw the selection process for choosing participants for its SD dialogue sessions as fair and 
inclusive. All stakeholder groups engaged by the ET saw the dialogue sessions’ diversity as a strength of 
the Activity’s design, enabling students of different ethnic, religious, and geographic backgrounds to get to
know each other and to build trust and empathy. Dialogue sessions were organized to be as representative
as possible of Ethiopia’s numerous ethnicities, religions, and geographic regions and aimed to achieve a 
50-50 gender balance, using strategies such as intentionally selecting a woman for one of the two
moderator positions in each dialogue group. A small percentage of stakeholders (roughly 20 percent) as
well as several IP staff stated that this diversity was at times diluted by facilitators and moderators replacing
those who dropped out during the year with friends from their own ethnic group. Additionally, two
interviewees from the USAID IPs, LPI and PDC, noted that the sessions’ diversity was impacted by certain
universities’ populations that were not balanced ethnically, which affected recruitment and ultimately the
diversity of dialogue session participants in some instances. “When you ask for student applications for
participation in the SD Activity, it might not produce the most diverse groups,” one partner explained.
Some respondents felt the selection process favored ethnic minority groups. At both BDU and HU,
ethnic majority students at each institution (two Amharas at BDU and eight Oromos at HU) felt the 
selection process for SD participation favored minority groups. As a result, Oromo groups at HU began 
pressuring Peace Forum leaders to include more Oromo students in SD groups, which in 2018-2019,
started happening more regularly according to five key SD stakeholders interviewed at the university. An 
Oromo Cultural Club member at HU voiced a question asked by several non-SD Oromo students
interviewed by the team: “Unless it has political intentions, why is our inclusion limited?” A participant that 
served as moderator in both 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 noticed that diversity began to be affected in
2018-2019 when she found herself moderating a group with more Oromo students; she said, “As they
assume that SD is affiliated with the government, they felt that it excluded local students purposely. Due to pressure
on Peace Forum leaders, then students from the same ethnicity joined SD in a group. As the result, SD lost its aim.
Such new entrants did not have the interest to commit and participate voluntarily.” Several HU graduates 
participating in the Addis-based FGD also echoed this finding. “[A]fter 2018/19, the group composition was
ethnic focused to benefit some students…This is a problem of moderators, but the IP didn’t know this,” said one 
HU graduate. Additionally, a HU graduate from 2018/19 also noted unfairness in recruitment that affected 
diversity. “The design is very good, but I saw moderators inviting only friends into the process, this should have
been corrected. This affected diversity and sense of the dialogue,’’ said the graduate. 
62 percent of students viewed moderators’ selection process as fair but required more oversight.
Almost one-third of interviewed SD participants at BDU, UoG, and HU stated that the moderators’ 
selection process needed greater oversight, as some provided less effective supervision/coordination of 
the dialogue sessions. “I observed my friends’ SD session, they never met after the first session, and I feel that
moderators are not active and committed in many groups,” said one HU graduate, adding that the moderators 
had falsely filled out sign-in sheets as if all group members had attended the sessions. “There is supervision
19 73 percent for the student participant selection process, 62 percent for moderators.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 12
gap, I think,” the HU graduate concluded. Most students, moderators, facilitators, and graduates viewed
the selection of moderators as appropriate; however, a few thought the process could be more 
transparent. “When moderators are assigned, motivation and desire must be taken into account too. If the project
facilitators from Addis Ababa come regularly and increase their monitoring, they can simply see what gaps exist
among moderators, but that didn’t happen,” said a separate HU student. Some viewed moderators as having
skills gaps such as the ability to moderate sessions or speak Amharic fluently. 
Design of SD dialogue sessions largely viewed favorably: 
• Frequency: Almost 72 percent of participants thought that meeting biweekly was appropriate,
although several groups modified this schedule to meet weekly and suspended the sessions during
exams, breaks, and other periods when needed. Sessions were also held more frequently (weekly) to
make up for periods of conflict during which universities were shut down; this was done at three of
the universities (Ambo University [AU], HU, and Jimma University [JU]) during the 2019/20 academic
year when conflict delayed kickoff of the SD Activity.
• Group Size: Of the stakeholders who addressed group size during the KIIs and FGDs, approximately
73 percent stated that the size of the SD dialogue sessions (10 participants plus two moderators) was
good. They viewed this size as manageable, allowing sufficient participation by all; good for
remembering personal details about other students and for building empathy; and small enough to
work with students’ availability and to make students feel comfortable sharing their personal details.
A small number of stakeholders (16 percent) that wanted bigger groups stated that this would be a
good way to increase the total number of participating students on campus. A few respondents wanted
smaller groups to allow more time for participants to speak.
• Participation: Approximately 88 percent of SD participants saw no issues in their groups with
punctuality, attendance, or the skipping of sessions/dropout of participants. However, the other
roughly 12 percent of students, moderators, and facilitators did raise these as issues, stating that they
affected the flow of discussions and trust-building processes that were key design elements of the
dialogue sessions. 23 SD stakeholders also noted that punctuality had been a problem among some
moderators, as was effective coordination of the sessions by some moderators over the course of the
academic year. Separately, at several of the supported universities, participants stated that finding
sufficiently private venues for session meetings was an issue. At JU, for example, using the cafeteria of
the university where other students also come for meal services at the time of the discussion was
considered a hindrance for the dialogues. At AU, finding a very good venue both in quality and in size
was a challenge.
SD 
participants 
agreed that 
the SD 
program 
format helped
the activity 
become 
successful.
Figure 6: Survey Responses on SD Activity Format
13 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Appropriateness of design for broader campus/campus-wide changes:
• The number of dialogue groups viewed as too few: The SD Activity budgeted for 600 students
per university per year.20 Most (93 percent) SD stakeholders who discussed the size of the Activity
believed that the number of dialogue groups convened on campus each year over the life of the
Activity was too small to significantly change student attitudes and behavior across the campus and
support conflict mitigation efforts at the five universities, which ranged in size from several thousand
(AU) up to 45,000 (BDU). They saw the current number as capable of changing attitudes and behavior,
but mainly only those of the actual participants. The current size of the Activity limits its campus-wide
recognition, its ability to reach the broader student population, and its capacity to mitigate conflict,
they added. “The impact was all limited to participants,” said one UoG FGD participant. “If it was done
on bigger scale, it would have brought that broader impact.” However, USAID/Ethiopia staff noted that
the number of students targeted was a deliberate part of the Activity’s design. “The hope was that if it
was shown to be working, universities would take this up themselves,” said one USAID staff member
interviewed by the ET. “The design was not meant to involve everyone.”
• Insufficient inclusion of non-student stakeholders: There was near-universal agreement among
USAID IPs, GOE representatives, and USAID staff that a more comprehensive approach involving
dialogue not only with students but also with security staff, university administrative staff, professors
and other non-student stakeholder groups on campus would have served the Activity better. “[The
Activity should] engage more closely with other groups at the universities, such as administration and
management,” said one GOE representative. “[This] needs to be systemic to bring about structural change.
These programs need to be mainstreamed from top to bottom – university presidents, teachers – they should
also be part of [the] dialogue.”
• SD students request training in conflict mitigation: The SD Activity provided training to
relevant stakeholders to effectively implement dialogue sessions or understand the dialogue process.
This training was generally reserved for moderators and facilitators, while other campus-based groups,
such as Peace Forum representatives and university administration staff, were provided capacity
building training to understand and eventually implement SD activities themselves once the USAID￾supported activity ended. Student union and other club representatives were able to participate in
short trainings. However, 64 percent of students did not feel they had been provided enough practical
training as part of the dialogue session process, such as conflict mitigation training to effectively
mediate broader campus-wide conflicts.
SD Peace Actions not being conducted frequently enough: Peace Action activities included visiting
cultural places, running/walking for peace, coffee ceremonies, sport and art events, cleaning the 
towns/environment, tree planting, and panel discussions. Some of these activities such as walking for peace
at HU and cleaning the towns at UoG and BDU aimed to positively impact the communities surrounding
these universities, whereas the rest of the efforts focused primarily on addressing campus communities. 
While approximately 45 percent of SD participating students speaking of Peace Actions noted the utility
of such events to bring large groups of students together to convey peace messaging (e.g., for plenary
sessions) or to help other students apply to be SD participants the following year (e.g., during coffee
20 600 students account for one to two percent of the total student population per university (Bahir Dar is the largest and Gondar 
is the smallest university). 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 14
ceremonies), the remaining percentage noted that they were not being held frequently enough or that
they were sometimes not conveying peace messaging directly enough. 
Additional Peace Action activities, such as celebrating International Peace Day and reporting SD activities
to the larger university community at JU and participating in ‘Ethiopiawinet’ or ‘Ethiopian Nationalism’ 
cultural event at UoG enabled participants to share with the wider campus community. However, Peace
Action activities were only usually conducted twice per year (during kickoff and at the end of the school 
year), with roughly 55 percent of participants stating that these needed to be conducted more frequently
to reach the wider student body. Additionally, they stated that some Peace Action activities did not convey
SD’s peace messaging directly enough, such as during sporting events that assumed the gatherings 
themselves brought the university community closer together. For example, students participating in the
Walk for Peace at HU conveyed peace messages to the community using banners and student t-shirts but
felt this had little impact compared to events such as panel discussions, which conveyed SD’s message 
more effectively to a larger campus audience through topical themes and compelling, popular speakers. 
Appropriateness of design for off-campus changes:
• SD’s design provided limited ability to facilitate off-campus changes: The EPMES ET found
that SD’s peace incubation projects had less direct connection to the immediate conflict mitigation
and peacebuilding needs of universities in the views of SD stakeholders. Most lacked familiarity with
peace incubation projects because of the tiny number of students accepted to participate (One in
2018-2019, 10 in 2017-2018). These projects were provided small budgets, which limited their length
and scope. The SD Activity did not design these projects primarily to be sustainable, but rather to
demonstrate that incubation participants could convey SD’s message of dialogue to off-campus
communities and positively affect conflict dynamics there. Nevertheless, the lack of focus on
sustainability limited their impact in certain ways (these are explored in the discussion on effectiveness
under EQ2 below). Additionally, several stakeholders familiar with the peace incubation project design
thought the leaders of the towns and communities in which these projects were implemented were
disconnected from the SD process and were concerned about the potential pitfalls of these projects.
“The local administrations are not very welcoming because engaging in conflict mitigation is very sensitive,”
said one SD stakeholder. “Local leaders don’t sufficiently trust the SD Activity intervention; it may aggravate
rather than help existing issues.”
• SD participants had limited engagement with off-campus communities: As noted above,
the peace incubation projects were the principal off-campus SD projects. However, 11 students and
moderators (approximately 10 percent) described conducting off-campus charity work in towns
surrounding their universities in conjunction with other campus groups, including the Peace Forums
and student-run charity clubs. These activities included donations of money and clothing to the poor,
providing school supplies to orphaned children, and visits to the elderly. These other campus groups
frequently led or coordinated these activities.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2 
To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral 
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university 
communities? 
15 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
The SD Activity has significantly contributed to positive changes in attitudes and behavior
among SD participants: A key component of the SD Activity’s theory of change states that young men 
and women participants who come together to engage in sustained dialogue on a regular basis through a 
safe and moderated discussion will overcome entrenched barriers and negative relational patterns to build
mutual feelings of understanding, empathy, and trust. Through its dialogue sessions, the SD Activity
facilitated such personal transformations among participants and validates its theory of change. The
evaluation findings indicate that one of the most significant contributions of the SD Activity has been the 
attitudinal and behavioral transformation it has brought among its participants. Out of 182 FGD
participants who took part in this evaluation, 76 percent of them mentioned the effectiveness of the 
Activity in changing their attitudes and behaviors. 
These SD participants told the ET that their experience with the SD Activity had provided a regular and 
well-structured platform for them to have extended interactions, learn about the culture, language, and 
identity of others, and develop mutual understanding and positively reinforcing relations. The experience
also enabled them to challenge their preconceived and entrenched stereotypes, prejudices, and 
misconceptions, and understand and start to appreciate the culture, language, and perspective of others. 
These changes in attitudes in turn have led to the positive behavioral transformation of participants, which
has resulted in increased cross-ethnic associations, friendships, mutual support, and academic and other 
collaborative efforts between participants. Additional results have included public socialization (e.g., sitting 
together in cafeterias, visiting each other’s dormitories), staying in touch via online groups (e.g., during the 
global COVID-19 pandemic, after graduation), and language learning. 
At UoG, for example, a group of students from Gambelia were described as ‘secluded’ to the point that 
they only engaged with other Gambella students at a commonly identified place of congregation inside
campus. Their involvement in SD, however, enabled them to start engaging with other students and even
take the lead on SD sessions as moderators and facilitators. 
Figure 7: FGD Responses on Behavior Change
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 16
At AU, an SD participant from Gambella began dating an Oromo student, and when some of her kinsmen
threatened her for crossing the ethnic boundary, she was protected by SD members. Two SD participants 
at JU, one from Oromia and the other from the South, got married and established a family after 
graduation. Women participants in particular often brought issues of concern such as sexual harassment
and study difficulties to SD moderators and participants for help. Collective efforts and collaborative
actions sometimes went beyond campus. At UoG for example, SD participants raised money and collected
donations (blankets, clothes, shoes, etc.) to support people displaced because of the inter-communal 
violence between the Kimant and Amhara Ethnic groups. Some SD groups carried out other similar
initiatives to support orphans or the elderly in nearby towns. 
During periods of tensions on campus, SD members provided refuge, protection, and support for minority 
students who felt threatened. At AU, for example, SD participants described how they looked after the 
properties of Amhara students when they took refuge in the university hall and the town’s Kidan Miheret
church. SD members also provided food and other utilities for Amhara students. At JU, SD members, in
association with the Peace Forum and the administration, traveled to churches and mosques to meet with
Amhara students to offer security assurances and help them return them to campus. At UoG, an SD
participant from Gondar town took 10 Oromo SD students to his family home. Similar stories of personal
protection and financial support for minority students to help them travel back home and safeguarding of 
their properties are frequently cited. 
Non-student stakeholders, including all University Presidents and Government Ministry representatives 
interviewed by the ET, also saw the value of the SD Activity’s dialogue sessions in being able to bring 
students of different backgrounds together, overcome differences, and build ties that lasted beyond the 
sessions themselves. “Students have learned…how to resolve conflicts through dialogue…and it has started the 
culture of dialogue on campus,” said one University President. A ministerial official familiar with the Activity 
added, “Dialogues were important for bringing different groups together and understand[ing] different 
perspectives. In that regard, it has contributed a lot.”
SD Activity enabled major changes in participants’ attitudes and behavior toward others, 
but small-scale changes among different university communities: The evaluation found that SD
students spread peace messages to friends, room/dorm mates, classmates, and to those in their own 
ethnic group. A majority were able to cite examples of small-scale successes in this regard. Approximately 
67 percent of SD-participating students across the five universities stated that the understanding and trust
built within their dialogue sessions enabled them to accept, co-exist with, and even befriend those of 
different ethnic and religious backgrounds outside of these groups as well. Roughly half of interviewed SD
students described being able to positively influence attitudes and behaviors amongst non-SD university
communities once dormmates, classmates, and friends saw them engaging with students of different ethnic
and religious backgrounds and became curious about the SD process themselves. Several spoke of
conducting discussion sessions and debates within their dormitories, cafeterias, and other campus settings. 
Figure 8: Participant Behavior Changes Toward Others
17 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
“We were able to make other students aware,” said one graduate of JU. “Within my dormitory, I discussed issues
of sustained dialogue with my dormitory mates and there were also even debates on the issues.” 
Participants have faced challenges attempting to change attitudes and behavior among
broader campus communities: Just over half (53 percent) of SD-participating students stated that 
they shared what they had learned in their SD dialogue sessions with people outside of their SD groups, 
but this was only done informally, either through small discussions or in passing with friends, dormmates, 
or classmates. Reasons offered for this included being busy with schoolwork or the reluctance of others 
to discuss such sensitive issues. “Yes, SD has impact on others, but students are not usually ready to talk about
ethnicity since it is such a sensitive issue,” stated a graduate of HU. 
A common finding among most non-SD students was the belief that SD sessions had contributed to 
positive changes among session participants, but that they were unable to create this same change among 
others in the university due to a lack of awareness about the SD Activity on campus, lack of suitable 
platforms to reach other students, and a lack of training to apply skills gained during SD session. Several 
non-SD students told the ET that they recognized the genuine changes they saw take place in SD 
participants toward one another and others outside of the dialogue sessions, but that their efforts to bring 
about such changes among broader non-SD university communities required greater involvement and buy￾in from ethnic, religious, government, and other strong campus groups that could more effectively 
influence broader campus populations. “SD alone can’t bring significant attitude and behavioral changes, so 
other clubs should be incorporated into the effort. We know that SD tried a lot, but it is not enough, said an HU 
cultural club leader.”
While examples of broader campus-wide changes in attitudes and behaviors were rare, one exception
linked to SD’s activities was the effort of the Oromo Cultural Club (GHUMI) at HU. Ethnic-based clubs
such as GHUMI were sometimes known for mobilizing students during conflicts (and had even been
suspended for a year in 2018-2019), according to Peace Forum leaders and non-SD participant students. 
However, both GHUMI and the Amhara student associations at HU stated – and the stakeholders 
corroborated – that they had played roles in mediating conflicts on campus by working with students from 
their own ethnic groups to ratchet down tensions, think through alternate solutions, and restrict them 
from engaging in conflicts. In particular, GHUMI played a significant role in lessening tensions, according
to HU non-SD participants (student union, charity clubs, religious groups) and SD-participating students
who were also members of GHUMI. Two factors that made this possible were Oromo students being the
majority ethnic group at the university, which gives them influence with a significant percentage of the 
student body, and GHUMI members’ engagement in SD activities, which GHUMI members said gave them 
stronger peacemaking skills and made them able to build on the work that SD was performing on campus.
‘’I have been a member of GHUMI, which contributed its part with other clubs to resolve the conflict in
2018/2019,” an SD moderator told the ET. “When ethnic conflict is tense, it is somehow difficult for SD
“[The SD Activity] was a platform where
Oromiffa speakers learned Amharic and
Amharic speakers learned Oromiffa. The
cultural interactions were immense.” 
– JU SD Facilitator
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 18
participants to resolve it unlike GHUMI.” However, both groups also felt that SD could have done more to 
establish formal working relationship with various clubs in the effort of conflict mediation. 
Few changes in attitudes and behavior off-campus were linked to peace incubation activities:
The SD Activity’s peace incubation component was designed “to provide a space for innovation of young 
peacebuilding leaders after SD to spread the message of dialogue off campus … and realize their ideas for 
promoting social cohesion”21 and, thus, positively influence the conflict dynamics in their local communities. 
In so doing, the peace incubation’s theory of change sought to increase the confidence of the SD 
participants as future leaders of peace and contribute to social cohesion and redressal of negative 
socialization patterns as an end goal. As summarized in the LPI project document, “By supporting the 
formulation and realization of ideas for peace, the incubator will contribute to young leaders and potentially 
unprecedented successful solutions to entrenched societal ills.”22
The ET assessed nine incubation projects. In all cases, the projects aimed to make significant contributions
towards the redressal of long-standing social and security problems, including cattle raiding, blood feuds, 
and religious and ethnic tensions. These are of course deep-rooted social problems with complex social
and cultural roots, and any effort at progress, even if only determining that SD’s approach can positively
influence local communities’ conflict dynamics, would require a “critical mass” of concerted and sustained
intervention measures, a significant investment of resources, active participation of the public, and local
government administrative support. The design and implementation of these incubation projects, however,
did not fully taken these complexities and dynamics into account. 
Except for two projects (Feresbet, Dega Damot in the Amhara Region, and Dodola town in Oromia), the 
other seven analyzed projects were conducted as one-off events involving an implementation period of 
one-to-three days. Additionally, the buy-in and cooperation from local government officials was weak. All
incubatees except one identified lack of cooperation from local government officials as a major challenge
in the implementation of their projects. One incubator from the Gambella region lamented: 
“The level of support and cooperation from the local government administrators was not enough – they
did not think that a young guy would do [the work]. I tried again and again, and it took me three days to
communicate and convenience them about my project and get their approval and be able to use their
hall. They were not enthusiastic and are just of thinking of the incentives.” Another added: “I personally
suffered to get local government support and cooperation…and the same challenge was faced by our 
colleagues in Adama. If government people at every level were involved well, that would have made our 
life easier during implementation.” 
21 LPI Project Document statement on Theory of Change for Peace Incubation 22 ibid
19 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
In ET interviews with incubation project implementers as well as four local leaders involved with these
projects, there were several challenges in incubatees’ attempts to build trust and buy-in with local leaders, 
which are outlined in Figure 9 above. IPs also recognized this, identifying the local authorities’ lack of 
recognition of the positive and critical role of young people as one of the critical challenges of the 
implementation peace incubation projects.23
Additionally, the projects reached far fewer people than envisaged. The SD Activity set targets ranging 
from 500-5,000 people each year through the peace incubation projects.24 The nine projects examined 
(out of 16 implemented) reached a total of 1,444 people, far below the established target over five years.
This limited the reach of peace messages. In some cases, the participants were not from the desired
populations. In a project on blood feud between two ethnic groups in the Gambela region, for example, 
only five representatives from each group attended; most of them were friends of the incubatee.
