End Line Evaluation of Connect 
For Peace (C4P)Project
MARCH–APRIL 2020
II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CRS Liberia acknowledges the efforts of all those who provided technical support
to the development of the Connect for Peace (C4P) project endline evaluation report. 
It will be impossible to mention everyone that participated. However, a special 
gratitude to Hippolyt A. S. Pul, PhD, for his technical leadership, which included
the evaluation design, primary data collection, data analysis, and distillation into 
this report.
Furthermore, we acknowledge with much appreciation the important role of the 
twelve enumerators in ensuring the success of the data collection. We also express 
our sincere thanks to the Government of Liberia (GoL) for its support in providing 
easy access to the project communities. A special thanks to Robert Groelsema, PhD, 
Team Lead of the African Justice and Peacebuilding Working Group (AJPWG), for his 
executive editorship of the report.
Many thanks to the American people through USAID for their continuous support 
to the peacebuilding work we do Liberia. We appreciate the work of our partners
(National Commission of Catholic Justice, Peace and Caritas and Mano River Women’s 
Peace Network) for their support and high level of cooperation in ensuring the 
success of the project. A special thank you to Ms. Mary Beth Molin, former Head of 
Programming, CRS-Liberia for providing backstopping support to the Peacebuilding 
Unit during the endline study. Also, we thank William F. Rastetter for his technical 
guidance and leadership of the CRS-Liberia program. To Brezhnev D. Paasewe, we 
say in the Liberian way ‘thank you yah’ for exemplifying quality project management 
during the endline study.
Technical Leadership and Reporting by:
Hippolyta S. Pul, PhD
Institute for Peace and Development 
Tamale, Ghana
Cover photo: Women’s Group of Mahdiaplay, Liberia
©2020 Catholic Relief Services. AllRights Reserved. 20OS-287609
This document is protected by copyright and cannot be completely or partially reproduced in whole without 
authorization. Please contact [email@crs.org] for authorization. Any “fair use” under US rights law must 
contain the appropriate reference to Catholic Relief Services.
III
List ofTables
Table of Contents....................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms .........................................................................................v
List of Appendices...................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................1
Background ..............................................................................................1
Evaluation Design and Methodology.........................................................1
Key Findings .............................................................................................2
Key lessons and good practices....................................................................4
Recommendations .....................................................................................4
1. Background to Evaluation ............................................................................7
1.1 Intervention Objectives.......................................................................7
1.2 Theory of Change, Strategies, andKey Activities ....................................8
2. Evaluation Design and Conduct.....................................................................9
2.1 Purpose and Scope ofthe evaluation.....................................................9
2.2 Evaluation Approach and Methods ........................................................9
2.3 Reporting........................................................................................10
3. Evaluation Findings ...................................................................................11
3.1 Profile of Respondents ......................................................................11
3.2 Horizontal Social Cohesion in Nimba County.........................................12
3.2.1 Participation in Community Groups...............................................12
3.2.2 Membership in Multiethnic Community Groups ...............................14
3.2.3 Willingness to Work in Multiethnic Groups .....................................15
3.2.4 Participation in Social Events .......................................................16
3.2.5 Personal Attitudes, Behaviors, and Practicesas
Determinants of Social Cohesion ..................................................17
3.2.6 Intermarriages as a Source of Social Bonds ...................................19
3.2.7 Social Media Platforms as AlternativeSpaces
for Interethnic Engagements .......................................................21
3.3 Vertical Social Cohesion (VSC) ...........................................................22
3.4 Contribution of C4P to Social Cohesion Building................................28
3.5 ContributionofC4PtoAccess toJusticeinProject...........................................
Communities ...................................................................................29
4. Reflections on Findings ..............................................................................37
4.1 Relevance and Appropriateness of Project Design .................................38
4.2 Effectiveness of project intervention strategies.....................................40
4.3 Project efficiency..............................................................................42
4.4 Sustainability ..................................................................................43
5. Key Lessons and Good Practices .............................................................. 45
5.1 Nimba County residents are less likely to engage
socially than economically.................................................................45
IV
5.2 The 4Ds layered on the 3Bs has contributed
to relational change .........................................................................45
5.3 Interethnic stereotypes, prejudices, and animosities persist 
between Gios and Manos on the one hand,
and Mandingoes on the other ............................................................46