23 Quarterly Narrative Report, October – December, 2019 24 LPI Project Document
Figure 9: Challenges to Building Buy-in and Trust Among Local Leaders 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 20
Table 3: Profile of Examined Peace Incubation Projects
Incubation
Project
Region of
Implementation
Issue Addressed Duration # Of People
Reached
1 Oromia Religious intolerance 1 month 54 youth
2 Oromia Inter-ethnic Tensions 3 days 150 people25
3 Gambella Blood Feud 3 days 35 people
4 Oromia Inter-ethnic Tensions 2 days 100 people
5 Dire Dawa Inter-ethnic Tensions 1 day 80 youth
6 SNNP Transfer of Traditional Conflict Resolution
Skills from Gamo Elders to the Youth 
1 day 360 youth
7 Amhara Blood Feud 2 months 600 people
8 Gambella Consequences of Cattle Raiding 2 days 45 people
9 Beni Shangul
Gumuz
Blood Feud 3 days 20 people
In almost all cases, the projects failed to take root and be sustained after implementation. From the nine
projects analyzed by the ET, only one demonstrated continued existence of structures of peace, and 
another started an effort to sustain the initiatives by associating them with newly established community 
structures. In others, the structures created are no longer in place, and the local government offices had 
failed to take ownership of the initiatives. 
Two longer-term peace incubation projects were effective in meeting community needs: 
Two projects implemented over an extended period demonstrated greater effectiveness than others. One
of these projects, implemented in the Amhara region, Dega Damot Woreda, made significant strides 
establishing a peace committee and contributing to minimizing incidents of blood feud. The project has 
undertaken successive and complementary Peace Actions, which increased its effectiveness. Interviewed
local leaders positively rated the project and expressed interest in similar initiatives. 
The peace incubation projects have also been found by the ET to be effective in starting a dialogue, creating
awareness, sensitizing the youth, and building the peace leadership capacity of the incubatees. The projects
brought people together to have a renewed dialogue on matters of concern and create awareness and 
sensitization of youth. All incubatees emphasized the importance of their projects in initiating a dialogue
and raising the awareness of the participants. One of the incubatees noted, “My projects over Tikur Dem
(blood feud) have increased the community’s awareness on the issue, such as in schools, rural areas and religious
communities, among elders, etc.). It has initiated a renewed dialogue on a matter which otherwise have been widely
regarded as the way things are.” All incubatees also appreciated the experience as being instrumental in
enhancing their capacity for peace leadership. The preparation training was viewed as highly useful for 
implementation of the project and as life skills training for personal and professional applications. 
Some Peace Action interventions included off-campus outreach to local communities: For 
example, one intervention had religious leaders from JU town attend panel discussions at the university.26
Additionally, university Peace Forums organized some local off-campus efforts that SD participants took 
25 For the purposes of this table, “people” are considered both adults and youth. 26 LPI SD Annual Report, 2018-2019 
21 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
part in and sometimes helped coordinate. But the primary off-campus interventions of the SD Activity
were the Peace Incubation activities.
Women were able to access and benefit from the SD Activity equally with men: Most 
respondents stated that women were equally or nearly equally represented in each dialogue session, and 
one moderator in every session was a woman. In terms of participation, LPI acknowledged that “female 
participation was challenging in the beginning” of the academic year,27 and several moderators agreed with
this assessment. They also stated that women participants contributed more openly and frequently as the
year went on and gained confidence. A few noted that by the end of the year, women in their groups were
contributing to the sessions more heavily than men were.
Participants from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions were able to equally
access and benefit from the SD Activity: While minority participants in the SD groups were well
represented in most of the groups on each campus, some respondents noted that this representation was 
not always consistently diverse and indicated that this was frequently because there were not always
enough students on each campus from the different ethnic, religious, and geographic backgrounds sought 
to achieve the desired diversity in each and every group. 
27 LPI SD Annual Report. 2019-2020. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 22
Figure 10: Attitudinal and Behavioral Changes Among Participants (SD Participant Survey) 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3 
To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation and 
peacebuilding on and off campus? 
Figure 11: FGD Responses on Conflict
23 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
The SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation and peacebuilding efforts between 
different groups on campus: All (100 percent) SD students/moderators in FGDs stated they have not 
participated in any on-campus conflicts since being involved in SD. Additionally, SD students were able to 
cite several examples of attempts to mitigate micro-level conflicts, including small, interpersonal conflicts
that could have grown into larger ethnically driven ones if not addressed. More than half of SD participants 
from the five universities (53 percent) also mentioned examples of protecting minority students during
periods of conflict. A JU vice president provided an example of SD helping to resolve a conflict between
two students: 
“There were two guys, one from Gondar (Amhara) and one from Wollega (Oromia). They had a 
personal disagreement and the confrontation between the two quickly morphed into an ethnic
conflict. However, SD guys were quickly called, and they spoke to both and were able to resolve
the conflict between them. The SD guys reconciled not only the two men, but they also met with
the family of the guy from Gondar and gave them an assurance of security. The Wollega guys in
the end were given the security responsibility of the student from Gondar.” 
Additionally, during periods of tension between Oromo and Amhara on campus, significant numbers of 
SD students helped minority members of their dialogue groups – e.g., through protection, early warnings,
and security guarantees. Examples of such support to minority students are included in Figure 12. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 24
Sustaining Dialogue stakeholders able to collaborate effectively with Peace Forum 
representatives on specific conflict-mitigation activities: The Peace Forum is a MOP￾created body composed of both students and university administration staff that has been
established at each public university in Ethiopia, including the five supported under the SD Activity.
The Forums, along with the university administrations, oversee implementation of the SD Activity
on the university side. There are varying amounts of overlap between the work of the Forums 
and the SD Activity on these campuses, and some SD participants have gone on to join Peace
Forums as executive members while also playing leading roles as facilitators and moderators, 
according to SD stakeholders at several of the supported universities. One key informant at JU
noted, “we cannot separate SD from the Peace Forum. The SD and the peace forum have similar
objectives and the way they work is similar - SD came as a great support to the Peace Forum.” A 
representative from MOP agreed, noting that many Peace Forum members started as SD dialogue 
Figure 12 Examples of SD Participants Supporting Minority Students
25 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
session participants, which was “important in the development of their leadership skills, tolerance, and 
ability to listen to others.” 
Overlapping of Peace Forum and SD roles has created both benefits and challenges. The
Forum structure provided SD facilitators, moderators, and students the chance to partner with a 
university-backed organization that had similar objectives as the SD Activity and has enabled SD to use
the network, recognition, and existing institutional capital of the forums to better carry out a range of on￾and off-campus activities. One Peace Forum informant at AU said, “SD has no formal organization here. The
Peace Forum has been coordinating and managing the SD activities. I have seen a number of letters written for 
the facilitation for SD activities.”
In turn, SD increased the credibility and reach of the Peace Forum with students, as well as its efficiency
by enabling it to quickly reach SD’s 600 students on each campus through its network of facilitators and
moderators. A key informant at JU noted that “the arrival of SD, supported by a non-governmental
organization, has increased the legitimacy and accessibility of the Peace Forum.” Another JU informant agreed, 
stating: 
“The SD activity has increased the reach and efficiency of the SD. Using the SD structure, the
peace forum has been able to address 600 students at a time. You just communicate with
moderators and the moderators communicate with their whole team. SD has helped us to better
accomplish our responsibility of ensuring peace in campus. In fact, looking at this potential of the
program to advance our mission has resulted in us deciding to include the SD as part of our 
organizational activity.” 
The Forums, to varying extents and depending on the university, also coordinated peacebuilding and 
conflict mitigation activities with SD participants, and led to coordinated peacebuilding activities on all
campuses, e.g., charity work in surrounding communities. In some cases, they helped the SD's
implementation during periods of conflict. For instance, during a recent period of conflict at UoG, Peace
Forum leaders worked with the university administration and security staff to keep SD sessions going. 
The SD-Peace Forum collaborations have also enabled SD to provide training to Peace Forum leaders (as
well as other non-SD student organizations) at all university campuses on specific activities, which led to 
examples of Forum members contributing to conflict mitigation, such as the truce organized by UoG law
students (see “moot court” truce example below). 
The SD Activity’s association with the Peace Forums is not without its challenges. This partnership
generated tensions with student unions – i.e., student governments – on all five campuses, according to 
Peace Forum, student union, and SD stakeholders interviewed by the ET at each university. To varying
degrees, student union representatives objected to being left out of the management of SD activities, 
which they felt should be under their jurisdiction. This resulted in pushback from the Peace Forums and 
repercussions from student unions. One Peace Forum president explained the challenges they were facing:
“SD was seriously attacked by the student union. I was the Peace Forum President at that time, 
and because it had been expected to report to the President, but the union wanted us to report
to the Student Union President. Because of this they created obstacles for students to not 
participate unless the union was able to engage in SD management and decision making. We
faced a lot of challenges.” 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 26
The tensions have remained throughout the SD Activity’s period of performance at all universities, but at 
JU, the disagreement was strong enough to result in the disruption of SD activities, including removal of 
an SD banner and cancellation of the 2018-2019 SD kickoff program, according to three stakeholders 
interviewed by the ET. This issue ignited a broader debate, with stakeholders holding different
perspectives about where future SD activities should be institutionalized and who should lead SD (please
see relevant section under EQ4). 
Few direct mitigation efforts by SD students during conflicts between campus groups: SD
participants’ role in the settlement of on-campus, ethnically driven intergroup conflicts has been low. The
two most common explanations for this are the high intensity of the conflict and the lack of training and 
guidance on how to deal with inter-ethnic and intergroup conflicts. For example, one FGD participant
from AU noted, “The role of SD in resolving and minimizing conflicts between different groups on campus level
is very limited primarily because, most of the conflicts are rampant, ethnic, externally driven and beyond the control
of SD participants.” A JU key informant added, “the Inter-group conflicts on campus are externally driven. The
drivers are outside, and the solutions also primarily lie outside. The conflicts were so intense that they were beyond
the capacity of the students to resolve.” 
Despite this sentiment in the qualitative interviews, 95 percent of SD participants agree that when they
see interethnic conflict, they feel confident that they can personally play a role in mitigation. However,
when disaggregated further to explore the experience of ethnic groups, this percentage decreases. Only
26 percent of Oromo students attending university in the Amhara region (BDU, UoG) agreed that they 
feel confident playing a role in mitigating conflict, while 68 percent of Amhara students at Oromo 
universities (AU, JU, HU) agreed. 28 Relatedly, 76 percent of participants report engaging in peaceful
28 Note that this finding was not significant at the 95 percent level.
Figure 13: Survey Responses on Role in Conflict Mitigation
SD participants 
feel confident that 
they can play a 
role in conflict 
mitigation, 
regardless of 
ethnicity and 
gender.
Figure 14: Survey Responses on Engaging in Peaceful Dialogue by Gender
27 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
dialogue to ease tension or fights after participating in the SD Activity. Before the SD Activity, only 45
percent engaged in this way. Men are more likely to report engaging in peaceful dialogue to fight tensions,
both before and after the SD Activity. 51 percent of men reported engaging in peaceful dialogue before
participating in the SD Activity, while 83 percent of men report engaging in this way after participation. 38
percent of women reported engaging in peaceful dialogue before the SD Activity while 68 percent report
engaging after. There is a 31 percent increase for both men and women before and after engaging in peaceful
dialogue. 
More in-depth analysis of these and other factors behind the low level of SD participants’ intervention in
mitigating ethnically driven conflicts on campus is outlined in Table 4 below: 
Table 4: Factors Affecting SD Interventions in On-Campus Conflicts
Intensity of conflicts: Some conflicts were considered beyond the students’ capacity to
resolve. Examples included SD students potentially needing to confront people they knew. 
According to students, graduates, and non-SD participants, SD participants were able to deal
with small-scale conflicts among individuals or small groups before they expanded and became
tense. They were able to influence dorm mates, classmates, or students who came from the
same region during such conflicts. However, they viewed ethnic-based conflicts across the
universities as widespread, violent events fueled largely by emotional actors. Such conflicts were
seen as beyond students’ capacity to mitigate due to their sensitivity, scale, and risk, and were
at times too difficult for even the government to manage quickly, according to university
administration and Peace Forum stakeholders.
Focus of SD dialogue sessions: 76 percent of students noted that the dialogue sessions
were excellent experiences for building trust and empathy for those of different ethnic or
religious backgrounds. However, they also noted that these sessions did not include training in
conflict mitigation and other “real world” skills that could be utilized during wider conflicts
among campus-based groups. One key informant at JU similarly noted “The trainings are not
adequate – there has to be more trainings and the training should be expanded to both participants
and non-participants.”
Safety risks: Some students reported needing to leave campus during specific periods of
violence. Several students at HU and AU universities acknowledged withdrawing from SD
during the 2018-2019 academic year due to inter-ethnic conflicts on their campuses, voicing
their concern that meeting as SD dialogue groups might make them a target for attack. 29
Lack symbols of validated authority: Students also stated they were limited in their ability 
to mitigate conflicts on campus because they did not possess identification badges or uniforms.
‘If we were given some sort of acknowledgement as a peace maker and a clear assignment to
accomplish, we may have done it,’’ said one HU SD participant. This stood in contrast to formally
recognized campus-based institutions such as the Peace Forums, which had both identifications
and uniforms, and were backed by an Ethiopian Government agency, the MOP. Forum
representatives could therefore intervene more easily in conflict situations. Separately, non-SD
students told the ET that the lack of credentials, uniforms, or formal recognition of SD’s
29 SD Annual Report, 2018-2019. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 28
authority left them confused about SD students’ and moderators’ status. One Amhara cultural
club member at HU stated, “We see Peace Forum students wearing uniforms and try to settle
conflicts, but the problem is that we don’t know if SD students do the same, because they don’t have
uniform.” Both the lack of skills in how to meet and organize actions in moments of crisis as
well as the lack of recognized authority and credentials also made it challenging to coordinate
with campus security forces present during emergencies – which did not allow any gatherings
or meetings in such instances.
One promising initiative was the law students’ “moot court” truce at the University of
Gondar. In 2018-2019, a conflict between Amhara and Oromo students erupted in response to alleged
violence perpetrated against Amhara students in Oromia that resulted in some causalities. As a result,
classes were suspended, security forces took control of the campus, students were prevented from leaving
UoG’s campuses, and the tensions between the two groups escalated. The next evening, 40 senior
students from both the Oromo and Amhara groups, many of them from the law school, took the initiative
to meet in the school’s moot court venue30 to address their differences. This dialogue concluded with an 
agreement to stop the violence and protect each other, and a decision not to be used as “political
instruments” of external forces. To demonstrate this reconciliation, the Oromo and Amhara students
then walked to the cafeteria and dined together. This was followed by a campus-wide march in which
organizers were joined by hundreds of other students. The deal, according to the organizers, resulted in
the cessation of hostilities, resumption of classes, and a peaceful conclusion to the academic year.
Senior SD participants from UoG’s law and social science schools are said to have taken a prominent role
initiating, coordinating, and leading the process. The SD participants involved in the dialogue credited the 
Activity with enabling the development of the truce by providing inspiration and the ability to build
relationships and invite other individuals to the dialogue. “The fact that we are in the SD system has helped
us to know each other, establish relations, and build some trust. And when I was inviting people, I called upon SD
members from both sides and they took part actively,” stated a former law school student and SD participant
credited with developing the truce. 
30 The venue is a law school-based facility set up like a courtroom to enable law students to practice making arguments in a “real 
world” setting.
Figure 15: SD Participants Ena bled Moot Court Truce
29 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
EVALUATION QUESTION 4 
Most SD-supported universities demonstrated commitment to continuing SD activities: In
2019-2020 (pre-COVID-19) in four out of the five targeted universities, the SD Activity was training
administrative and Peace Forum staff to take over the SD Activity, and universities were using their own 
budgets to pilot dialogue sessions (with 180 students and 40 moderators) on their satellite campuses.
However, COVID-19 significantly interrupted this process after all five universities were shut down in
March 2020 due to pandemic risk. Both university officials and Peace Forum staff at the five universities
see post-COVID-19 “refresher” training/support from the SD Activity as necessary. IPs said they plan on 
providing this training/support, but both IPs and university administration officials on these five campuses 
stated this would not begin until the start of 2021-2022 academic year. 
A majority (76 percent) of SD stakeholders think the Activity should or will continue at the
universities but disagree on who should lead this effort. Despite the interruption and additional 
concerns voiced by some (see below), 77 percent of male survey respondents and 75 percent of female 
respondents agree that the SD Activity results will sustain. Similarly, 78 percent of respondents who
identify as Oromo think results will sustain and 74 percent of Amhara agree. 
While all supported the idea of the SD activities continuing, they disagreed on who should oversee SD’s
implementation in the future. Four recommended options were identified regarding what leadership
arrangement would best ensure SD’s sustainability: (1) continuing with the current Peace Forum
management arrangement, (2) make SD a club under the jurisdiction of the Student Union, (3) place it
under the administration, such as within the student services office, and (4) a hybrid administration 
arrangement involving support by the MOP and/or MOSHE. 
These options have their own benefits and drawbacks, and each enjoys support from specific stakeholder 
groups – e.g., Peace Forum leaders preferred that SD remain an independent organization under its
management, while administration officials supported “internalizing” the organization within the
To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by 
SD beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What 
evidence exists to demonstrate this sustainability? 
Figure 16: Survey Responses Demonstrating Belief that the SD Activity Results Will Be Sustained
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 30
university’s student services office, or with the support of the MOP or MOSHE. Most of these respondents
in favor of the MOP or MOSHE option stated that future ministerial control of the Activity would be the 
best way to ensure managerial consistency across all the universities, a dedicated budget, and greater 
credibility and recognition for SD among campus stakeholders. One moderator said: “It is important that
MOP takes ownership of the program. I think it can only be expanded and implemented throughout the universities
when the MOP owns this program as one of its own.” 
Ethiopian government representatives interviewed by the ET felt that greater involvement by key 
ministries in future SD activities could help to institutionalize SD’s benefits more formally within Ethiopia’s 
universities. For example, a MOSHE representative saw opportunities for closer collaboration with SD
through two ministry-linked initiatives. The first was the recent incorporation of new peacebuilding 
themes into public university curricula for first-year students. SD’s dialogue-focused approach would be a 
strong complement to these themes, which include peace education and building consensus on national 
identity, according to the representative. The second was the MOSHE-supported “Our House” program
at BDU and UoG, which helps link minority university students with local families, who then provide them 
protection and housing during periods of tension and conflict. “This partnership would help each program,”
said the representative. “It would help SD reach more people off-campus.”
Four in 10 (40 percent) qualitative respondents said factors such as lack of administration￾level political will or capacity could prevent the SD Activity from continuing: While more than
three-quarters of stakeholders believe SD activities and results will continue, approximately 40 percent
also felt that a lack of university administration support, political will, or sufficient training for university
officials to take over the Activity – as key concerns in the Activity’s sustainability. 
At BDU, several stakeholders cited a university-supported pilot activity started at its Zenzelma campus 
that the university discontinued even before COVID-19 shut all public universities down, mainly because
the university did not pay moderators/facilitators an agreed-upon incentive for six months. One
moderator said: “Facilitators and moderators were not paid for six months and they stopped working. Then
COVID came and class closed. I tried to follow up - but there was no solution.” 
Approximately 56 percent of FGD participants felt that the administration did not have the capacity to 
continue the activities, believing that the Activity needed closer monitoring and follow up. Several
interviewed SD moderators and facilitators echoed this concern about what they perceived as insufficient
capacity to manage the Activity by the administrations’ SD coordinators. One issue identified with the
coordinator role by these moderators and facilitators was that it was usually assigned to a relatively senior
person within each university’s administration, such as a head of the president’s office or director of the
university’s student services, to be able to obtain buy-in and support at a high managerial level. However,
they noted that the selected coordinators frequently had only limited time to devote to their SD roles
because they also held full-time university administration positions. This meant they were not building the 
necessary institutional knowledge to effectively manage the Activity over its four-year period of 
performance, the moderators and facilitators stated. It also meant that those that did build up such
expertise in the implementation of the Activity – i.e., moderators, facilitators, and student members of 
the Peace Forums were taking their institutional knowledge of the Activity with them when the graduated. 
One exception to this was UoG’s SD coordinator according to UoG’s President and its Peace Forum and 
Student Union Chairpersons. They stated that UoG’s SD coordinator served in that role during the 
Activity’s entire period of performance and was viewed as having played a significant role in SD’s
31 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
effectiveness by providing key oversight and decision-making support, as well as providing continuity when
a new university administration was appointed. 
All university SD coordinators and university administration staff fully agreed on the importance of 
continuing the SD Activity, which they viewed as highly relevant to conflict mitigation, violence reduction, 
and peacebuilding at their universities. They also believed that while the SD Activity played a crucial role
in changing the attitudes and thinking of SD participants, it did not facilitate similar changes in the broader 
university community. Because of this, all (100 percent) interviewed coordinators and administration staff 
were keen to see the Activity continue in the future to reach non-SD participants. 
Plans for future sustainable dialogue activities: SD’s IPs told the ET that their recommended plans
include conducting one-year “refresher” trainings with the current five universities to restart and reinforce
the capacity building and handover work they did with these administrations and Peace Forums, especially
during 2019-2020, the fourth and final year of the Activity. There is general agreement, however, that this
will not happen until the start of the next academic year because students and administration officials are 
now too busy catching up academically due to the COVID-19 shutdown.
EVALUATION QUESTION 5 
Through FGDs and KIIs with stakeholders involved in or knowledgeable of the SD Activity, the ET were
able to identify and extract key lessons learned, best practices, and challenges to project implementation. 
Many of these key points focus on who and how many are involved in the SD Activity, knowledge sharing
practices and training of project staff, the buy in of vital government stakeholders, and outside factors that 
affected overall implementation. These detailed findings inform the recommendations that follow in the 
next section.
LESSONS LEARNED
Both SD and non-SD students viewed the Activity as not sufficiently involving university
administration or other non-SD groups (e.g., student unions) from the beginning (in the
survey, 24 respondents specifically stated that more students need to be made aware of
the SD program). This engagement improved toward the end of the Activity, as more of
these groups were invited to participate.
More “real world” training on conflict mitigation is needed for participants to be better 
prepared when actual violence breaks out, according to both students and moderators.
What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant challenges to 
the success of the SD Activity? 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 32
SD stakeholders have only conducted limited sharing of their SD experiences among the
five universities, although SD did hold a large exchange workshop in December 2018. More
efforts like this – but smaller scale – are needed to enable the trading and “pooling” of
stakeholders’ rich experiences regarding what has – and has not – made the SD Activity
more effective on their campuses, to compare their experiences across each university’s
unique ethnic, religious, and geographic context, and to enable individual stakeholder
groups on different campuses – e.g., students, moderators, facilitators, SD coordinators –
to learn from each other.
Language was an issue in early years of the SD Activity, with sessions being conducted in
Amharic having the potential to alienate Oromiffa speakers, particularly in Oromia-based
universities (AU/JU). However, SD adapted to this issue early (beginning in 2016-2017 and
in 2018-2019) – once it realized this was an issue, and it is no longer viewed as a significant
problem according to SD stakeholders interviewed during this evaluation. For example,
materials are now provided in Oromiffa, and bi-lingual participants can provide translation
support. Some students now view these sessions as venues for mutual language learning
and exchange.
BEST PRACTICES
The SD Alumni organization, established by PDC in December 2018, is a promising start,
but has not been very active since the university shut down in 2020 due to the COVID-19
pandemic. SD Alumni and their networks could be leveraged to take advantage of
thousands who participated in the SD Activity, some who now work in government, for
NGOs, and other influential organizations. As one facilitator from the UoG stated, the
“skilled and knowledgeable participants of SD whom the program had invested so much are
graduated and currently stay outside the university campuses.” Relatedly, more than 75 percent 
of students, graduates, and moderators mentioned the failure of not more broadly utilizing
SD alumni as a central limitation of the SD Activity.
SD dialogue groups' 50-50 gender balance and appointment of a woman moderator for
every group facilitated female participation and confidence-building as sessions continued.
CHALLENGES
COVID-19 shut down universities across Ethiopia for a year beginning in March 2020 and
halted all SD activities, including key university administration/Peace Forum capacity￾building that was intended to ensure a smooth handover from IPs to universities and the
continuation of university funding for SD activities.
33 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
On-campus conflict during SD implementation (2018-2019 in particular) resulted in dozens
killed/injured, damage to property, universities temporarily closed, and students leaving
campuses out of safety concerns. This delayed the kickoff of SD’s sessions until December
2019 at four of the universities (and until February 2020 at HU).
Logistically, lost academic time from both COVID-19 shut-down and campus-based
violence has forced returning students to take additional classes and has consequently
pushed back the universities' reengagement on dialogue activities until the 2021-2022
academic year at the earliest. This heavier course load requirement has restricted student
availability for dialogue sessions; forced moderators to hold sessions weekly, evenings, or
weekends; resulted in participants missing some sessions; and sometimes compromised the
quality of the sessions.
SD faced ongoing perceptions among non-participating students that the Activity had
hidden political or religious aims, especially in the early years of the Activity. Students and
facilitators from BDU stated that they faced hostility, and even in the case of one facilitator,
an attack by students with knives and stones, due to perceptions that the SD Activity was
working through its panel discussions and dialogue sessions to undermine ethnic
federalism.
31
Participating students, non-SD participating students, and some university administration
officials have expressed ongoing concern over the political and financial commitment and
ability of universities to continue SD without potential Ethiopian government support, such
as through MOSHE or the MOP.
No dedicated website or other central online social media platform to promote the SD
Activity’s successes, enable ongoing communication among current and previous Activity
participants, or counter misperceptions about its goals or activities. The only existing SD￾related social media channels are Telegram groups established informally by some pro￾active moderators for their dialogue sessions, as well as a Telegram group and email list
for founding members of the SD alumni group founded at the end of 2018 (however, this
group has not been very active due to peoples’ work schedules and COVID-19, according
to one IP respondent).
Not all SD facilitators and moderators effectively discharged their responsibilities. Day-to￾day supervision and operation of the SD activities was assigned to facilitators. Based on KIIs
and FGDs at several of the five SD-supported universities, at least seven facilitators had not
discharged their responsibilities effectively. One moderator at the AU stated: “After a couple
of sessions, some of the moderators simply forget their roles and responsibilities because there is
no follow up and guidance. The same thing has been observed with facilitators – I only observed
two facilitators who are hard working. The rest do not know what they are doing – they do not look
31 This was the system institutionalized in the country’s 1994 constitution that defined the country’s structure as a multicultural 
federation of nine regional ethnic states and two federally administered city-states based on ethno-national representation (The 
Trouble with Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism. New York Times, Jan. 3, 2019).
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 34
at the report we submit to them; they do not come to visit and supervise the sessions. They do not
provide the guidance which we expect. There is a need for more close supervision and follow up.”
Facilitators reportedly failed to properly guide, follow up, and take corrective remedial
actions when necessary. Additionally, several stakeholders stated facilitators placed their
friends and acquaintances in SD dialogue sessions when other participants dropped out of
the Activity. Due to this gap, some moderators failed to undertake SD sessions with all the
requirements in place, e.g., convening at least eight people, and having the sessions last for
two hours. In some instances, moderators reportedly even convened people who were not
SD participants and simply spent time eating and drinking the refreshments. AU’s SD
Coordinator visited the university’s dialogue sessions and revealed such gaps and
inconsistencies, which were reported to the PDC. At AU, these concerns prompted a
meeting during the 2019-2020 academic year to discuss implementation gaps and the way
forward. The meeting resulted in the identification of seven facilitators who were falling
short in their duties, and letters of warning signed by the PDC were given to some of these
individuals, according to two AU key informants.
Relatedly, follow-up with university-based stakeholders from the IPs in Addis was also
viewed as “inadequate” by stakeholders. The SD team in Addis made visits to the universities
on three occasions, mainly, during the kickoff, in the middle for executing payments and
during Peace Actions at the end of the year. One moderator described these visits as “too
few” and “insufficient.” Another key informant at AU added: “The PDC people do not often
come, mostly only during the Peace Actions. It is important to increase their visits and supervision
of the activities.”
35 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
RECOMMENDATIONS
Key findings and conclusions from qualitative and quantitative data analysis informed the following
recommendations. These recommendations focus on factors that the EPMES ET believes would help
enhance the implementation of the SD Activity and similar future conflict mitigation projects on Ethiopian
university campuses. Recommendations include the importance of community outreach and involvement,
the need to expand the project’s reach and include more participants, the benefits of increasing their social
media presence and leveraging the Activity’s alumni network, and building a clearer understanding of
project initiatives by improving initial communication of the Activity’s purpose during the application
period and enhancing methods of interactions and learning amongst SD participants in all campus locations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reach more students on campus: Increase the number of dialogue groups to boost
the number of participating students. These increases could be implemented each year
of future SD activities and be based on the capacity of the university SD coordinators,
Peace Forums, and university administrations to sufficiently manage these larger numbers
of groups. An important consideration is to ensure that with the increased number of
groups, the universities maintain their ethnic, religious, gender and geographic diversity.
Boost visibility of the SD Activity on campus:
• Future SD activities should conduct more frequent Peace Actions throughout the
academic year. These could include convening panel discussions with
influential/popular speakers to boost awareness of the SD Activity. These could also
build on the micro-Peace Actions that participants started undertaking at specific
universities after three dialogue sessions, such as the “peace park” started at JU
University that enabled students to initiate individual actions, such as planting trees
or writing down quotes or proverbs.
• Future SD activities should organize meetings between all SD dialogue groups on
campus in addition to the all-participant events (i.e., kickoff, Peace Actions) near the
beginning and end of the academic year. For example, all groups could meet in the
middle of the year to evaluate accomplishments – the equivalent of a “half-way”
session.
Increase engagement with local, off-campus communities: This could include
strengthening ties with local leaders and direct assistance efforts that build foundations
for future, dialogue-based work beyond the university campuses. These could continue
to build on the cooperative ventures between university Peace Forums and SD
participants in surrounding communities. One such example is in Bahir Dar town, where
Peace Forum-led interventions were joined by SD participants to clear the town of
garbage and support the poor by raising money, donating clothes, and visiting the elderly.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 36
Increase SD participants’ capacity to mitigate conflict: Future SD activities
should add more practical, “real world” training in conflict mitigation, including scenarios
that allow students to learn and practice de-escalation and other mitigation techniques.
SD participants who have completed the conflict mitigation training, should be provided
with credentials and authority to work alongside designated Peace Forum or student
union leaders so they are recognized on campus as peacekeepers during periods of
tension or conflict.
Integrate other university groups into the SD process: Dialogue sessions were
conducted twice a month but could be held more frequently when necessary, such as
when tensions increase on campus. During such periods, increased sessions could be held
not only with current participants, but also with representatives of specific ethnic groups
that might be more likely to instigate violence. Sessions could differ from the standard,
incremental, year-long model to accommodate the urgency and dynamics of a tense
university situation e.g., by conducting conversations with ethnic or religious group
leaders. While such groups might be reluctant to engage in dialogues, reaching out would
demonstrate inclusivity and potentially bring them into the dialogue process. Additionally,
future SD activities should consider bringing other non-student university populations
into the dialogue process, such as administrators, security personnel, and academic staff.
Increase use of social media for communication and coordination: Facebook
and Telegram channels are the most commonly used means of communication on
Ethiopian university campuses. While such channels have been set up and utilized by some
SD moderators to communicate with members, the SD program currently does not have
a centrally managed and administered social media account or a dedicated program
website. The ET recommends establishing a dedicated SD website, which would enable
future SD Administrators to provide accurate information about the Activity, establish
and maintain inter-group and inter-university communication, and enable sharing of SD
experiences and achievements.
Leverage SD’s extensive alumni network: The ET recommends that implementers
of future SD activities expand and strengthen its nascent alumni network. Specifically, it
should strengthen linkages to and between alumni, which will enable SD to maintain
contact among graduates and potentially enhance organization of peacebuilding events.
The use of these graduates could also potentially support local peacebuilding processes
and local administrative structures to realize the off-campus objectives of the SD Activity
more effectively.
Increase the use of art and music in SD activities: Art and music are powerful
instruments of social learning and peacebuilding for youth and were used as part of the
SD Activity’s kickoffs, Peace Action days and peace incubation projects’ implementation.
SD’s use of art, however, has not been as consistent, collaborative or organized as it
could be. Interviewed art club leaders at UoG, for example, suggested that collaborations
with SD would be both logical and beneficial because the art club organize similar events
aimed at creating greater awareness of cultural and social diversity and coexistence on
campus. The SD Activity should, therefore, maximize the potential role art can play in
peacebuilding. Fortunately for potential future SD activities, a considerable number of
universities in Ethiopia today have art, music, literature, and theater departments, as well
as student clubs that focus on these disciplines. To make use of art’s peacebuilding
37 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
potential, the SD program should work in collaboration with these university
departments and clubs, such as the Ken Deal Student Association and KE-BE-MA
(Student’s Cultural Group) at the UoG. Such platforms can complement SD’s existing
dialogue session and Peace Action components, creating informal, relaxed environments
for spreading the peace messaging and positively affecting people’s attitudes.
Strengthen monitoring and oversight capacity of campus-based actors:
Monitoring implementation of the SD Activity should be strengthened by engaging more
intensively with and building the capacity of key campus-based actors. More training on
M&E could be given to facilitators, university SD coordinators, and the Peace Forum.
Individuals who assume the role of facilitators could also be trained on time management,
and strategic prioritization of tasks. University SD coordinators should also be supported
and guided to take a more proactive role in monitoring. These could include periodic
engagements and dialogue with facilitators to oversee progress, conducting personal visits,
observations and other onsite interactions and communication with moderators and
participants. In addition, other steps, such creating a platform for seasonal evaluations of
the SD Activity, or employing a local full-time SD coordinator, should be considered.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 38
ANNEX I: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK:
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
SUPPORT TO SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON
ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES (SD), CONTRACT NUMBER AID-663-A-16-00009
I. PURPOSE AND USE OF THE EVALUATION
USAID/Ethiopia Democracy & Governance (DG) Office intends to conduct a performance evaluation of
the Sustaining Dialogue in Ethiopian Campuses (SD) Activity being implemented by Life and Peace Institute
under the Cooperative Agreement No. AID-663-A-16-00009. The evaluation looks at the design and
implementation of the SD activity as well as results achieved. This evaluation will:
1. Examine the overall progress of the SD activity in meeting the project goal and objectives
specifically how it affected behavior in and outside the university campus
2. Review, analyze and evaluate the design, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SD Activity
3. Provide specific recommendations for future activities and directions that the Mission may wish
to explore regarding peacebuilding/conflict mitigation and management in Ethiopian universities.
The findings, analysis and recommendations are intended to inform future similar project/activity design
and implementation. More specifically, the findings of this evaluation are expected to the Mission’s conflict
and peacebuilding activity design in 2021. The primary users of this evaluation are USAID, Life and Peace
Initiative (LPI) and Peace and Development Center (PDC). As the Implementing Partner is closely working
with University Administration, Universities are also expected to benefit from the evaluation findings.
II. SUMMARY INFORMATION
Activity Name Sustaining Dialogue on Ethiopian Campuses (SD)
Implementing partner Life and Peace Institute (LPI)
Cooperative Agreement AID-663-A-16-00009
Total Estimated Cost $1,591,070
Life of Activity 10/03/2016 – 01/31/2021
Mission DO SpO
USAID Office Democracy and Governance
Activity AOR Tessema Mebratu
III. BACKGROUND
A. Problem and Theory of Change
The university campus is a pivotal space in Ethiopian society, beginning movements and setting trends,
while also being highly influenced by national, regional, and international dynamics. Ethiopian campuses are
characterized as places of intense intergroup competition, mistrust, and misunderstanding, where students
39 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
arrive socialized with ideas of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that are then solidified by informal socialization processes
on campus. This is exemplified in the Oromia and Amhara Regions where identity-based social groups
quickly mobilize in response to a range of triggers that tap into historical grievances or root causes of the
competition and divisions. As divisions in campuses replicate and exacerbate tensions from the larger
Ethiopian society, conflict escalates from interpersonal disputes or knowledge of events external to the
campus and sometimes surrounding communities. Critically, such unhealthy cultures on campuses not
only occasionally explode in violence and result in a loss of life, but also consistently produce graduates
who return to lead their communities and the nation more hardened towards other groups than before
their arrival at the university campus.
Hence, there is a need to continue to spread and institutionalize processes for intergroup sustained
dialogue in university campuses. A strategic peacebuilding approach recognizes the role that university
students play in Ethiopian society as change agents in their home communities, on campuses, and in the
national scene. Accordingly, in October 2016, USAID awarded LPI the SD project. Over the course of a
four-year intervention, LPI has been implementing the SD project in the 5 universities of the country,
namely, Ambo, Bahir Dar, Gondar, Haramaya, and Jimma in partnership with PDC. The project focuses
on supporting local stakeholders to establish a sustained dialogue process that seeks to contribute to a
shift in campus culture across the selected Ethiopian universities. The intervention seeks not only to
change attitudes and behavior of dialogue participants, but also to position key young men and women to
have a catalytic multiplier effect to reach more people in on and off campus communities. The Activity
aims to contribute to efforts towards transforming the Ethiopian university campus from a place of hyper,
and sometimes violent, inter-group competition to a space for trust building, dialogue, and cooperation
needs to address deeper relational issues.
Theories of Change
The overall theory of change for this activity is “if Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue
projects on campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then this
will reduce the reinforcing of negative relational patterns and prevent violence on campuses that can
spread to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal and national
contexts, because changing culture on campus will produce broad-minded future leaders and the university
will become an institution for inter-group collaboration and exchange rather than further divisive
competition.”
1. Start with partners, key for the sustainability of SD on Ethiopian Universities
If PDC receives critical support to build relationships with universities and initiate new and continue
ongoing SD projects with amplified action components, Then PDC will be able to ensure the quality of
the SD process and continue to build partnerships with universities, and positive results will ensure
universities to ultimately take up the support of SD projects, Because the positive project results will
convince university administrations that dialogue works, to the extent that university administrators will
invest in the process long-term, sustaining efforts over time that have the ability to become campus-wide
culture.
2. Engage students as SD participants to facilitate personal transformation – and make sure
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 40
they are the people other people listen to. 
If young men and women, including opinion leaders, from conflicting identity groups on campus are
engaged to come together on a regular basis and discuss issues of difference that affect them, Then, over
time, they will build mutual understanding and trust, Because prolonged interaction with safe and
moderated discussion facilitates the possibility of overcoming entrenched barriers (e.g., divisive narratives, 
distrust, fear, misunderstanding, stereotyping). 
3. To shift campus culture, support change agents to amplify the message of dialogue,
mutual understanding and trust.
If SD participants, especially opinion leaders, are supported and accompanied to collaborate for Peace
Action on campus to share an alternative, positive narrative of collaborating with other groups, Then the 
collaborative efforts will further reinforce trust and understanding among SD participants and will have a 
multiplier effect that spreads a culture of trust and understanding among more people on campus, 
Because, as key actors, the students are respected, listened to and influence how followers think and 
behave.
4. Provide a space for innovation of young peacebuilding leaders after SD to spread the
message of dialogue off campus.
If SD participants are accompanied to realize their ideas for promoting social cohesion, Then their efforts
will increase their confidence as future leaders for peace and may contribute to social cohesion and 
address negative socialization patterns, Because they experienced personal transformation that they 
want to share “back home” and will have a safe space, resources, time and technical accompaniment to 
develop their own ideas for action to reach off campus communities. 
Hypothesizing impact on peace writ large in Ethiopia: Overtime, if Ethiopian universities with
PDC support institutionalize SD projects on campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue on universities,
then this will reduce the reinforcing of negative relational patterns and prevent violence on campuses 
that can spread to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal and national 
contexts, because changing culture on campus will produce broad-minded future leaders and the 
university will become an institution for inter-group collaboration and exchange rather than further
divisive competition. 
B. Activity Goal and Objectives
The overall goal of the Activity is to establish a culture of trust and collaboration on selected Ethiopian 
university campuses and facilitate increased resilience to triggers, produces more broad-minded graduates, 
and reduce negative relational social patterns and inter-group violence. 
Objectives of the SD Activity are: 
1. Institutional capacity changes (PDC and Universities): PDC in collaboration with university staff
and students launch and accompany processes of sustained dialogue on university campuses.
2. Individual changes: Young men and women participants in the SD process are transformed to trust,
understanding, and collaborate with ‘others’, and become confident in their abilities to catalyze
multiplier effects for peace.
41 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
3. Community level changes: Collaborative and innovative actions by SD participants spread a message
of trust and understanding that make young women and men of different ethnic and faith groups
question their own negative predispositions and stereotypes.
Major activities of the project are: 
● Technical Support and capacity building to PDC
● Year-long students dialogue sessions
● Incubation support for viable student peace projects
● Campus wide collaborative action by SD groups
IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Design
1. To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding in universities? In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the evaluation team
should review how well the design of the activity and its theory of change corresponded to the
needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.
Effectiveness
2. To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral changes among SD
participants, university communities, and non-university communities? (To address this question, the
team should first assess the efforts or approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess
how the SD activity affected these attitudes and behavior.)
3. To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and peacebuilding on and off
campus? (To address this question, the evaluation team must assess whether SD alumni / participants
actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter-ethnic tension or violence on campus or at
home.)
Sustainability
4. To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD beneficiaries
and university partners after the SD activity’s phaseout? What evidence exists to demonstrate this
sustainability?
Other
5. What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant challenges to SD success?
V. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
A. Evaluation Design
The evaluation team will be responsible for developing an evaluation strategy and methodologies that
include a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. The team should review the
evaluation questions matrix presented in this SOW and present a revised one with any other relevant
additions showing the source of data, method of data collection and also the tools to be used to answer
each of the evaluation questions. Depending on COVID-19 related restrictions and safety measures at the
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 42
time of data collection, the data may be collected virtually. Hence, the evaluation design should detail the
virtual evaluation methodology and any limitations. The methodology will be presented as part of the work
plan as outlined in the deliverables below and included in the final report. The evaluation team will have 
available for their analysis a variety of program implementation documents and reports. Methodology 
strengths and weaknesses should be identified as well as measures taken to address those weaknesses
should be identified and discussed. 
The evaluation should take gender and intersectionality perspectives into account throughout all stages of 
the evaluation, including in design (evaluation questions), data collection (including ensuring diversity of
gender, age, ethnicity and geographical origin) & data analysis (including analyzing data for sub-groups of 
evaluation participants to identify patterns & significant differences between groups).