6. Recommendations .................................................................................... 47
6.1 Buildonmomentumtospreadpeaceand ............................................................
reconciliation beyond project communities ......................................... 47
6.2 Utilize radio to expand the reach of interventions
into neighboring communities ........................................................... 47
6.3 Promote social media platforms ......................................................... 47
6.4 Revive indigenous conflict resolution processes ................................... 47
6.5 Focus on justice for women ..............................................................48
6.6 Expand citizen engagement with elected officials .................................48
6.7 Replicate the FOMTUL model of economic interest-based associations
to mobilize youthfor peace............................................................ 48
6.8 Develop peace architecture in Nimba County.......................................48
Appendices .................................................................................................. 49
Appendix 1: Evaluation Approach and Methods ..........................................49
1.1 Use of Summative, Formative and Utilization-focused
Evaluation Processes..................................................................49
1.2 Use of Participatory and Learning Approaches ..............................49
2.1 Data Collection Methods.............................................................50
2.2 Data Collection Lines of Enquiry .................................................. 51
2.3 Sampling Strategies, Sample Frames, and Sizes ............................. 51
2.4 Data Collection Tools and Processes............................................. 52
2.5 Data Analysis Method and Reporting............................................53
2.6 Ethical and Data Protection Considerations ...................................53
2.7 Limitations of the Evaluations ......................................................54
Appendix 2: Community Selection and Interviews Allocation ......................55
Appendix 3a: Thematic Areas And Subcodes
For Community Discussion Issues.......................................... 57
Appendix 3b: Synthesis of Issues Discussed During Community Meetings ...... 59
Appendix 4: Tables of Survey Data Analysis................................................63
Appendix 5: Tables Showing Level of Confidence of Women in ADRMS....... 108
Appendix 5a: Justice Access Point for - Disputes of Spouses
* Sex of Respondent Crosstabulation ..................................................... 108
Appendix 5b: Justice Access Point for - Domestic violence
* Sex of Respondent Crosstabulation ..................................................... 109
Appendix 5c: Justice Access Point for - SGBv * Sex of Respondent 
Crosstabulation................................................................................... 111
Notes and References .................................................................................. 114
List ofAcronyms
v
ADRMs Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
CBO Community-based Organization
C4P Connect for Peace
CMM Conflict Management and Mitigation
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FOMTUL Federation of Motorcycle and Tricycle Unions of Liberia
I-ADRMs Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
INEC Independent National Electoral Commission
JPC Justice and Peace Commission of Liberia
MARWOPNET Mano River Women’s Peace Network
MSA Most Significant Achievement
P2P People To People
TOT Training of Trainers
ToT Training of Trainers
USAID United States Agency for International Development
ListofAppendices
vI
Appendix 1; Evaluation Approach And Methodology ...........................................49
Appendix 2: Overview Community Selection andInterviews Allocation .................55
Appendix 3a: Thematic Areas And Subcodes For Community Discussion Issues .....57
Appendix 3b: Synthesis of Issues Discussed During Community Meetings .............59
Appendix 4: Tables of SurveyData Analysis ......................................................63
Appendix 5: Tables Showing Level of Confidence of Women in ADRMS ............ 108
List ofTables
Table 1: Respondents’ Membership ofCommunity Group ....................................12
Table 2: Membership of Community Group By Ethnicity of Respondents................13
Table 3: Types of Groupsof Membership...........................................................13
Table 4: Summary of Responses on Respondents’ Attitudes, Behaviors,
and Practices Supporting Social Cohesion .............................................18
Table 5: Summary of Respondents’ List of Issues Raised and Discussed
at Community Meetings with Chiefsand Elders ......................................24
List of Figures
vII
Figure 1: Age Distribution of Respondents by Gender ..................................... 11
Figure 2: Distribution of Respondents by District ........................................... 11
Figure 3: Membership of Multiethnic Groups.................................................. 14
Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents Who AreMembers
of Multi-ethnic Groups by Age Category .......................................... 14
Figure 5: Respondents’ Membership of Social and Economic Groups................. 15
Figure 6: Respondents’ Participation in Social Eve ........................................... 17
Figure 7: Responses on Level of Agreement on Interrethnic
and Interreligious Marriages........................................................... 20
Figure 8: Summary of Findings on Usage of Social Media Platforms
for Interethnic Engagements.......................................................... 22
Figure 9: Frequency of Vertical Engagements Initiated
by Citizens and By Chiefs/Elders ................................................. 23
Table 10: Crosstabulation of Perceived Influence on Community Decision Making 
by Age Category of Respondents.................................................... 25
Figure 11: Summary of responses on “Never” and “Can’t Recall”
by districts of interview ................................................................. 26
Figure 12: Summary of Level of Agreement on Contribution
of C4P to Social Cohesion ........................................................... 28
Figure 13a: Total Number of Justice Access Points Mentioned ............................. 30
Figure 13b: Percentage Preference for IADRM................................................... 31
Figure 13c: Percentage Distribution of Justice Access Points by Type of Conflict.... 31
Figure 14: Summary of Responses on Women’s Access to Fair Hearing
on Different Types of Conflict......................................................... 33
Figure 15: Perception of Female Respondents on The Chances of Women
Getting a Fair Hearing on Different Types of Conflicts........................ 34
Figure 16: Summary of Results—Perceived Contribution of C4P Enhanced
ADRM Capacity In Nimba County.