B. Methodology
(i) Data Collection and Sources
The evaluation will utilize a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative methods. 
● A qualitative approach should include, but not be limited to, project document and literature
review, (including a review of performance monitoring data), key informant interviews, focus
group discussions with beneficiaries, and direct observation (if possible given COVID-19 context).
The most appropriate respondents are former and current students who participated in the SD
sessions, Peace Actions and peace incubation; university administration (especially the university
SD coordinators); USAID; LPI; and PDC staff.
● The quantitative approach should include a survey of former and current students. The evaluator
will be required to propose sampling and administration approaches that will yield reliable
information while protecting the safety of respondents.
(ii) Data Analysis
While developing the work plan, the Contractor is expected to submit an Inception Report that outlines
Evaluation Questions and how they will be answered, including the full set of data collection approaches
inclusive of sample designs, field protocols, and draft instruments, and analysis plans for each type of data. 
The Contractor will be responsible for synthesizing these approaches into an Evaluation Design Table
(Figure 1). As this evaluation mainly collects qualitative data, the Contractor must employ an appropriate
analysis tool for qualitative data to categorize, rank and rate the responses of the interviewees and 
discussants. Very insightful or special descriptions of interviewees and discussants should be quoted as 
appropriate to highlight findings. All data collected and presented in the evaluation report must be
disaggregated, as appropriate, by sex and geographic areas. 
Figure 1. Evaluation Design Table
Questions Suggested Data Sources Suggested
Data
Collection
Methods
Suggested
Data Analysis
Methods
Design Project documents, mid-term
evaluation report, annual and
Document
review, KIIs,
Trend analysis,
comparative
43 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
1. To what extent has the SD Activity
been appropriate and relevant for
conflict mitigation and peacebuilding
in universities? In terms of
appropriateness and relevance, the
evaluation team should review how
well the design of the activity and
its theory of change corresponded
to the needs of the universities with
respect to student behaviors and
attitudes.
quarterly reports, annual
baseline and endline reports,
and other relevant project
documents and literature as
needed. Beneficiaries such as
SD participants, and university
administration, LPI and PDC
staff, USAID DG staff, students
and other stakeholders as
appropriate.
FGDs,
survey
analysis, content
analysis
[final methods to
be determined by
evaluation team in
inception report]
Effectiveness
2. To what extent has the SD Activity
affected positive attitudinal and
behavioral changes among SD
participants, university
communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this
question, the team should first assess
the efforts or approaches used to
affect attitudes and behavior, and then
assess how the SD activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
3. To what extent has the SD activity
contributed to conflict mitigation
and peacebuilding on and off
campus? To address this question,
the evaluation team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants
actively sought to be peacemakers
during incidents of inter-ethnic
tension or violence on campus or at
home.
Project documents, mid-term
evaluation report, annual and
quarterly reports, annual
baseline and endline reports,
and other relevant project
documents and literature as
needed. Beneficiaries such as
SD participants, and university
administration, LPI and PDC
staff, USAID DG staff, students
and other stakeholders as
appropriate.
Document
review, KIIs,
FGDs,
survey
Trend analysis,
comparative
analysis, content
analysis
[final methods to
be determined by
evaluation team in
inception report]
Sustainability
4. To what extent can SD activities be
expected to continue and/or be
scaled up by SD beneficiaries and
university partners after the SD
activity’s phaseout? What evidence
exists to demonstrate this
sustainability?
Project documents, mid-term
evaluation report, annual and
quarterly reports, annual
baseline and endline reports,
and other relevant project
documents and literature as
needed. Beneficiaries such as
SD participants, and university
administration, LPI and PDC
staff, USAID DG staff, students
and other stakeholders as
appropriate.
Document
review, KIIs,
FGDs,
survey
Trend analysis,
comparative
analysis, content
analysis [final
methods to be
determined by
evaluation team in
inception report]
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 44
Other:
5. What are the lessons learned, best
practices and most significant
challenges to SD success?
Project documents, mid-term
evaluation report, annual and
quarterly reports, annual
baseline and endline reports,
and other relevant project
documents and literature as
needed. Beneficiaries such as
SD participants, and university
administration, LPI and PDC
staff, USAID DG staff, students
and other stakeholders as
appropriate.
Document
review, KIIs,
FGDs,
survey
Methods to be
determined by
evaluation team in
inception report
VI. DELIVERABLES and REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. In-briefing: Within two working days of the availability (consulting / STTA agreements fully signed)
of the full evaluation team in EPMES’s Contractor Office, the evaluation team will have an in-brief
meeting with USAID/Ethiopia’s Program Office and DG Office for introductions; presentation of the
team’s understanding of the assignment and initial assumptions.
2. Evaluation Inception Report / Work Plan: Within 12 working days following the in-brief
meeting, the Contractor shall submit the Evaluation Inception Report to USAID/Ethiopia’s Program
Office and DG Office. This Inception Report will include:
(a) the overall evaluation design, including the proposed methodology, data collection plan
(inclusive of sample design and draft instruments), and an analysis plan;
(b) a list of the Evaluation Team members and their primary contact details while in-country,
including the e-mail address and mobile phone number for the Team Leader;
(c) the Evaluation Team’s proposed schedule for the evaluation; and
(d) the estimated cost for the evaluation.
Timing of Inception Report / Work Plan Review:
● USAID offices and relevant stakeholders are asked to take up to three working days to
review and consolidate comments through the EPMES COR.
● Once the Evaluation Team receives the consolidated USAID comments on the Inception
Report / Work Plan Report, they are expected to return with a revised Inception Report
within five working days. The Inception Report shall include the list of potential interviewees
and sites to be visited.
● USAID Offices will send their final comments on the Contractor’s re-submitted Inception
Report within two working days of receipt of revised Inception Report from the Contractor.
3. Progress Updates: The Evaluation Team or the Contractor is expected to provide the COR for
EPMES and the AOR for the SD activity with weekly briefings by phone to provide updates on field
progress and any problems encountered.
4. Preliminary Findings Presentation Five (5) working days after the Evaluation Team’s completion
of the fieldwork, the Evaluation Team shall provide a debrief to USAID to discuss / extract lessons
from field level data collection experiences as well as the evaluation team members’ preliminary
impression on evaluation findings.
45 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
5. Draft Evaluation Report: The content of the Draft Evaluation Report is outlined in Annex A
below, and all formatting shall be consistent with the USAID branding guidelines. The focus of the
Evaluation Report is to answer the evaluation questions, provide recommendations for future
interventions, and may include factors the Evaluation Team considers relevant to the objectives of
the evaluation.
● The Contractor will submit the draft evaluation report to the Program Office within 15
working days after the Preliminary Findings Presentation.
● USAID’s Program Office, DG Office and other partners will have up to 10 working days to
review and comment on the draft report and the Program Office will submit consolidated
comments to the Contractor.
● The Contractor will then have up to 10 working days to make appropriate edits and revisions
to the draft and re-submit the revised final draft report to USAID.
6. Final Evaluation Report will incorporate final comments provided by the Program Office. The
length of the final evaluation report should not be more than 30 pages, not including Annexes and
Executive Summary. The Contractor should submit the Final Report to the Program Office within
10 days of receipt of the consolidated comments from the COR. The Final Evaluation Report
submission should also include not more than a Two-page Briefer on key qualitative and
quantitative findings and conclusions relative to the evaluation questions—to be given to the
appropriate government counterpart(s) so that they have the opportunity to review evaluation
findings and share them with the larger community. The two-page briefer should also incorporate a
summary of the recommendations supported by each major finding for future programming.
7. 10 working days following the submission of the Final Evaluation Report, all project data and records
will be submitted in full and shall be in electronic form in easily readable format; organized and fully
documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or evaluation; and owned by USAID
and made available to the public, barring rare exceptions, on the USAID Development Experience
Clearinghouse (http://dec.usaid.gov).
VII. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
MEMBERS
The Evaluation Team shall consist of a Team Leader (expat) and three other local experts all with high
level experience in evaluation, peacebuilding, and conflict mitigation/management. The international expert
must be fluent in English and have strong writing skills. The Ethiopian experts should have experience with
dialogue processes, peacebuilding and conflict prevention and management in Ethiopia and monitoring and
evaluation. The Ethiopian experts should also be proficient in English and Amharic.
USAID may propose internal staff members from USAID/Washington or other Missions to accompany
the team during site visits or participate in key parts of the evaluation (specific event participation to be
determined in conjunction with the contractor and the team leader), and they are expected to provide
written inputs to the draft report.
A statement of potential bias or conflict of interest (or lack thereof) is required of each team member.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 46
Team Member Qualification and Specific Responsibilities
1. Team Leader (one - LOE: 74 days): The International team leader should have a minimum
of a Master’s degree in Peace & Security Studies, Conflict Resolution, Political Science, Law or
relevant social science field. S/he should have at least 8 years work experience in peacebuilding
and conflict mitigation in Ethiopia or other African countries and led at least two similar
evaluations. The team leader should have experience with youth-led processes or youth as agents
for change in peace processes. The evaluation team leader must have strong team management
skills, and sufficient experience with evaluation standards and practices to ensure a credible
product. The team leader must also be fluent in English and have strong writing skills. The
evaluation team leader, in consultation with other team members, will be responsible for team
coordination and performance and for ensuring the timeliness and quality of deliverables. The
team leader is also responsible to ensure that the evaluation report meets USAID Evaluation
Standards (see Annex A.)
2. Local Ethiopian Experts (two - LOE: 76 days): The local experts should have a minimum of
a Master’s degree in Peace & Security Studies, Conflict Resolution, Political Science, Law or
relevant social science field. S/he should have at least 5 years work experience in dialogue
processes, peacebuilding or conflict mitigation in Ethiopia and conducted at least two similar
evaluations. The local expert should have experience with youth-led dialogue processes or youth
as agents for change in peace processes at the local level. S/he must have knowledge and practical
experience in conflict analysis, conflict drivers and interventions on the major causes of conflict
with students in Ethiopian universities as well as understanding of Ethiopia’s conflict management
policies, strategies, and priorities. The local expert must have strong communication skills, and
sufficient experience with evaluation standards and practices to ensure a credible product. The
Ethiopian experts should also be proficient in English and fluent in Amharic. Fluency/proficiency in
other widely spoken Ethiopian languages is strongly desired. The local experts, in consultation
with the team leader and the evaluation specialist, will be responsible for conducting the
evaluation, ensuring the timeliness and quality of deliverables. The local experts’ responsibilities
include but is not limited to desk review of project materials, design of the evaluation’s
methodology, development of evaluation instruments and tools, data collection, data analysis and
report as well as presentation of the evaluation report.
3. Local Ethiopian Mid-Level Evaluation Specialist (one –LOE: 76 days): The Ethiopian Mid￾Level Evaluation or Survey Specialist with at least 5 years work experience should have a solid
understanding of project cycle management, evaluation techniques, survey coordination, and
youth issues in Ethiopia. This specialist should also have practical experience in at least two
evaluation activities preferably related to USAID projects, peacebuilding, dialogue processes or
youth issues. Evaluation experience of USAID projects or peacebuilding projects is considered a
merit. The Evaluation Specialist should also be proficient in English and fluent in Amharic.
Fluency/proficiency in other widely spoken Ethiopian languages strongly desired. In addition, good
computer skills such as Microsoft office is required and other quantitative software (such as SPSS)
and qualitative software desired. The Specialist’s responsibilities include but are not limited to
desk review of project materials, supporting the design of the evaluation’s methodology, and
supporting development of evaluation instruments and tools, data collection, data analysis and
report as well as presentation of the evaluation report. Strong writing and analytical skills required.
47 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
4. Project Manager (one - LOE: 33 days): Mid-level HQ Manager who will manage
implementation of the evaluation’s workplan on a day-to-day basis, coordinate regular updates
with the Evaluation Team, the COP and the Mission and ensure evaluation team members are
meeting the requirements and deadlines approved by USAID in the workplan. Provide
management and budget support to the Evaluation Team. Provide programmatic and technical
support on deliverables to ensure submission of high-quality products.
5. Project Assistant (one –LOE: 25 days): Junior level HQ staff with experience supporting
USAID contracts. Backstops the Evaluation Team through management and technical support,
takes and generates internal Evaluation Team meeting minutes, takes and generates EPMES
presentation minutes, supports the graphics and formatting of EPMES evaluation high-quality
deliverables.
VIII. EVALUATION SCHEDULE
The estimated period of performance for undertaking this evaluation is approximately 110-120 working
days (roughly 5.5 - 6 months), which includes the Evaluation Team LOE (see following page for details),
plus additional days for USAID review of all key deliverables, up to 10 working days after submission of
the Final Report (for submission of all project data and records), and several Ethiopian and / or U.S.A.
holidays during the Evaluation period of performance.
The Evaluation Team is required to work six days a week, but with no premium payment for the sixth
day. The Evaluation Team is required to travel to the five universities where program activities are being
implemented, depending on the COVID 19 situation in Ethiopia. The evaluation team will prepare an
interim findings briefing and presentation, which it will deliver to USAID staff and other stakeholders as
appropriate following the evaluation’s data collection and data analysis stages. If travel is not possible, the
consultants will conduct interviews virtually with project staff, government partners, and project
beneficiaries and hence, briefings and presentations will also be conducted virtually.
Following this briefing, the consultants will put together the draft report. USAID and other stakeholders
such as the implementing partner will have up to 2 weeks to provide comments and suggestions to the
report. Comments from USAID and stakeholders will be incorporated before the submission of the final
draft. The Final Evaluation Report is estimated to be available by June 8, 2021. The findings from this Final
Evaluation Report will be used in the design of the USAID conflict and peacebuilding activity.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 48
Evaluation Timeline
TASK OR DELIVERABLE TASK
HOLDER
SUBMISSION
DATE
REVISED
SUBMISSION
DATE32
Phase 1: Management & Start-Up
Approval of evaluation team members USAID January 13, 2021
Contracting of evaluation team members EPMES January 21, 2021
Phase 1I: Evaluation Design & Planning
Desk review of documents and secondary data EPMES January 25-29,
2021
Introductory/Kickoff meeting with USAID/Ethiopia USAID,
EPMES
February 2, 2021
Finalize SOW (following discussion during Kickoff
meeting)
EPMES February 3-4,
2021
USAID approval of Evaluation SOW USAID February 5, 2021
Introductory meeting with SD IPs EPMES February 5, 2021
Draft Inception Report and sample data collection
instruments. Plan logistics for data collection.
EPMES February 2-18,
2021
Draft Inception Report/Work Plan to
USAID
EPMES February 19,
2021
USAID feedback on Draft Inception Report USAID March 3, 2021
Finalize Inception Report EPMES March 4-10, 2021
Final Inception Report/Work Plan to
USAID
EPMES March 10, 2021
USAID approval of Final Inception Report USAID March 16, 2021
Phase III: Data Collection & Analysis
Data collection (in-person or virtual data
collection dependent on COVID-19 situation in
Ethiopia)
EPMES March 17-April 8,
2021
March 17-April 13,
2021
Data analysis & preliminary findings presentation
prep
EPMES April 9-15, 2021 April 14-20, 2021
Preliminary Findings Presentation to
USAID
EPMES April 20, 2021 April 28, 2021
Preliminary Findings Presentation to IPs EPMES April 21, 2021 May 7, 2021
Phase IV: Report & Presentation Development
32 On March 11, USAID approved the Inception Report, which includes the timeline as shown in this table to accommodate 
additional qualitative protocols. On May 10, 2021, USAID approved a revised timeline for Phase IV and the IP preliminary findings 
presentation. This approval included the following dates: the IP presentation occurred on May 14. The Draft Evaluation was 
submitted on May 25. The Final Evaluation and 2-pager will be submitted on June 15. 
49 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Compile draft Evaluation Report EPMES April 16-May 6,
2021
April 21-May 18,
2021
Draft Evaluation Report to USAID EPMES May 6, 2021 May 18, 2021
USAID feedback on Draft Evaluation Report USAID May 20, 2021 June 1, 2021
Evaluation Team revises draft Evaluation Report
based on USAID feedback
EPMES May 21-27, 2021 June 1-8, 2021
Final Evaluation Report with 2-page Brief to
USAID
EPMES May 27, 2021 June 8, 2021
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 50
Level of Effort (LOE) in person days:
Activity
Expat
Team
Leader
[1]
Ethiopian
Experts
[2]
Mid-Level
Ethiopian
Evaluation
Specialist
[1]
Project
Manager
[1]
Project Assistant
[1]
Desk review of documents
and secondary data 5 10 5 2
Introductory meeting with
USAID 1 2 1 1 1
Introductory meeting with
Implementing Partner(s) 1 2 2 1 1
Draft evaluation inception
report / work plan and
data collection
instruments; plan logistics
10 20 9 2 2
Presentation to USAID of
the Inception Report &
Work Plan (virtual or in￾person)
1 2 2 1 1
Evaluation Team finalizes
(following USAID
feedback) and submits
evaluation inception report
/ work plan (including
design, methodology &
data collection tools;
logistics) to USAID
5 10 4 3 2
Virtual Data Collection
(includes any data
collection tool test).
Depending on the COVID￾related situation, data
collection in Addis Ababa
and other areas might be
collected in person.
20 48 24 3
Data analysis & coding,
preliminary findings
presentation preparation
9 14 9 8 9
Preliminary Findings
Presentation to USAID 1 2 1 1 1
Preliminary Findings
Presentation to IPs 1 2 1 1 1
Draft Evaluation Report
(includes two rounds of
USAID reviews)
15 30 13 5 4
51 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Final Evaluation Report
(including not more than a
Two-page Briefer)
following USAID feedback
5 10 5 5 3
Total LOE 74 152 76 33 25
IX. MANAGEMENT
Social Impact, Inc., the Contractor managing the Ethiopia Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES)
activity will identify and hire the evaluation team, pending the Contracting Officer’s Representatives
(COR’s) and relevant technical office’s concurrence and CO approval for the rate, assist in facilitating the
work plan, and arrange meetings with key stakeholders identified prior to the initiation of the fieldwork.
The evaluation team will organize other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation, in
consultation with EPMES’s Contractor and USAID/Ethiopia. The EPMES Contractor is responsible for all
logistical support required for the evaluation team, including arranging accommodation, security, office
space (virtual data collection platforms), computers, Internet access, printing, communication, and
transportation.
The evaluation team will officially report to the Ethiopia Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES)
Contractor, Social Impact, Inc. The EPMES Contractor is responsible for all direct coordination with the
USAID/Ethiopia Program Office through the EPMES COR. From a technical management perspective, the
evaluation team will work closely with Mahider Mulugeta, the AOR of the SD Activity. To maintain
objectivity, all final decisions about the evaluation will be made by the Program Office.
X. LOGISTICS
The contractor will be responsible for all travel and logistics associated with conducting the evaluation.
The SD Activity’s Implementing Partner/s may also be asked to provide logistical support to the
contractor/evaluation team as needed and appropriate, for instance, in locating operational areas,
introducing beneficiaries or key stakeholders to the contractor’s evaluation team, etc.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 52
ANNEX II: FULL METHODOLOGY
DATA COLLECTION
The EPMES Evaluation Team (ET) used a mixed-methods design for this evaluation that collected both
qualitative and quantitative data to address the EQs and used the data collection methods which included 
document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and a remote
Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey.
DOCUMENT REVIEW
The ET undertook a review of documents produced by and relevant to the SD Activity to better
understand its design and implementation, extract findings relevant to the EQs, and inform development
of the evaluation’s data collection protocols so that instruments appropriately supplement or cross-check
against information in the background documents. The ET reviewed a range of Activity documents,
including SD’s annual and quarterly reports; annual work plans; MEL Plan; baseline and endline reports;
mid-term evaluation; and scoping studies. For example, the review of the SD Activity indicators within its
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan, work plan, and quarterly and annual reports, enabled the
ET to identify progress (or the lack thereof) toward indicator targets. This was triangulated with the data
extracted from the KIIs, FGD, and surveys to assess the extent to which the SD Activity was able to
positively affect attitudinal and behavioral changes among participants and university/non-university
communities (EQ2), as well as contribute to conflict mitigation and peacebuilding on and off campus (EQ3).
Please see Annex V for a full list of documents reviewed for this evaluation.
SITE VISITS
The ET’s three local team members conducted in-person KIIs and FGDs at the five targeted universities.
To enable the ET to conduct KIIs and FGDs with more SD stakeholders, the team divided the data
collection and university visits between them, with two team members forming one sub-team and the
other team member working with locally hired notetakers to support the FGDs conducted at each
university visited. These university-based notetakers served a key supporting role, enabling the team
member to focus fully on facilitating the FGD while the notetaker recorded content from the FGDs. These
individuals were recruited by the ET and possessed strong English-language skills (for note translation
support). The two-person sub-team visited Ambo, Gondar, and Jimma Universities, while the third team
member, with the supporting notetakers, visited Bahir Dar and Haramaya Universities. The third team
member also conducted several FGDs in Addis, where EPMES staff members and a locally hired notetaker
provided notetaking support.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
KIIs were conducted through a mix of in-person, virtual, and phone-based interviews, with the
communications method dependent on the stakeholder group and/or the quality of the key informant’s
Internet connection. The in-person KIIs were conducted on an individual basis or in small groups of two
or three with key campus-based target groups. These groups included: 1) SD Activity University
Coordinators (and other University Administrators such as Academic Deans), 2) Peace forum
leaders/representatives, 3) current students who participated in and implemented SD peace incubation
53 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
projects;33 and 4) students that did not participate in the SD Activity, drawn from student unions, clubs,
and ethnic groups on campus.34
The ET’s local specialists conducted off-campus interviews with 1) university graduates who participated
in and implemented SD peace incubation projects; and 2) local government/community leaders from the
towns or cities in which the incubation projects were conducted. The ET conducted most of these
interviews by phone, with few interviews in-person in select locations which depended on schedule
availability.
Additionally, the ET conducted interviews with Addis-based staff from USAID, implementing partners LPI
and PDC, Ethiopian Government representatives (Ministry of Peace [MOP], Ministry of Science and Higher
Education [MOSHE]), and other English-speaking stakeholders, which were held remotely and led by the
Team Leader (TL). Remote KIIs were conducted using Microsoft Teams. In total, the ET conducted 69
KIIs with 142 SD Activity stakeholders.
The ET developed semi-structured data collection protocols that delineated appropriate, conflict-sensitive
questions for each of the targeted groups, established the highest possible range of comparability among
interviewed stakeholders, and ensured that questions and responses were recorded. The protocols
consist of interview questions that address and derive from the EQs, as well as from the ET’s document
review, its discussions with USAID staff, and its evaluation design knowledge. KIIs combined both closed￾ended questions (to permit rapid aggregation of basic respondent data) and open-ended questions (to
preserve the richness of the qualitative interview approach), allowing the ET to follow up with relevant
questions when the opportunity or need arose.
The KIIs lasted approximately 45–60 minutes (depending on whether interviews were conducted with
one individual or a small group). The KII process included a consent script that asked for respondent’s
permission to proceed after providing key details regarding the confidentiality of their responses, 35
sufficient context behind why they were being interviewed, and what the respondent should expect from
the KII. To ensure that COVID-19 safety precautions, the ET conducted KIIs in pre-identified outdoor
safe spaces on campus to allow social distancing between interviewee and informant (at least two meters)
– and followed all necessary safety measures during the KII, including mandatory mask use.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The ET conducted FGDs on the five campuses as well as in Addis Ababa. FGDs were conducted with: 1)
students that have participated in a minimum of the SD Activity dialogue sessions (as well as possibly its
Peace Action and peace incubation projects); and 2) student moderators who have led these sessions; and
3) a sample of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 graduates of these universities now living in Addis
that participated in or moderated these SD Activity groups while they were students. The ET selected
students, moderators, and graduates for its FGDs from all four years of the Activity’s period of
33 The ET conducted KIIs with these stakeholders rather than FGDs because its data collection benefited from in-depth 
conversations with such stakeholders. Peace Action 34 The ET engaged with non-SD participating students through KIIs as opposed to FGDs because it would have been difficult to 
mix non-SD participating students of different ethnic, religious and/or political groups in an FGD and get open/honest responses 
to us and dialogue between them). 35 See “Ethical Considerations” below for more on this.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 54
performance,36 and from among the multiple dialogue groups formed on each campus during each of those
years. It will attempt to reassemble participants of specific dialogue groups as FGDs to preserve not just
the religious, ethnic, geographic diversity, and gender balance of each group, but also the cohesiveness,
trust, and rapport established within each group, which will allow for a more open, comfortable discussion
between participants. If it is not possible to reassemble a complete SD group into an FGD due to
insufficient numbers, the ET will instead combine the members of two or more SD groups into one FGD.
The ET also conducted FGDs with graduates of these universities that participated in the SD Activity and
are now residing in Addis.37 For each university, the EPMES ET conducted at least four student-based
FGDs and one moderator-based FGD on campus (for current students) or in Addis (for graduates). The
ET conducted 25 FGDs overall, each consisting of between four and nine participants, for a rough sample
size of 176 students, moderators, and graduates.
The ET developed semi-structured protocols for the campus based FGDs to establish the highest possible
range of comparability among stakeholders, delineate appropriate questions for each target group, and
ensured that questions and responses are consistently recorded. FGDs combined both closed-ended
questions to permit rapid aggregation of basic respondent data and open-ended questions to preserve the
richness of the qualitative discussion. This encouraged respondents to engage with each other and give
more robust responses. The ET ensured that FGDs are scheduled at convenient times and in accessible
locations on campus to facilitate participation by both students and moderators. FGDs lasted 1.5–2 hours
depending on the size of the FGD. As with the KIIs, the FGD process included a consent script that asks
for their permission to proceed after providing key details regarding the confidentiality of their responses,
sufficient context behind why they are being asked to participate, and what the respondent should expect
from the FGD. To ensure that COVID-19 safety precautions are followed, the ET conducted FGDs in
pre-identified outdoor safe spaces on campus. In Addis Ababa, the ET conducted FGDs in a large hotel
event space to enable two-meter social distancing and had open windows. All necessary safety measures
were practiced including mandatory mask use and sufficient spacing (at least two meters) between FGD
participants.
SURVEY
The ET conducted a quantitative Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey targeting the
SD student participants. The survey was a close-ended series of 20–3038 questions on all EQs, with special
focus on EQs 2 and 3 – assessing students’ and moderators’ attitudes and behaviors and their engagement
36 In selecting FGD participants from all four years of the SD Activity, the ET included students from its final year, 2019-2020. 
During this year, the SD Activity was delayed in starting due to political instability that interrupted classes and caused some 
students to leave the campuses for their home areas. It was also cut short on its back end when COVID-19 forced the closure 
of Ethiopian universities in March 2020. While perspectives of the 2019-2020 students participating in the FGDs was not informed 
by the full SD Activity experience, they nevertheless provided valuable input on the effectiveness of SD programming when “real 
world” factors affected its full implementation. The ET also included students from the completed years of SD Activity 
implementation (2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019) to speak with students and moderators that experienced the full cycle 
of SD interventions – i.e., the SD dialogue sessions, Peace Action projects, and peace incubation projects. 37 Due to the relatively smaller number of participating students left on campus from the SD Activity’s earlier years (i.e., 2016-
2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019), the ET leveraged the relatively large number of participating graduates now residing in the 
capital and conducted a number of FGDs there.
38 Depending on how participants respond, the survey length will vary.
55 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
in conflict mitigation and peacebuilding. Questions focused on the participants’ experiences prior to and
after the SD Activity.39
The ET surveyed a representative sample of the 11,153 SD participant population. This surveyed sample,
clustered by university and cohort year, achieved a 2 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence
interval. This sample ensured that the data collected was representative of the entire SD population (by
university, cohort year, and sex) and sufficient to detect a minimum change in proportions within 2
percentage points at a 95 percent level of confidence.
The survey was built using Open Data Kit (ODK) on SurveyCTO, a popular platform to conduct surveys
and commonly used in Ethiopia. The ET hired a local data collection firm, Green Professional Services,
that was experienced in conducting CATI surveys in Ethiopia. Enumerators communicated with
respondents via telephone calls. The enumerators asked the survey questions to the participant and filled
out the survey on a tablet. The data was recorded in SurveyCTO’s encrypted server and only the ET
accessed the data. The ET provided a list of phone numbers to the enumerators in an order by which to
contact the respondents.
The ET programmed the survey, conducted a virtual training with the enumerators, and actively monitored
the incoming data using data quality assurance analysis. The data quality assurance mechanisms included
but are not limited to: (1) backchecks in which respondents are recontacted and asked a brief series of
questions about the quality of their interview, (2) time-checks to ensure that enumerators spent
reasonable time on each question, and (3) audio-checks built into the survey and recorded the enumerator
at specific intervals to make sure questions were asked appropriately. The ET conducted a two-day pilot
with the enumerators using a small sample. Prior to the pilot, the ET conducted internal rigorous pretests
to test survey logic flows. The pilot tested the enumerators’ understanding of the questions and the
reliability and validity of the instrument. The ET conducted analysis on the pilot data to further test the
instrument reliability and enumerator understanding. This analysis checked enumerator call logs, survey
duration, response rate, attrition rate, invalid phone numbers, and logic flows. The ET also conducted
representativeness analysis throughout the survey to identify and flag any issues in response rate or
attrition within a subset of demographics.
SAMPLING
The ET’s conducted 69 KIIs with a total of 142 key SD Activity stakeholders,40 and 25 FGDs composed
of 176 current students and graduates of the Activity’s five targeted universities. On the quantitative side,
the ET surveyed a representative sample of 2,187 SD student participants clustered by university and
cohort year. Rationales, breakdowns, and other key details for both its qualitative and quantitative samples
follow below.
Qualitative Sample: The ET chose FGD and KII sample sizes to maximize both the breadth and depth of
data it will collect from SD Activity stakeholders. FGDs enable team members to prioritize and more
efficiently collect data from a broader number of students than through KIIs alone during the evaluation’s
39 Due to the research design, the quantitative survey assessed correlation between the SD Activity and the related survey 
questions. It did not determine if the SD Activity caused any changes because the research design does not have a counterfactual. 40 KII stakeholders included USAID/Ethiopia and implementing partner (LPI & PDC) staff, university SD coordinators, peace forum 
leaders, non-SD participating students, and student/graduate peace incubation project implementers and local leaders.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 56
fieldwork phase. KIIs on the other hand allowed the ET to maximize the selection of different stakeholder
groups (and knowledgeable stakeholders within those groups) that have supported, implemented, or
benefitted from the SD Activity. These samples were purposively chosen by the ET to enable: 1) the FGDs’
composition to mirror the ethnic, religious, geographic, and gender diversity of the SD Activity’s dialogue
groups as much as possible; and 2) selection of key informants for KIIs best positioned to speak to the
design, effectiveness, and sustainability of the SD Activity.
Table 1 below demonstrates the breakdown of these KIIs and FGDs by university and stakeholder type.
These KIIs and FGDs were conducted by the local ET and Team Leader between March 17 and April 13.
SD Activity Sample and Distribution of KIIs
Bahir
Dar
Jimma Haramaya Gondar Ambo Off
Campus41
Total
KIIs
USAID/Ethiopia -- -- -- -- -- 2 2
Implementing Partners -- -- -- -- -- 8 8
SD University
Coordinators/Administrators
2 4 1 3 3 -- 13
Peace Forum leaders 2 2 3 1 4 -- 12
Facilitators 3 4 3 4 4 -- 18
Local community & government
leaders
-- -- -- -- -- 5 5
Peace Incubators42 -- -- -- -- -- 7 7
Non-SD Students43 18 15 13 14 15 -- 75
Ethiopian Government (MOP,
MOSHE)
-- -- -- -- -- 2 2
Total 25 25 20 22 26 24 142
41 Total number of KIIs for stakeholders at the five universities. FGDs: Number of FGDs conducted in Addis with graduates of 
these universities that participated in the SD Activity. 42 Selected from both current SD participant students and SD participant graduates. 43 Non-SD Students included representatives from student unions, clubs and ethnic groups.
57 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
SD Activity Sample and Distribution of FGDs
Bahir Dar Jimma Haramaya Gondar Ambo Addis Ababa44 Total
FGDs
Students 21 (3)45 24 (3) 21 (4) 22 (3) 15 (2) -- 103 (15)
Graduates -- -- -- -- -- 33 (5)46 33 (5)
Moderators 9 (1) 7 (1) 7 (1) 8 (1) 9 (1) -- 40 (5)
Total 30 (4) 31 (4) 28 (5) 30 (4) 24 (3) 33 (5) 176 (25)
Quantitative Sample: To achieve a repreksentative sample of the 11,153 SD participant population, the ET
gather surveys from 2,187 SD participants. In order to achieve this sample, enumerators contacted 4,900
students based on the assumption that 40 percent will respond. The sample was randomly selected using
an Excel-based randomizer function. Specifically, the sample will be clustered by university, cohort year,
and sex and randomized within these clusters. By doing so, the ET ensured that the university, cohort
year, and sex are represented in the sample for data collection. The ET provided the randomized list, in
the order the participant should be contacted to ensure that the correct proportions of each demographic
are contacted.47
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The EPMES ET followed rigorous protocols to ensure respondents’ privacy and security are maintained.
Prior to data collection, relevant evaluation instruments underwent an Institutional Review Board (IRB)
review and was approval. During data collection, the ET collected consent from all evaluation participants.
Prior to beginning the KIIs, FGDs, and the survey, participants were asked to provide electronic written
consent or verbal consent. Evaluation tools were the shortest possible length that still allows for capture
of necessary data so as not to cause undue time burdens on participants.
The EPMES Activity process for respecting respondent privacy during data collection, transfer, storage,
analysis, disposal, and dissemination is governed by SI’s data security guidelines. Data was collected and
stored on password protected devices and audio transcription and analysis platforms. Only ET members
have access to the data. Raw qualitative data is stored in project specific folders on SI’s password protected
intranet, SharePoint, quantitative data will be in STATA format and stored in on SharePoint as well.
When sharing data files internally, the ET used a secure file transfer system. During reporting and
dissemination, the ET only shared aggregate results so as not to identify individual respondents. Full data
access is limited to the ET’s management and technical staff to limit those who have access to the full
range of data captured and utilized throughout the execution of the contract. ET reports include only
aggregate data, with quotes attributed to a respondent category rather than an individual.
Following analysis and reporting, the ET prepared a de-identified version of the final survey dataset to
submit to USAID using SI’s de-identification process. SI follows standardized de-identification protocols
to remove Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from a dataset so that individual data cannot be linked
44 Number of FGDs to be conducted in Addis with graduates of these universities that participated in SD Activity. 45 The first number represents the total number of participants anticipated to take part in FGDs based on an estimated 8 people 
per FGD; the number in parenthesis is the expected number of FGDs.
46 Approximately five FGDs will be conducted with graduates of each of the targeted universities in Addis. 47 The data was analyzed daily and checked for representation of each of these clusters. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 58
with specific individuals. De-identification was conducted to protect respondents while allowing the ET to
share data that contributes to research transparency and facilitates additional analysis by secondary users.
The de-identified dataset was reviewed by SI’s IRB prior to submission to USAID.
ANALYSIS
Qualitative Data – The ET took notes during KIIs and FGDs with SD Activity stakeholders in real-time.
The ET cleaned and synthesized electronic summaries on a rolling basis after each interview or focus
group. Data was uploaded daily to the secure EPMES SharePoint data management platform. Only the ET
and select EPMES staff have access to these files. The ET conducted internal online working sessions to
identify and discuss emerging findings and themes, and categorized conclusions and recommendations by
EQ. Data analysis methods such as content and comparative analyses (see more on these below) were
used to identify response categories and patterns and to elucidate emergent themes and contextual factors
among qualitative data. In turn, the ET used these discussions to inform completion of the internal
preliminary Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) matrix, which was developed, revised,
and added to during the data collection process, then finalized during the data analysis phase. The FCR
matrix: i) ensured that the ET collected data that systematically and thoroughly answers each EQ, ii)
verified that preliminary analysis accounts for gender and social dimensions, iii) identified gaps where
additional clarification or analysis may be necessary, iv) ensured that each recommendation is supported
by evidence, and v) served as the basis for the interim findings presentation and the Draft Evaluation
Report.
Additionally, the ET used the aforementioned emergent themes to generate a coding structure and
systematically code all qualitative data summary notes using Dedoose, a robust qualitative data analysis
application. This served as the team’s key analytical tool for its qualitative data, enabling the categorization,
ranking, and rating of its collected KII and FGD data. For this coded data, the ET ensured that its results
are disaggregated and analyzed through comparisons of the data by SD Activity objective, location (i.e.,
university or off-campus peace incubation site), stakeholder type, and sex.
Quantitative Data – During data collection, the ET monitored incoming survey responses daily to verify
that the survey operated as expected, flagged completion rates or suspected burnout, and detected
additional preliminary data collection concerns if present. No major issues were detected during data
collection.
The ET conducted a final cleaning process before analysis to review potential data quality concerns in the
final dataset. Quantitative analysis was conducted on Stata 15, a statistics software. All data was weighted
by gender to ensure representativeness. The survey, designed as a performance evaluation, is a brief series
of before-after styled questions. Respondents self-report and recall their experience or opinions of the SD
Activity before and after their participation in the SD Activity. These responses are compared at a 2 percent
margin of error and 95 percent level of confidence. Thereby, the responses are within 2-percentage points,
with a 95 percent level of confidence, of how the SD participant population of 11,153 would respond. All
data was disaggregated by gender, university, cohort year, and ethnic group. These disaggregations were
analyzed with chi-squared statistically significant testing and when significant, are presented in the findings.
59 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
The ET employed several qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods to identify key findings from
the collected data, as well as to draw conclusions and make recommendations. The type of analyses
depend on the specific data assessed. Employed analytic methods include the following:
1. Trend Analysis – Trend analysis enabled the ET to examine different SD Activity indicators
annually over its 2016–2020 period of performance to identify patterns of convergence or
divergence of output- and outcome-level results toward the SD Activity’s strategic objectives.
This included the study of results from the SD Activity’s annual baseline and endline surveys to
assess changes, for example, in student participants’ levels of trust of and empathy for people from
other ethnic groups and religious backgrounds.
2. Comparative Analysis – The ET compared results across the different data collection methods
employed, and across different stakeholder groups (e.g., students, graduates, peace forum
members) to assess convergence or divergence in perspectives.
3. Content Analysis – Content analysis entailed the ET’s intensive review of collected KII and FGD
data to identify and highlight notable examples of the SD Activity’s effectiveness (or lack of
effectiveness) that contributed to (or inhibited) conflict-mitigation and peacebuilding efforts both
on and off campus, as well as changes in attitudes and behavior among stakeholders.
4. Crosstabulations and Significance Testing – Utilizing the quantitative survey, the ET
conducted significance testing where applicable. The ET used chi-squared tests to assess if certain
responses have any statistically significant difference. This enabled the ET to determine if a
relationship exists between the two variables and if the difference in the numbers is not a result
of chance. The ET employed a number of methods to collapse or disaggregate data to assess
variations in responses. The ET disaggregated all data by sex, region of origin, religion, university,
and cohort year. Note that, when disaggregated, it was not always possible to conduct significance
testing.
To augment its ability to analyze data, the ET used methodological triangulation, a strategy in which data
from different sources are analyzed independently, then in parallel, and then cross-verified for validity. The
ET used this strategy to conduct a comparative analysis of findings from its SD Activity document review
(including its indicator results), its coded qualitative KII and FGD data, and quantitative survey results to
validate findings across all data sources. This method was supported by the ET’s development of parallel
data collection protocols for its KIIs, FGDs, and survey containing similar questions to facilitate effective
comparative analysis of the data. Each of these data collection protocols addressed sub-sets of the same
EQs, allowing the ET to identify points of convergence and divergence across these different data
collection methods.
GENDER AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS PLAN
USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) 201 and 205 requires integration of gender into evaluation
design and implementation. SI takes this guidance several steps further through its proprietary Evaluation
Quality, Use, and Impact (EQUI®) system, which uses gender analysis frameworks to inform sampling
strategies, gender-sensitive data collection protocols, sex-disaggregated data collection, and the
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 60
consideration of gender and social dimensions in data analysis and reporting. All ET members completed
SI’s internal training in use and understanding of the EQUI® system prior to data collection. Additionally,
EQUI®’s Quality Assurance (QA) checkpoints ensured that gender relations and social dimensions are
integrated into each stage of the SD Activity’s evaluation process as appropriate and as they relate to each
evaluation question. Through this system, the ET’s design incorporated the following gender-sensitive and
social-inclusion components:
• Incorporation of gender-sensitive approaches for data collection instruments, interviewing strategies,
and outreach methods. Instruments, for example, included questions that assess the extent to which
women were included in and benefitted from SD Activity interventions, and what role gender played
in SD Activity processes and outcomes.
● Obtaining gender parity as much as possible among interview, FGD and survey respondents.
● Incorporation of questions that determined the extent to which participating students from all key
Ethiopian ethnic, religious, and geographic groups were equally represented.
● Disaggregation of data by sex and by ethnic, religious, and/or geographic groups wherever
appropriate.48
LIMITATIONS AND BIASES
5. Recall Bias – Due to COVID-19, the most recent student cohort of SD participants were 
involved roughly one year prior to the evaluation – i.e. March 2020 – because SD Activity 
interventions were suspended when universities closed. The evaluation’s quantitative survey
enabled the ET to address recall bias by ensuring a larger number of respondents, thus mitigating 
individual challenges with recall. Primary data collection was also triangulated with the SD 
Activity’s desk review documents.
6. Selection Bias – The ET purposively selected students and moderators at each of the five 
universities – as well as graduates in Addis and other off-campus stakeholders – who were available 
to meet within a specific timeframe to accommodate the ET’s data collection timeline, while also 
maintaining a gender balance and diversity among ethnic, religious, and geographic groups. Such 
selection was necessary but may lead to bias. The ET effectively selected a balanced FGD 
participant group by ensuring balance in gender, ethnicity, religion, and university. For the 
quantitative survey, the ET randomly selected respondents clustered by university, cohort year, 
and gender. The final sample was analyzed for balance. The total proportions of university, cohort 
year, and gender equaled that of the total SD population indicating a representative sample. 
7. Response Bias – The ET mitigated the risk of response bias (ex. a stakeholder withheld a 
negative response because they believed their response may affect future support of the SD 
Activity) by utilizing data triangulation to note discrepancies in responses through different data 
sources (desk review, survey, FGDs, KIIs) and prepared follow-up questions for KII and FGD 
respondents that encouraged more specific responses. 
8. Effects of COVID-19 and Instability – Both COVID-19 and recent political instability had 
several implications for the ET’s data collection and sampling for this evaluation. COVID-19 forced 
48 All SD participant data will be disaggregated by demographic characteristics of sex, religion, ethnicity, and geography based on 
the data provided to EPMES. When the relationship is statistically significant to the demographic characteristics, this data and 
significance will be noted in analysis. 
61 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
the government-mandated closure in March 2020 of all higher-learning institutions in Ethiopia, 
including the five targeted universities under the SD Activity, thus halting implementation of the 
SD Activity.
o Political instability during 2018-2019 delayed the start of the 2019-2020 SD Activity dialogue 
sessions until December 2019 at four of the universities and until February 2020 at Haramaya 
University, which further shortened the duration of the student/moderator experience during 
the 2019-2020 dialogue cycle. This instability also interrupted classes and caused some 
students to leave the campuses for their home areas, preventing the convening of regular 
dialogue sessions for several weeks. This interruption in the SD dialogue cycle caused by 
COVID-19 and political instability resulted in the 2019-2020 student sample only experiencing 
roughly half of the dialogue sessions (less in the case of Haramaya) and none of the culminating, 
year-end events (e.g., Peace Action exercises) that the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 
student cohorts did. The ET compensated for this by ensuring that most students and 
graduates in its FGD sample consisted of those from these first three years of the SD Activity 
– i.e., those who experienced the full SD programming cycle. This did not skew the ET’s FGD 
sample in any way, as a balanced sample has roughly three out of four students and graduates 
drawn from the first three years of the SD Activity. 
o The COVID-19 interruption of the 2019-2020 academic year decreased the available pool of 
on-campus students that have participated in the SD Activity. For example, of the last cohort 
to have participated in the full, year-long SD dialogue cycle (2018-2019), all but first-year 
students from this cohort have already graduated, because most students at the five 
universities were enrolled in three-year academic programs. The ET compensated by seeking 
out these students with longer programs (i.e. four to six year programs) in order to create a 
viable FGD sample. The ET also conducted FGDs in Addis with graduates of the five 
universities from 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 that participated in the SD activity. 
o Finally, even though students returned to the five campuses during February 2021, their class
load/frequency increased in an effort to make up for the lost class time over the last year; this
made it more challenging for students to make time for interviews or FGDs. The ET addressed 
this by designing the data collection schedule to maximize flexibility, allowing KIIs and FGDs
to be scheduled in the evenings or on weekends.
DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION
In keeping with EPMES’ commitment to Utilization-Focused Evaluation, the ET generated clear and
actionable recommendations in the evaluation report that identify the issue, action, responsibility, and
timeline for implementation. Before submission to USAID, the ET completed rigorous quality assurance
reviews based on SI’s EQUI® approach. A preliminary findings briefing conducted virtually via Google Meet
was conducted on April 28, 2021 with USAID, and subsequently with the SD Activity Implementing
Partners, on May 14, 2021 once USAID approved the evaluation presentation content. As a part of the
post-evaluation dissemination and utilization process, EPMES will also distribute the final approved
evaluation report to IPs with USAID/Ethiopia’s approval, as well as other stakeholders at the discretion
of the Mission. EPMES will upload the final approved evaluation report to the Development Experience
Clearinghouse (DEC) for public access and adapt and re-format findings for different audiences, as
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 62
requested by USAID. Finally, EPMES will develop a utilization plan with primary intended users and conduct
a client satisfaction survey, if requested.
63 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – CONSENT FORM, DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS
Sustaining Dialogue Evaluation: KII/FGD Consent Form
Note to evaluator: You must read the consent script in full and aloud to the respondent exactly
as written.
Introduction: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. We are researchers from Social
Impact (SI), and we have been contracted by USAID (the US government) to evaluate the Sustaining
Dialogue (SD) on Ethiopian Campuses Activity, an Activity funded by USAID/Ethiopia and implemented
by LPI and PDC. Our team is composed of independent evaluators who are not part of USAID or the SD
Activity. We will ask you questions related to SD’s design and structure, its overall effectiveness,
sustainability of individual interventions, and any lessons that may be applicable to future programming.
Today’s interview is expected to last approximately 45-60 minutes.
Content [Students and Moderators ONLY]: The interview will include questions about your
experience during the SD Activity and experiences related to inter-ethnic and/or religious tension or
conflict. At any point, you are welcome to skip questions, take a break, or end the interview.
Reporting and Confidentiality: The information that you and others provide will be used to write an
evaluation report, which will be shared with USAID and made public. However, your responses in this
interview will be kept in confidence by the evaluation team. Only the evaluation team – nobody else – will
have access to the notes that are taken. Although we will report our evaluation findings in aggregate in
the report, your name, position, or other personally identifying information will not appear in our notes
or any of our reporting. Interview notes that do not contain any personal identifying information (such as
your name) may be given to USAID, if requested.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation is voluntary. If you do not want to participate or answer
specific questions, you do not have to. Should you choose to participate, please know that you may change
your mind and stop the interview at any point. There will be no consequences if you choose not to
participate.
Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate that your participation in this interview will result in any risks
or direct benefits to you, but your inputs may lead to recommendations that benefit future USAID
programs in Ethiopia, and therefore, the general public.
COVID-19 Risks [IN-PERSON ONLY]: Because this is an in-person discussion, the risk of COVID￾19 transmission exists. We have taken all precautions available to mitigate this risk, including mask￾wearing, hand-sanitizing, and 6-feet distancing. If you feel uncomfortable or concerned about the risk of
transmission, you are free to end the interview at any time. Your health and safety are our priority.
Contact: If you have any concerns or questions about the evaluation, you may contact the Social Impact’s
Institutional Review Board at “irb@socialimpact.com”, or the evaluation Team Leader, Adam Reisman, at
areisman@socialimpact.com. You can also contact USAID/Ethiopia directly by Tessema Mebratu, at
tmebratu@usaid.gov.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 64
● Do you have any questions for us before we get started?
[Evaluator to answer any questions]
● Are you comfortable if we record this interview?
[Participant to provide answer to team interviewers, which they will document on paper]
_____ Yes _____ No
● Do you voluntarily agree to participate in this interview?
[Participant to provide answer to team interviewers, which they will document on paper]
_____ Yes _____ No
• [If yes to consent, if in-person] Per our COVID-19 protocols, we are required to collect contact
information from all participants to contact you in case of possible COVID-19 exposure. These phone
numbers will be kept separately from our notes and only utilized if we, or a participant, tests positive
to COVID-19. [Notetaker to take down each person’s phone number on a separate paper]
65 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – PERSONAL DATA, DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS
KII PROTOCOL FOR THE SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ACTIVITY EVALUATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of interviewer:
Date of interview: ____ March 2021
____ April 2021
Respondent code of
person interviewed
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (NOTE: ET should already have and be able to fill in this
info prior to start of KII; only ask interviewee about these if confirmation needed)
Location of person
interviewed
University:
Off Campus (list region/zone/woreda/kebele):
Respondent sex:
● Male
● Female
SD Stakeholder Type: ● Student (current)
● Student (graduate)
● SD University Coordinator
● Peace Forum Leader
● Local government/community leaders
● Moderators
● PDC/LPI staff
● USAID staff
● Other ___________________________ (please specify)
Graduation Year
(if Student or Moderator)
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 66
#1: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – USAID/ETHIOPIA, KII PROTOCOL
1. Can you tell us about your involvement with the SD Activity?
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. Were you involved in the design of any particular SD Activity interventions?
a. If yes, please specify your role in the design.
3. To what extent do you think the SD Activity’s design process was participatory?
4. To what extent was there sufficient coordination among stakeholders during the design and
implementation of the Activity?
5. To what extent do you think the SD Activity’s design was appropriate for the particular conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding needs of the universities? For example, design of its dialogue sessions,
Peace Action projects?
a. Probe: The need to change attitudes and behaviors of students on campus?
b. Probe: The need to help students to play personal roles in mitigating inter-ethnic tensions and violence
on campus?
c. Probe: Should there have been more/fewer dialogue sessions during the year? Should the size or mix
of your group have been different?
d. Probe: Design of Peace Action interventions?
6. To what extent was the SD Activity’s design and structure sufficiently flexible and adaptive to enable
it to modify its activity approach (if/when needed) during implementation?
a. Probe: Were there processes put in place for reviewing/learning from/acting on, challenges, needs,
etc? If yes, what were examples of this?
b. Probe: Did the Activity revisit/modify any of its programmatic priorities: strategic objectives, indicators,
implementation areas, actors? If yes, what were examples of this?
67 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
7. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
this university as you understand them?
8. To what extent do you think that these SD activities contributed to:
a. Any tangible changes in participating students’ attitudes and behavior toward each other? In
what way?
i. Probe: Better understanding of and empathy for other groups’ values and concerns;
improved interaction and relationships with other groups; perceptions of increased respect
for one’s own group.
b. Any tangible changes in attitudes and behavior in different university communities (and/or
university wide)? In what way?
i. Probe: Non-SD participant campus students, faculty, administration, support staff, such as
campus police and guards?
c. Any tangible changes in attitudes and behavior off campus? In what way?
i. Probe: Areas near campus (e.g., Jimma town); students’ home communities?
9. Of these changes in attitudes and behavior, which change(s) did you think were most significant? Why?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
10. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled SD participants to play active roles in lessening tensions
or violence between different groups on campus?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What specific role do you think they played?
11. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled SD participants to play an active role in lessening tensions
or violence between different groups in their own communities or hometown?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 68
b. Probe: What specific role do you think they played?
c. Probe: Did you have a peace idea (or incubation project) that PDC approved and you implemented
in your hometown/community?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
12. To what extent do you believe the SD activities will continue or expand once the Activity ends?
a. Probe: What is your evidence if you think they will be sustainable?
b. Probe: What will be sustainable: Partnerships with universities; relationships with peace forum
leaders; establishment of an SD alumni network; peace incubation (i.e., off-campus) activities;
government support – but not co-optation (e.g., Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Science and Higher
Education).
13. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
14. To what extent have any external factors affected the chances for the long-term sustainability of the
SD Activity after it ends? In what way?
a. Probe: New laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage of
new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
15. What are the most significant lessons USAID has learned in implementation of the SD Activity?
a. Probe: In retrospect, is there anything that you would have been done differently in implementing
the SD Activity?
16. Are there any practices from the SD Activity that you think should be replicated and shared in different
settings with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
69 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
17. What are the most significant challenges USAID has faced in the implementation of SD activities?
a. Probe: Campus-based and national stability issues interrupting SD activity.
b. Probe: COVID-19 and shut down of the university.
c. Probe: Identifying and engaging opinion leaders and following up their contribution.
d. Probe: Can the understanding and empathy created as part of the SD process be sustained after
students go home, where historic rivalries and deep-seated grievances continue to thrive amidst
ongoing political instability – e.g., civil conflict in Tigray?
18. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 70
#2: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS, KII PROTOCOL
1. Can you tell us about your involvement with the SD Activity?
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. Were you involved in the design of the overall SD Activity or any of its particular components?
3. What were the challenges Ethiopia’s universities faced with inter-ethnic tensions and conflict in 2016?
4. Do you think the SD Activity’s design was appropriate for addressing these challenges and the specific
needs of the universities? For example, its dialogue sessions, Peace Action Projects, and peace
incubations, for multiplier effects.
a. Probe: The need to change attitudes and behaviors of students on campus?
b. Probe: The need to help students to play personal roles in mitigating inter-ethnic tensions and violence
on campus?
c. Probe: Should there have been more/fewer dialogue sessions during the year? Should the size or mix
of your group have been different? Should student recruitment procedures have been different?
d. Probe: Different design of Peace Action interventions?
f. Probe: Was the selection process of SD participants and moderators appropriate or should it have
been done differently?
5. If not, in what ways could the activities have been better designed to address the challenges you just
identified?
6. SD Activity’s overall justification: “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue projects
on campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then
reinforcement of negative relational patterns will decrease & violence will be prevented on campuses,
which can in turn spread to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal
& national contexts.”
a. Do you think the SD Activity’s justification included all of the necessary assumptions?
b. Does its justification, including its assumptions, still hold true now that the Activity is ending?
7. Was the SD Activity’s design and structure sufficiently flexible and adaptive to enable it to modify its
activity approach (if/when needed) during implementation?
71 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
a. Probe: Ability to revisit/modify programmatic priorities: strategic objectives, indicators,
implementation areas, actors.
b. Probe: Processes for reviewing/learning from/acting on, challenges, needs, etc.
8. To what extent do you think the MEL systems put in place for monitoring key changes in the SD
Activity’s progress toward shifting attitudes and behavior and mitigating conflict have been sufficient?
a. MEL Plan
b. Indicators
c. Monitoring Tools – e.g., baseline/endline survey reports
d. Learning timetables/events
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
9. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
this university as you understand them?
10. To what extent do you think that these SD activities contributed to:
a. Any tangible changes in participating students’ attitudes and behavior toward each other? In
what way?
i. Probe: Better understanding of and empathy for other groups’ values and concerns;
improved interaction and relationships with other groups; perceptions of increased respect
for one’s own group.
b. Any tangible changes in attitudes and behavior in different university communities (and/or
university wide)? In what way?
i. Probe: Non-SD participant campus students, faculty, administration, support staff, such as
campus police and guards?
c. Any tangible changes in attitudes and behavior off campus? In what way?
i. Probe: Areas near campus (e.g., Jimma town); students’ home communities?
11. Of these changes in attitudes and behavior, which change(s) did you think were most significant? Why?
12. Do you think women have been able to access/benefit from the SD Activity to the same degree that
men have? If not, why not?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 72
13. Do you think people from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions have been able to
equally access/benefit from the SD Activity at this university? If not, which groups were not able to
benefit, and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
14. To what extent has the SD activity enabled SD participants to play active roles in lessening tensions
or violence between different groups on campus?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What specific role do you think they played?
15. To what extent has the SD activity enabled participants to play an active role in lessening tensions or
violence between different groups in their own communities or hometown?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What specific role do you think they played?
16. In your observation, can anything be done in future university-based conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding programs to enhance students’ roles:
a. In bringing students’ attitudinal/behavioral change and mitigating violence?
b. As mediators/peacemakers in mediating incidents of tension or violence on campus?
c. In providing a “multiplier effect” on campus and peace incubation contributions back home?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
17. To what extent do you believe the SD activities will continue or be expanded once USAID support
to the Activity ends?
a. Probe: What is your evidence if you think they will be sustainable? Any specific actions that are
already taken?
b. Probe: What will be sustainable: Partnerships with universities; relationships with peace forum
leaders; establishment of an SD alumni network; sustained dialogue sessions, Peace Actions, peace￾incubation (i.e., off-campus) activities; government support – but not co-optation (e.g., Ministry of
Peace, Ministry of Science and Higher Education).
73 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
18. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
19. To what extent have any external factors affected the chances for the long-term sustainability of the
SD Activity after it ends? In what way?
a. Probe: new laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage of
new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
20. In retrospect, is there anything that you would have done differently in implementing the SD Activity
to positively affect students’ attitudes or behavior?
a. Probe: What are the most significant lessons you have learned in implementation of the SD
Activity – e.g., in its MEL systems?
21. Are there any practices from the SD Activity that you think should be replicated and shared in different
settings with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders), government offices, other universities.
22. What are the most significant challenges [LPI or PDC] has faced in the implementation of SD activities?
a. Probe: Campus-based and national stability issues interrupting SD activity?
b. Probe: COVID-19 and shut down of the university?
c. Probe: Identifying and engaging opinion leaders and following up their contribution?
23. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 74
#3: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – SD UNIVERSITY
COORDINATORS/ADMINISTRATORS, KII PROTOCOL
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
1. Tell us your roles and responsibilities as SD Activity coordinator at this university and how long
you worked here.
a. Probe: Contributions to the design of SD activities.
b. Probe: Coordinating, planning and preparation toward the five stages of SD processes.
c. Probe: Supervising activities, supporting, monitoring and evaluation, etc.
d. Probe: Was the selection process of SD participants and moderators appropriate or should it
have been done differently?
2. To what extent do you think the design of the SD Activity was appropriate for the particular
conflict-mitigation and peacebuilding needs of this university?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why were these activities not appropriate?
c. Have these activities been appropriate to change attitudes or prevent violence off campus?
3. SD Activity’s overall justification: “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue
projects on campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities,
then reinforcement of negative relational patterns will decrease & violence will be prevented on
campuses, which can in turn spread to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the
country in communal & national contexts.”
a. Do you think the SD Activity’s justification included all of the necessary assumptions?
b. Does the justification, including its assumptions, still hold true now that the Activity is
ending?
4. Have these activities been appropriate for the purposes of:
a. Changing attitudes and behaviors of students on campus?
b. Helping students to mitigate conflict and launch peacebuilding efforts on campus?
i. Probe: The extent to which students have been personally involved as “peacemakers”
in incidents of ethnic, religious and/or language tensions and violence on campus).
5. Do you suggest any improvement or modification on the design of the Activity?
a. Probe: Nature and set of activities.
75 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
b. Probe: The approach, steps and ways of implementation of existing activities, how - e.g., more/fewer
dialogue sessions during the year?
c. Probe: More or less stakeholder engagement reconsideration, whom to include/exclude?
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
6. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior
at this university as you understand them?
7. From your experience and observation so far, to what extent do you think that these SD activities
contributed to:
a. Any tangible changes in students’ attitude and behavior toward others? Examples?
i. Probe: Better understanding of and empathy for other groups’ values and concerns;
perceptions of increased respect for one’s own group; intergroup relationships and
interactions improved, which contributed to better on-campus stability.
b. Any tangible changes in attitudes and behavior in the wider university community (such
as non-SD participant campus students, faculty, administration, support staff, such as
campus police and guards)? Examples?
i. Probe: About art and sport events for peace, coffee ceremony, panel discussions,
planting tree for peace as part of Peace Actions?
8. If you have observed such changes in students’ attitudes and behavior, which SD activities are
most responsible for the changes?
9. Of the tangible changes you have observed, which do you think were most significant?
a. Probe: Better understanding of out-group’s values and concerns.
b. Probe: Empathy for out group members, improved interaction and relationship.
c. Probe: Improved tolerance and reduced tension and conflict.
d. Probe: University administration faculty and support staffs contributed positively and carefully
before and during incidents.
10. Do you have any comment or suggestion in improving the SD dialogue sessions in the future?
Please, reason out on your suggestions
a. Probe: Engaging more or less students in a group.
b. Probe: Expanding or diminishing the number of SD groups in the year-long SD dialogue.
c. Probe: Editing on the contents of the dialogue.
d. Probe: Changes on the way sessions are moderated, frequency of sessions or any other.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 76
11. To what extent do you think the SD Activity’s peace incubation efforts have contributed to
positive changes off campus (nearby and in students’ home communities)?
12. Have you had a chance to support these peace incubation ideas? If yes,
a. Probe: What ideas selected and how?
b. Probe: Any prior sensitivity and effectiveness analysis?
c. Probe: What support and to what extent enabled student implementers?
d. Probe: Any lesson, challenge, and gap in this peace incubation activity?
e. Probe: How is activity monitored and reported from home community?
13. To what extent were you able to provide equal opportunities in the SD Activity to female
students?
a. Probe: As SD participants, moderators, facilitators and SD action organizers etc.
14. To what extent were you able to provide different ethnic and religious groups and regions equal
access/benefit from the SD Activity at this university? If not, which groups were not able to benefit,
and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
15. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled SD participants to play active roles in lessening
tensions or violence between different groups on campus?
a. Probe: Can you tell us how you built their capacity on this (Training, SD sessions itself, providing
guiding materials)?
16. To what extent have you witnessed any incidents of tension/conflict in which SD participants
attempted to intervene positively or mediate?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What specific role did they play in lessening these tensions/conflicts or building
understanding/tolerance?
17. In your observation, what else could be done to enhance students’ roles:
a. As mediators/peacemakers in mediating incidents of tension or violence on campus?
b. In providing a multiplier effect on campus and peace incubation contribution back home?
77 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
18. As SD coordinator, to what extent do you think that adequate efforts have been made throughout
the SD Activity implementation period to ensure sustainability?
a. Probe: What are these efforts?
b. Probe: What more would you have liked to be done?
19. To what extent do you think that the SD activities will continue or be expanded after the activity
ends?
a. Probe: University administration and peace forums owned it and have the capacity (how
confident are you on this)?
b. Probe: The SD alumni network is taking action to sustain it (any example)?
c. Probe: Support – but not co-optation of the Activity - from government (Ministry of Peace,
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, other) any initiative here?
20. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
21. To what extent did any factors, including external ones, affect the chances for the long-term
sustainability of the SD activities after the SD Activity ends? In what way?
a. Probe: New laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage
of new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
22. In your coordination experiences so far, what are the most significant challenges you have faced
in the implementation of SD activities?
a. Probe: Campus based and national stability issues interrupting SD activity.
b. Probe: COVID-19 and shut down of the university.
c. Probe: Identifying and engaging opinion leaders and following up their contribution.
d. Probe: Ensuring good participation of SD session due to various factors.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 78
23. What comments can you share about the way LPI and PDC coordinated SD activities as partners
and the support they provided?
a. Probe: Any gap and challenges in this regard for future improvement.
24. What are the most significant lessons you have learned as coordinator of the SD Activity that
would be relevant for future similar endeavors?
25. Are there any best practices from the SD Activity that you think should be replicated and shared
in different settings with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
26. Do you have any additional comments?
79 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
#4: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – PEACE FORUM LEADERS, KII PROTOCOL
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
1. Tell us your roles and responsibilities as a peace forum member at this university and how long you
have been a member? How does your work intersect with that of the SD Activity?
a. Probe: Contribution in the design of SD activities?
b. Probe: Support in the establishment of SD campus network?
c. Probe: Coordination and responsibilities in integrating the five stages of SD processes?
2. To what extent do you think the design of the SD Activity was appropriate for the particular
peacebuilding and conflict mitigation needs of this university?
a. Probe: What is the role of SD in promoting peaceful co-existence, mutual respect and trust among
university community as well as the host community?
3. Have these activities been appropriate for the purposes of:
a. Changing attitudes and behaviors of students on campus?
b. Helping students to mitigate conflict and launch peacebuilding efforts on campus? 
i. Probe: The extent to which students have become personally involved as “peacemakers” in
incidents of ethnic, religious and/or language tensions and violence on campus).
4. Do you suggest any improvement or modification in the design of the activity?
a. Probe: the approach, steps and ways of implementation of existing activities, such as more/fewer
dialogue sessions during the year?
b. Probe: Aim/purpose and target audiences for SD identified and stated well, how?
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 80
5. What are the major SD activities implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at this
university as you understand them?
a. Probe: How SD support students to neutralize negative perceptions and nurture positive attitudes
and behaviors?
6. From your experience and observation so far, to what extent do you think that these SD activities
contributed to:
a. Any changes in students’ attitudes and behavior toward others?
i. Probe: Examples in which intergroup relationships and interaction improved which
contributed to better on campus stability?
ii. Probe: Please explain your response.
7. If you have observed such changes in students’ attitudes and behavior, which SD activities are most
responsible for the changes?
8. To what extent do you think of the SD Activity’s Peace Actions and multiplier effects are leading to
any changes in attitudes and behavior in the wider university community?
a. Probe: Such as Peace Forum members, non-SD participant campus students, faculty, support staff
such as campus police and guards)?
b. Probe: In terms of peacebuilding and conflict mitigation through the establishment of coordinated
networks on campus.
9. To what extent have you observed tangible positive changes on campus as a result of SD activities?
Which changes do you think were most significant?
a. Probe: Better understanding of value of peace and resolving miss understandings/conflict through
sustained dialogue?
b. Probe: Developed trust and compassion?
c. Probe: Empathy for group members, improved interaction and relationship?
d. Probe: University administration faculty and support staffs contributed positively and carefully before
and during incidents?
10. Do you have any suggestions for improving SD dialogue sessions in the future? Please elaborate on
your suggestions
a. Probe: Improving inclusion of different actors (university administrations, different clubs, etc.)?
b. Probe: Engaging more or less students in a group?
c. Probe: Expanding or diminishing the number of SD groups in a given year-long SD dialogue?
d. Probe: Changes on the way sessions are moderated, frequency of sessions or any other?
11. To what extent do you think the SD Activity’s peace incubation efforts have contributed to positive
changes off campus (nearby and in students’ home communities)?
a. Probe: How SD trainings and skills have expanded to off-campus communities?
81 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
12. Have you had a chance to support these peace incubation ideas? If yes,
a. Probe: What support and to what extent have you enabled student implementers
b. Probe: Any lessons, challenges, and gasp in the peace incubation project design process.
13. To what extent have you been able to provide equal opportunities in the SD Activity for to female
students?
a. Probe: As SD participants, as a peace forum member, facilitators, and SD action organizers etc.
14 To what extent were you able to provide different ethnic and religious groups and regions equal
access/benefit from the SD Activity at this university? If not, which groups were not able to benefit,
and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
15. To what extent has the SD activity enabled SD participants to play active roles in lessening tensions
or violence between different groups on campus?
a. Probe: Can you tell us how you built their capacity on peacebuilding trainings, SD session and
facilitation, peer mediation...etc.
16. To what extent have you witnessed any incidents of tension/conflict in which SD participants
attempted to intervene positively or mediate?
a. Probe: What kind of conflict drivers at universities mitigated by SD participants?
b. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
c. Probe: What specific role did they play in lessening these tensions/conflicts or building
understanding/tolerance?
17. In your observation as a peace forum member, what else could be done to enhance students’ roles:
a. As mediators/peacemakers in mediating incidents of tension or violence on campus?
b. In providing a multiplier effect on campus and peace incubation contribution back home?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 82
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
18. As a peace forum and SD member, to what extent do you think that adequate efforts have been made
throughout the SD Activity implementation period to ensure sustainability?
a. Probe: What are these efforts?
b. Probe: What more would you have liked to be done?
19. To what extent do you think that the SD activities will continue or be expanded after the activity
ends?
a. Probe: What do you think is the current level of support from students, the peace forum and
university administrations?
b. Probe: support – but not co-optation of the Activity - from government (Ministry of Peace (MoP),
Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Peace and security administrations and other) any initiative
here?
20. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
21. In your experiences so far, what are the most significant challenges you have faced in the
implementation of SD activities?
a. Probe: What are the challenges of SD in peacebuilding and conflict mitigation at universities?
b. Probe: Conflict and national security issues interrupting SD activity?
c. Probe: COVID-19 and shut down of the university?
22. What is your reflection on the way implementing partners LPI and PDC coordinated SD activities and
the support they provided?
a. Probe: List any gap and challenges.
23. What are the most significant lessons you have learned as a peace forum member of the SD Activity
that would be relevant for future similar endeavors?
83 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
24. Are there any best practices from the SD activity that you think should be replicated and shared in
different settings with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
25. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 84
#5: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – LOCAL GOVERNMENT/COMMUNITY LEADERS, KII
PROTOCOL
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
1. What do you consider the current key challenges to mitigating conflict and peacebuilding in your
community?
2. Could you please tell us how you know about the Sustained Dialogue Activity and its peace incubation
projects?
a. Probe: Be prepared to describe the specific intervention(s) implemented in their town/area through
the support of the peace incubation project?
3. To what extent do you think the peace incubation intervention you were involved in/familiar with was
designed appropriately to support changes in your community with regard to attitudes/behavior and
conflict mitigation and peacebuilding?
a. Probe: Was the project fine-tuned to social context and problems on the ground?
b. Probe: Were the activities designed to effectively address pertinent issues of local concern. Should
they have been designed differently?
c. Probe: Was the project participatory – were all of the necessary people involved?
d. Probe: Did the incubation project implementer have the appropriate attitudes, skills and behavior?
4. Do you think the peace incubation project and its set of activities were sufficient to change attitudes,
solve social problems and mitigate conflicts in your locality/community?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why were these activities not sufficient?
c. Have these activities been sufficient to expand the culture of dialogue, solve social problems
or improve relationships?
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
85 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
5. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
this university as you understand them?
6. To what extent do you think the SD peace incubation project contributed to:
a. Any change in attitudes and behavior locally?
i. Probe: Instigating and spreading the culture of dialogue off campus, conflict mitigation,
improving or transforming local community relationships?
b. Any change in the peacebuilding knowledge and skills of youth or other specific groups in your
community?
c. Any change in strengthening the peace leadership capacity of the participants?
7. To what extent have positive changes in attitudes and behavior taken place in your locality as a result
of the SD peace incubation activity? If such changes have happened, which change(s) do you think were
most significant? Why?
8. Were women able to access/benefit from the peace incubation SD activity to the same degree that
men were? If not, why not?
9. Were people from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions able to equally access/benefit
from peace incubation activity? If not, which groups were not able to benefit, and why not?
10. What, if anything, could have been done differently to further maximize the benefits of the peace
incubation activity?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
11. To what extent do you think the SD peace incubation project contributed to:
a. Any lessening of tensions or conflict between different groups in your community?
12. To what extent have positive changes in the lessening of tensions or conflict between different groups
in your community taken place as a result of the SD peace incubation activity? If such changes have
happened, which change(s) do you think were most significant? Why?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 86
Sustainability
EQ4. To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
13. Will any changes from this project be sustainable in your community? Could any other organizations
provide future support to maintain/expand these changes?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
14. If more peace incubation projects were to be conducted in the future, what is the most significant
aspect of the intervention that you would want to see maintained or strengthened?
15. Do you have any additional comments?
87 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
#6: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – PEACE INCUBATORS, KII PROTOCOL
1. Can you please tell us about your experience in the SD Activity, and specifically your involvement in
the peace incubation component of the Activity?
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
Current Students & Graduates
2. To what extent were the SD Activity’s dialogue session and Peace Action phases designed
appropriately to support conflict mitigation and peacebuilding efforts on campus?
a. Probe: Was the five-stage SD process an appropriate approach for the Activity or should it have
focused on something else (or more on any particular stage)?
b. Probe: Should there have been more/fewer dialogue sessions during the year?
c. Probe: Should the size or mix of your group have been different?
d. Probe: Was the selection process of SD participants and moderators appropriate or should it have
been done differently?
3. To what extent was the overall peace incubation project process designed appropriately for what you
needed to be an effective peacebuilder in your local community – e.g., to enable you to begin changing
attitudes/behaviors, effectively implement conflict-mitigation projects in your local community?
a. Probe: Was the orientation, the competition and the selection process sufficient? What do you think
could have been improved or done differently?
b. Probe: Was the training provided to help you develop your peace idea/project sufficient (e.g., two
weeks of training on conflict sensitivity, do no harm, etc.? Mentoring/management support? What do
you think could have been differently, if anything?
c. Probe: Networking/connecting with relevant CSO/govt stakeholders? Were the partnerships created
with these relevant local stakeholders sufficient to help implement your project? Could more have
been done to develop/expand these partnerships?
4. Do you think the SD activities you have participated in – e.g., dialogue sessions, Peace Actions – have
been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence on campus?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why were these activities not sufficient?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 88
5. Do you think the peace incubation aspect of the SD Activity has been appropriate to change attitudes,
raise peacebuilding knowledge, spread the culture of dialogue, transform relationships and mitigate
local violent conflicts in your home community?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why was it not sufficient?
SD Activity’s overall justification (TOC) “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue projects on
campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then reinforcement of
negative relational patterns will decrease and violence will be prevented on campuses, which can in turn spread
to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal and national contexts.
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the team should first assess the efforts or approaches
used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected these
attitudes and behavior.)
Current Students & Graduates:
6. To what extent did the overall SD Activity contribute to:
a. Any changes in your attitudes and behavior toward others? In what way?
b. Any changes in attitudes and behavior in different university communities (and/or university
wide) as a result of Peace Actions and multiplier effects by you? In what way?
c. Any changes off-campus? In what way? Probe: Nearby area? Your home community?
7. Were women able to access/benefit from the:
a. On-campus SD Activity interventions to the same degree that men were? If not, why not?
b. Peace incubation project intervention in your community to the same degree that men were?
If not, why not?
8. Were people from all different relevant ethnic and religious groups in your community able to equally
access/benefit from your peace incubation project? If not, which groups were not able to benefit, and
why not?
Current Students:
9. What are the key social problems driving interethnic/religious tension and conflict back home in your
community? To what extent do you think your peace incubation project:
a. Provided a practical platform for beginning to solve these social problems in your community?
In what way? Could these projects be expanded in the future?
89 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
10. What positive changes happened on campus as a result of the SD Activity? Which change(s) did you
think were most significant? Why?
Graduates:
11. What are the key social problems driving interethnic/religious tension and conflict in your community?
To what extent do you think your peace incubation project has contributed to longer-term solutions
to mitigating conflict, such as:
a. Contributing to spreading the culture of dialogue among the group(s) you focused on in your
project. In what way?
i. Probe: Better understanding and empathy, trust, confidence and relationship building with
students from different identity group
b. Contributing to changing the peacebuilding capabilities of youth or other specific target groups
in your community? How?
c. Providing a platform for youth to express themselves and develop their leadership capacity?
12. To what extent do you think the peace incubation project you implemented contributed to
development of your own capacity as a peacebuilding leader off-campus. If yes, how? If not, why not?
a. Probe: Your ability to develop new, innovative ideas to address local problems.
13. What positive changes have happened in your community as a result of your incubation intervention?
Which of these change(s) do you think were most significant? Why?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
Current Students & Graduates:
14. To what extent did the SD Activity enable you to play an active role in lessening tensions or violence
between different groups on campus? Can you provide examples of this?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What specific role did you play?
15. To what extent did the peace incubation project you implemented enable you to mitigate or lesson
violent conflicts in your community?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: In what way your peace incubation project has helped?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 90
16. What, if anything, could have been done to strengthen your effectiveness as a peace incubator?
Graduates:
17. Now that you have graduated, to what extent has the peace incubation project you implemented
continued to mitigate or lesson violent conflicts in your community?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
Current Students
18. Do you think any changes from your incubation project will be sustainable in your community?
Will/could your project continue in the future? Which stakeholders are/could be providing future
support?
Graduates
19. As a graduate, do you think any changes from your incubation project in your community have been
maintained or expanded? Has any part of your project continued? Have any stakeholders provided
additional support?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
Current Students and Graduates
20. In retrospect, is there anything that you would have been done differently to strengthen the quality
of your experience:
a. With the campus-based elements of the SD Activity?
b. With the peace incubation project you implemented in your community?
21. What are the most significant lessons you have learned from your participation in the peace incubation
activity and the SD in general?
22. Do you have any additional comments?
91 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
#7: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – NON-SD PARTICIPATING STUDENTS, KII
PROTOCOL
1. Are you familiar with the SD Activity? If so, how?
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. What are the key tensions or conflicts you have observed at your university?
3. From your knowledge of the SD Activity, to what extent do you think it was designed appropriately
to support conflict mitigation and peacebuilding efforts on campus?
4. Of the SD activities you are aware of – e.g., dialogue sessions, Peace Actions, incubation activities –
to what extent have they been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence on campus?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why have these activities not been sufficient?
c. Have these activities been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence off campus?
SD Activity’s overall justification (TOC): “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue projects on
campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then reinforcement of
negative relational patterns will decrease & violence will be prevented on campuses, which can in turn spread
to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal & national contexts.”
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
5. To what extent do you think the SD Activity has contributed to:
a. Any changes in students’ attitudes and behavior toward others? In what way?
b. Any changes off-campus? In what way?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 92
6. To what extent do you think positive changes have happened on campus as a result of the SD Activity?
If you believe changes have happened, which change(s) did you think were most significant? Why?
7. Do you think women were able to access/benefit from the SD Activity to the same degree that men
were? If not, why not?
8. Were people from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions able to equally access/benefit
from the SD Activity at this university? If not, which groups were not able to benefit, and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the evaluation team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
9. To what extent do you believe the SD Activity has enabled its participants to play an active role in
lessening tensions or violence between different groups on campus? Can you provide examples
of this?
c. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
d. Probe: What specific role did you play?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
10. To what extent do you believe the SD activities will continue or be expanded once the Activity ends?
Why do you think they will continue?
a. Probe: What is your evidence if you think they will be sustainable?
b. Probe: Partnerships with universities; relationships with peace forum leaders; establishment of an SD
alumni network; peace-incubation (i.e., off-campus) activities; government support (e.g., Ministry of
Peace, Ministry of Science and Higher Education).
11. Will any parts of the SD Activity you are aware of be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
12. To what extent did any factors, including external ones, affect chances for the long-term sustainability
of SD Activity interventions? In what way?
93 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
a. Probe: New laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
13. In retrospect, is there anything that could have been done differently to strengthen the quality of the
SD Activity?
14. If given the opportunity now, would you participate in the SD Activity? If yes, why? If not, why not?
15. Are there any practices from the SD Activity that should be replicated and shared in different settings
with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
16. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 94
#8: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA (MINISTRY OF
PEACE, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION), KII PROTOCOL
1. In what ways has your Ministry worked with the SD Activity?
 
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. What do you see as the key tensions or conflicts currently affecting Ethiopia’s universities?
3. To what extent do you think the SD Activity was designed appropriately to address these tensions or
conflicts? For example, its conflict mitigation and peacebuilding efforts, such as its dialogue sessions,
Peace Action Projects, and peace incubation interventions?
a. Probe: Do you think the Activity has helped to produce a “multiplier effect” effect – e.g.,
enabling participants to engage different communities on campus as well as local communities
off campus?
4. To what extent was the SD Activity’s level of coordination with your Ministry sufficient for you:
a. to understand what the Activity was doing – e.g., communications from implementing
partners, access to meetings, events, planning, materials?
b. to support this work?
5. Do you think the SD activities – e.g., dialogue sessions, Peace Actions, peace incubation activities –
have been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence on these five campus?
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why were these activities not sufficient?
c. Do you think these activities been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence off
campus?
SD Activity’s overall justification (TOC): “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue projects on
campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then reinforcement of
negative relational patterns will decrease & violence will be prevented on campuses, which can in turn spread
to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal & national contexts.”
95 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
6. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
these universities as you understand them?
a. To what extent do you think the SD Activity contributed to: Any changes in students’ attitudes
and behavior toward others? In what way?
b. Any changes in attitudes and behavior in different university communities (and/or university
wide) as a result of Peace Actions and multiplier effects by students? In what way?
c. Any changes off-campus? In what way? Probe: Nearby area? Your home community?
7. What positive changes have happened on or off campus as a result of the SD Activity? Which change(s)
did you think were most significant? Why?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the evaluation team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
8. To what extent do you think the SD Activity enabled students to play an active role in lessening
tensions or violence between different groups on these five campus? Can you provide
examples?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What tools/techniques were they able to apply?
c. Probe: Did SD participants play any role in:
i. Reducing ethnic-based welcome programs for freshman students?
ii. Reducing ethnic-based dormitory grouping arrangements?
iii. Minimizing ethnic-based and polarized political messages written on library reading boxes?
9. To what extent do you think the SD Activity enabled students to play an active role in lessening
tensions or violence between different groups in their own community or hometown? Can
you provide examples?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: What tools/techniques were they able to apply?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 96
c. Probe: Any peace incubation projects?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
10. To what extent do you believe the SD activities can continue or be expanded now that the Activity
is ending? What would be examples of such activities? What would you consider the most effective
approaches for maintaining or expanding similar interventions to other universities in the future?
11. Are you aware of examples of stakeholders providing support to the continuation of SD activities?
Can you provide examples? If not, which stakeholders do you think would be best positioned to
provide such support in the future, government or otherwise? Why?
12. For Ministry of Peace: To what extent have you engaged with SD Activity implementing partners
(LPI/PDC) to support the continuation of SD activities in the future? Have you had any further
discussions on potential support for future peace incubation projects during their implementation?
13. For Ministry of Science & Higher Education: Have you worked on or discussed integrating any
aspects of SD activities into these universities’ curricula? Introducing SD activities to other Ethiopian
public universities? If yes, what has been the result of these? If not, are there other coordination
opportunities you have engaged in with SD?
14. Are there any SD initiatives that you feel will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
15. To what extent have any factors, including external ones, affected chances for the long-term
sustainability of SD activities? In what way?
a. Probe: New laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage of
new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
16. In retrospect, is there anything that you would have wanted the SD Activity to do differently that
would have improved its ability to support conflict-mitigation or peacebuilding efforts:
97 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
a. On campus?
b. Off campus?
17. Are there any practices or approaches from the SD Activity that you think should be replicated and
shared in different settings with different audiences on- or off-campus in the future?
a. On campus? Probe: Student government, university administration?
b. Off-campus? Probe: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
18. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 98
#9: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – STUDENT/GRADUATE, FGD PROTOCOL
1. How did you become involved in the SD Activity?
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
2. What are the key tensions or conflicts you have observed at your university?
3. What do you consider the current key challenges to mitigating conflict at your university?
4. To what extent do you think the SD Activity was designed appropriately to support conflict mitigation
and peacebuilding efforts on campus. For example, its dialogue sessions, Peace Action Projects, and
peace incubations, for multiplier effects.
a. Probe: Was the five-stage SD process an appropriate approach for the Activity or should it have
focused on something else (or more on any particular stage)? (1.) Deciding to Engage (Kickoff); 2.)
Mapping and Naming; 3.) Probing Problems and Relationships; 4.) Scenario building; 5.) Individual
and Collective Action)
b. Probe: Should there have been more/fewer dialogue sessions during the year?
c. Probe: Should the size or mix of your group have been different?
d. Probe: Was the selection process of SD participants and moderators appropriate or should it have
been done differently?
5. Do you think the SD activities you have participated in – e.g., dialogue sessions, Peace Actions, peace
incubation activities – have been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence on campus? Probe:
d. If yes, how?
e. If not, why were these activities not sufficient?
f. Have these activities been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence off campus?
SD Activity’s overall justification (TOC): “If Ethiopian universities institutionalize sustained dialogue projects on
campuses, cumulating to cultures of dialogue, trust and understanding in universities, then reinforcement of
negative relational patterns will decrease & violence will be prevented on campuses, which can in turn spread
to the country overall, thus influencing the future of the country in communal & national contexts.”
99 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
6. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
this university as you understand them?
7. To what extent has the SD Activity contributed to:
d. Any changes in your attitudes and behavior toward others? In what way?
e. Any changes in attitudes and behavior in different university communities (and/or university
wide) as a result of Peace Actions and multiplier effects by you? In what way?
f. Any changes off-campus? In what way? Probe: Nearby area? Your home community?
8. What positive changes have happened on campus as a result of the SD Activity? Which change(s) did
you think were most significant? Why?
9. Were women able to access/benefit from the SD Activity to the same degree that men were? If not,
why not?
10. Were people from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions able to equally access/benefit
from the SD Activity at this university? If not, which groups were not able to benefit, and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the evaluation team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
11. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled you to play an active role in lessening tensions or violence
between different groups on campus? Can you provide examples of this?
d. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
e. Probe: What specific role did you play?
12. To what extent has the SD Activity also enabled you to play an active role in lessening tensions or
violence between different groups in your own community or hometown?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 100
d. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
e. Probe: What specific role did you play?
f. Probe: Did you have a peace idea (or incubation project) that LPI approved and you implemented in
your hometown/community?
13. What, if anything, could have been done to strengthen your effectiveness as a mediator/peacemaker
during incidents of tension or violence in your community or hometown?
a. Probe: If you had a peace idea that PDC approved/supported that you implemented, what could
have been done to make it a more effective project?
Sustainability
EQ4: To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
14. To what extent do you believe the SD activities will continue or be expanded once the Activity ends?
Why do you think they will continue?
a. Probe: What is your evidence if you think they will be sustainable?
b. Probe: Partnerships with universities; relationships with peace forum leaders; establishment of an SD
alumni network; peace-incubation (i.e., off-campus) activities; government support (e.g., Ministry of
Peace, Ministry of Science and Higher Education).
15. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
16. To what extent did any factors, including external ones, affect chances for the long-term sustainability
of activities you have been involved with after the SD Activity ends? In what way?
a. Probe: New laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage of
new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
17. In retrospect, is there anything that you would have wanted the SD Activity to do differently that
would have improved its ability to change attitudes or behavior? To strengthen the quality of your
experience with the SD Activity?
a. Probe: More sessions during the year?
101 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
18. What are the most significant lessons you have learned from your participation? How are you applying
those lessons in your life off campus:
a. Probe: As a student?
b. Probe: As a graduate?
18. Are there any practices from the SD Activity that should be replicated and shared in different settings
with different audiences on- or off-campus?
c. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
d. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
19. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 102
#10: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION – SD MODERATORS, FGD PROTOCOL
Design
EQ1: To what extent has the SD Activity been appropriate and relevant for conflict
mitigation and peacebuilding in universities? (In terms of appropriateness and relevance, the
Evaluation Team should review how well the design of the SD Activity and its theory of change
corresponded to the needs of the universities with respect to student attitudes and behaviors.)
1. To what extent do you think the SD Activity was designed appropriately to support changes in
attitudes/behavior and conflict mitigation and peacebuilding efforts on campus?
a. Probe: Was the five-stage SD process an appropriate approach for the Activity, or should it have
focused on something else (or more on any particular stage);
b. Probe: Should the size or mix of your group have been different?
c. Probe: Should there have been more or fewer dialogue sessions during the year?
d. Probe: Was the selection process of SD participants and moderators appropriate or should it have
been done differently?
e. Probe: Was the orientation and facilitation skills trainings provided relevant/adequate or should they
had focused on something else?
2. Do you think the SD activities you have moderated have been sufficient to enable your group members
to change attitudes or prevent violence on campus? Probe:
a. If yes, how?
b. If not, why were these activities not sufficient?
c. Have these activities been sufficient to change attitudes or prevent violence off campus?
Effectiveness
EQ2: To what extent has the SD Activity affected positive attitudinal and behavioral
changes among SD participants, university communities, and non-university
communities? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team should first assess the efforts or
approaches used to affect attitudes and behavior, and then assess how the SD Activity affected
these attitudes and behavior.)
3. What are the major SD activities being implemented to transform students’ attitude and behavior at
this university as you understand them?
4. To what extent do you think the SD activities you have moderated enabled your group’s members to
contribute to:
a. Any changes in attitudes and behavior toward others? In what way?
103 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
i. Probe: Better understanding and empathy, trust, confidence and relationship building with
students from different identity group
b. Any changes in attitudes and behavior on campus?
c. Any changes you have seen/reported off campus?
5. To what extent have positive changes taken place on campus as a result of the SD Activity? If such
changes have happened, which change(s) do you think were most significant? Why?
6. Were women able to access/benefit from SD Activity as much as men were? If not, why not?
7. Were people from all different ethnic and religious groups and regions able to equally access/benefit
from the SD Activity? If not, which groups were not able to benefit, and why not?
Effectiveness
EQ3: To what extent has the SD activity contributed to conflict mitigation and
peacebuilding on and off campus? (To address this question, the Evaluation Team must assess
whether SD alumni/participants actively sought to be peacemakers during incidents of inter￾ethnic tension or violence on campus or at home.)
8. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled both you and your group participants in general to play
an active role in lessening tensions or violence between different groups on campus? Can you
provide examples of this?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: Successful stories, best practices of conflict mitigation (Heard, reported) (Mutual protection,
mediation, Non-alignment, Humanitarian Relief)
9. To what extent has the SD Activity enabled you specifically and your group participants in general to
play an active role in lessening tensions or violence in your own community or hometown?
a. Probe: What type of tensions/conflict (e.g., ethnic, religious, regional)?
b. Probe: Successful stories, best practices (expanding the culture of dialogue, peace conferences, peace
incubation)
10. What, if anything, could have been done to strengthen SD participants as a mediator/peacemaker
during incidents of tension or violence in your community or hometown?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 104
Sustainability
EQ4. To what extent can SD activities be expected to continue and/or be scaled up by SD
beneficiaries and university partners after the SD Activity ends? What evidence exists to
demonstrate this sustainability?
11. To what extent do you believe the SD interventions (dialogue sessions, Peace Actions, peace
incubation projects) will continue or be expanded once the Activity ends? Why do you think they will
continue?
a. Probe: What is your evidence if you think they will be sustainable?
b. Probe: Ongoing partnerships with universities; relationships with peace forum/student government
leaders; sustainability of the SD alumni network; increased local government (town/woreda) support
for peace-incubation (i.e., off-campus) activities; government support (e.g., Ministry of Peace, Ministry
of Science and Higher Education).
12. Are there any SD initiatives that will be more difficult to continue? If so, why?
13. To what extent did any factors, including external ones, affect the chances for the long-term
sustainability of the SD activities after the SD Activity ends? In what way?
a. Probe: new laws, tensions/violence on/off campus, Internet shutdowns, political developments,
COVID-19)? Have SD Activity implementers been able to change the Activity to take advantage of
new opportunities or adapt to new constraints?
Other
EQ5: What are the lessons learned, best practices, and most significant challenges to the
success of the SD Activity?
14. In retrospect, is there anything that you would have wanted the SD Activity to do differently that
would have improved its ability to change students’ attitudes or behavior?
a. Probe: That would have improved the quality of your/ group experience with the SD Activity?
15. What are the most significant lessons you have learned from your participation and moderation of
the SD Activity?
16. Are there any practices from the SD Activity that you think should be replicated and shared in different
settings with different audiences on- or off-campus?
a. Probe: On-campus: Student government, university administration?
b. Probe: Off-campus: Local communities close to universities (community officials, youth leaders,
activists, women, elders).
105 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
17. Do you have any additional comments?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 106
#11: SD ACTIVITY EVALUATION - STUDENT & MODERATOR, QUANTITATIVE
SURVEY
The survey will be read aloud by trained enumerators to respondents via telephone.
• Introduction: Hello, my name is [ENUMERATOR NAME]. I am calling on behalf of Social Impact
regarding the Sustaining Dialogue Activity implemented by USAID. Are you [Respondent Name
preloaded in dataset]?
• If yes: Go to scheduling/consent
• If not respondent named: Do you know [respondent name preloaded in dataset]?
o Yes
o No
• If not respondent named: Do you have a different phone number where we can contact
[respondent name preloaded in dataset]?
o Phone number
• If not respondent named: Did you participate in the Sustaining Dialogue Activity?
o Yes
o No
• If yes, did participate, but not the named respondent: Go to scheduling/consent
• If not respondent named/did not participate in the SD Activity: Thanks for your time.
End Call
Scheduling
• Are you available for 20 minutes to take a survey?
o Yes  Go to consent
o No
• If no, what is a good time for you to reschedule?
o Record time/date
Introduction Consent:
Note to enumerator: You must read the consent script in full and aloud to the respondent exactly
as written.
Note to enumerator: The survey will be available in English and Amharic. Request the respondents’
language preference.
I am calling to ask you a short series of questions about your experience with the Sustaining Dialogue
(SD) Activity. We have been hired by Social Impact (SI), and we have been contracted by USAID (the US
government) to evaluate the Sustaining SD on Ethiopian Campuses Activity, an Activity funded by
USAID/Ethiopia and implemented by Life and Peace Institute and Peace and Development Center. Our
team is composed of independent evaluators who are not part of USAID or the SD Activity. We would
like to ask you questions related your experience with SD. We expect this to last no longer than 20
minutes. If you are not available for this time now, please let us know a different time and we will call
back. If you are available now, we will proceed.
107 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
If request a call back, enumerator notes follow-up time and ends call. If the respondent is available
now, the enumerator will read the remainder of the script and survey.
The interview will include questions about your experience during the SD Activity and experiences related
to inter-ethnic and/or religious tension or conflict. At any point, you are welcome to skip questions, take
a break, or end the interview.
Reporting and Confidentiality: The information that you and others provide will be used to write an
evaluation report, which will be shared with USAID and made public. However, your responses in this
interview will be kept in confidence by the evaluation team. Only the evaluation team will have access to
any identifying information. After removing any information that could identify you, the data we collect
will be combined with other study participants’ data and shared publicly or with USAID for future research
purposes. Although we will report our evaluation findings in aggregate in the report, your name, position,
or other personally identifying information will not appear in any reporting.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation is voluntary. If you do not want to participate or answer
specific questions, you do not have to. Should you choose to participate, please know that you may change
your mind and stop the interview at any point. There will be no consequences if you choose not to
participate.
Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate that your participation in this interview will result in any risks
or direct benefits to you, but your inputs may lead to recommendations that benefit future USAID
programs in Ethiopia, and therefore, the general public.
Contact: If you have any concerns or questions about the evaluation, you may contact the Social Impact’s
Institutional Review Board at “irb@socialimpact.com”, or the evaluation Team Leader, Adam Reisman, at
areisman@socialimpact.com. You can also contact USAID/Ethiopia directly by contacting Tessema
Mebratu, at tmebratu@usaid.gov.
● Do you have any questions for us before we get started?
[Enumerator to answer any questions]
● Do you voluntarily agree to participate in this interview?
_____ Yes _____ No
1. What year will/did you graduate from university?
a. 20YY
2. Did you complete the SD Activity? Reply YES or NO
a. Yes
b. No
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 108
3. Did you participate in any follow-up activities after the dialogue sessions (collaborative actions,
peace incubation projects)?
a. Yes
b. No
4. The goal of the SD Activity was to reduce and prevent violence on campus, build a culture of
trust, and ultimately, repeat this across the country. Do you think the SD Activity was successful
in this goal of peacebuilding? Reply YES, NO, or Partially
a. Extremely Successful
b. Successful
c. Neutral
d. Unsuccessful
e. Extremely Unsuccessful
f. Prefer not to respond
g. I don’t know
5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “I enjoyed the program format (5 stages,
dialogue) and believe this helped the activity become successful.”
a. Agree
b. Neutral
c. Disagree
d. Prefer not to respond
e. I don’t know
6. Before the SD Activity, did you feel that other university students discriminated against your
identity such as ethnicity, religion, sex?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
7. After participating in the SD Activity, did you feel that university students discriminated against
your identity such as ethnicity, religion, sex?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
109 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
8. Before the SD Activity, did you feel safe sharing your ideas or opinions within the University
compound?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
9. After participating in the SD Activity, do you feel safe sharing your ideas or opinions within the
University compound?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
10. Before the SD Activity, did you have positive (friendly) engagements with people other than your
identity group?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
11. After participating in the SD Activity, have you had positive (friendly) engagements with (people)
other than your identity group?
a. Often
b. Sometimes
c. Rarely
d. Never
e. Prefer not to respond
f. I don’t know
12. Before the SD Activity, did you trust anyone outside of your identity group? Reply YES or NO
a. Yes
b. No
c. Prefer not to respond
d. I don’t know
13. After participating in the SD Activity, do you trust anyone outside of your identity group?
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 110
a. Yes
b. No
c. Prefer not to respond
d. I don’t know
14. Before the SD Activity, had you engaged in peaceful dialogue in order to ease tensions or a fight?
a. Yes
b. No
15. After participating in the SD Activity, have you engaged in peaceful dialogue in order to ease
tensions or a fight?
a. Yes
b. No
1. If 600 Birr could be donated to a community organization on your behalf, would you choose to:
(1) donate all 600 Birr to the community that belongs to my identity OR (2) divide the 600 Birr
to the different identity groups .
a. (1) donate all 600 Birr to the community that belongs to my identity
b. (2) divide the 600 Birr to the different identity groups
17. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “When I see inter-ethnic conflict, I feel
confident that I can personally play a role in mitigating that conflict.”
a. Agree
b. Neutral
c. Disagree
d. Prefer not to respond
e. I don’t know
18. Do you think that SD Activity results will sustain after the activity ends?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. Prefer not to respond
19. Do you have any specific experiences that you think may be helpful for us to know to better
improve peacebuilding activities in the future?
a. OPEN RESPONSE
Conclusion:
111 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
Read aloud: If you have a few more minutes of time available, would you be willing to answer a few
questions regarding your demographic information?
20. What year were you a participant in the SD Activity (including moderator year if applicable)?
Check all that apply
a. 20YY
21. What is your sex?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Other
d. Prefer not to respond
22. What is your religion?
a. Orthodox
b. Protestant
c. Catholic
d. Muslim
e. Traditional religions/faiths
f. Other (please specify)
g. None
h. Prefer not to respond
i. I don’t know
23. What is your ethnic group? Check all that apply
a. Oromo
b. Amhara
c. Tigrayans
d. Sidama
e. Welayta
f. Gurage
g. Somali
h. Hadiya
i. Afar
j. Other (please specify)
k. Prefer not to respond
l. I don’t know
24. What is your region of origin?
a. Addis Ababa
b. Afar
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 112
c. Benishangul-Gumuz
d. Gambela
e. Harari
f. Sidama
g. Somali
h. Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region
i. Amhara
j. Oromia
k. Tigray
l. Dire Dawa
m. Prefer not to respond
n. I don’t know
Closing
Thank you for participating in the SD Activity Survey. You are finished.
END SURVEY
113 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ANNEX IV: CATI BRIEF
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 114
115 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ANNEX V: SOURCES OF NON-PRIMARY INFORMATION
SD ACTIVITY DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1. Quarterly Reports (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019 - 2020)
2. Annual Reports (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019)
3. Activity Workplans (Year 1-Year 4)
4. Activity Design Document
5. Endline and Baseline Reports (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019)
6. Activity Scoping Reports (2013, 2017)
7. Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning Plan (December 2017)
8. Mid-Term Evaluation Report (June 2019)
9. Dialogue Session Grouping Spreadsheets
OTHER SOURCE MATERIALS REVIEWED
1. The Trouble with Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism. New York Times, Jan. 3, 2019
2. Ethiopia: Ethnic Federalism and Its Discontents. International Crisis Group. Sept. 4, 2009.
3. The Fleeting Promise of a Peaceful Ethiopia. Hannah Giogis. The Atlantic. April 29, 2021.
4. The Unfolding Conflict in Ethiopia. Lauren Ploch Blanchard. Congressional Research Service. Dec. 1,
2020.
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 116
ANNEX VI: STATEMENTS OF ANY CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST
117 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 118
119 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 120
121 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ANNEX VII: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBER BIOS
Mr. Adam Reisman, Evaluation Team Leader: Mr. Reisman has more than 17 years of experience
evaluating, monitoring, and developing democracy and governance, conflict-mitigation, and capacity￾building programs in developing and fragile states. He has led or served in senior technical roles on more
than 20 performance, whole-of-project, and process evaluations for USAID and the Department of State,
including evaluations of conflict-mitigation and peacebuilding programs, and worked as a conflict specialist
in USAID’s Office of Conflict Management & Mitigation from 2003 to 2007. Currently, Mr. Reisman serves
as a Senior M&E Technical Specialist with SI’s Strategy, Performance, and Learning Team, where he
provides technical leadership and expertise in the development of performance management tools and
performance evaluations of USAID programming both overseas and in Washington, DC. Mr. Reisman
holds a Master of Art in International Affairs from the George Washington University.
Kalewongel Minale Gedamu, Conflict Mitigation Expert: Dr. Gedamu has more than 10 years of
teaching, training and capacity building experience in the field of conflict mitigation, peacebuilding,
democratization and civic education. He has also significant experience in performance evaluation and
learning, which among others include the evaluation of the Ethiopia implementation of the Dutch Ministry
of Foreign Affairs funded program of Strategic Partnership for Dialogue and Dissent (2017-2020). Dr.
Gedamu currently works as an assistant professor in peace and conflict studies and as a local consultant
in peacebuilding. He holds a Master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Transformation, University of Tromso,
and a PhD degree in Politics, Human Rights and Sustainability, Sant Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa,
Italy.
Yirgalem Mengistu Belay, Conflict Mitigation Expert: Mr. Belay has over 10 years of experience
in peacebuilding and conflict in Ethiopia. He has worked extensively with international and government
organizations to collect data, facilitate, train, and lead research on peacebuilding and conflict. These include
GIZ and Ministry of Federal Affairs. His Master thesis focused on the role of local governments in
management of border conflict where he explored the specific areas of Sassiga Woreda in Oromia
Regional State and Bolojiganfoy Woreda in Benshangul Regional State in Western Ethiopia. Mr. Belay holds
a Master of Science from Cranfield University, London in Security Sector Management.
Shiferaw Nede Fujie, Evaluation Specialist: Mr. Fujie has over a decade of international development
research including project coordination and qualitative research roles. He has worked extensively with
international organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including USAID, FHI360, Emory
University, and government ministries. He has led qualitative research throughout Ethiopia focusing on
topics such as youth and education, social safety nets, motherhood and infant health, and others. He has
trained on organizational constituency building and published on food security and safety nets. Mr. Shiferaw
holds a Master’s in Social Work from Indira Gandhi National Open University in India.
Brooke Hill, EPMES Mid-level Evaluation Methods Specialist: Ms. Hill has over eight years of 
experience in quantitative research on peacebuilding and conflict in Africa and the Middle East. She has 
worked extensively with USAID, multilateral organizations, and other implementers on performance and 
impact evaluations as well as adaptive management approaches. Prior to SI, she worked for the World 
Bank in Egypt on the intersections of conflict, gender, and social safety nets. Ms. Hill serves as a Program 
Manager in SI’s Impact Evaluation division and holds a Master of International Affairs from Columbia 
University focusing on conflict resolution and humanitarian response. 
USAID/ETHIOPIA SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES – FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 122
EVALUATION MANAGEMENT
TABLE 5: SI EPMES & HQ TEAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ROLES RESPONSIBILITIES
EPMES Chief of Party
Jane Thomson
Provides overall strategic management and direction; ensures that ongoing work is in 
line with needs of USAID; and reviews all final EPMES deliverables for technical 
quality.
EPMES Senior-level 
Evaluation Methods 
Specialist
Carla Trippe
Conducts quality assurance review on all deliverables and provides high-level 
guidance on methodology, major deliverables, and any problems.
Program Manager/ 
EPMES Mid-level 
Evaluation Methods 
Specialist
Brooke Hill
Responsible for contractual and financial management of the evaluation, including 
adherence to deadlines, requirements of the SOW, and budget management; 
coordinates meetings and interactions among SI HQ, SI’s Field Office Team, and 
within the evaluation team; ensures quality and compliance of deliverables with 
contractual requirements; manages the budget by tracking LOE usage and other 
spending.
Program Assistant 
Lauren Higgs
Provides administrative and logistical support such as arranging travel and lodging and 
processing expense reports; supports ET with invoicing and setup in SharePoint; 
supports deliverable development, including formatting, copyediting, and data 
visualization.
123 | SUSTAINING DIALOGUE ON ETHIOPIAN CAMPUSES - FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID/ETHIOPIA
ANNEX VIII: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
USAID/ETHIOPIA:
● Mahider Mulugeta (USAID AOR for the SD Activity)
● Tessema Mebratu (USAID Alternate AOR for the SD Activity)
● Benyam Akalu (USAID Program Management Specialist (Conflict Mitigation and Peacebuilding))
IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS:
● Hannah Tsadik (former Resident Representative, Life & Peace Institute)
● Firew Kefyalew (former Chief of Party, Life & Peace Institute)
● Emebet Getachew (Chief of Party, Life & Peace Institute)
● Belayneh Mazengiaw (Project Coordinator, Life and Peace Institute)
● Ayten Birhanie (Executive Director, Peace and Development Center)
● Nigusie Angessa (Senior Program Manager, Peace and Development Center)
● Robel Damite (Program Manager, Peace and Development Center)
● Yibeltal Assefa (Program Manager, Peace and Development Center)
UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDERS:
● SD participating students (current)
● SD moderators/facilitators
● Non-SD-Participating Students
● SD peace incubation implementers
● SD university coordinators
● University Peace Forum leaders
OFF-CAMPUS STAKEHOLDERS:
● Local/community leaders
● SD participating students (graduates)
● Ministry of Peace
● Ministry of Science and Higher Education
United States Agency for International Development
Entoto Street
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia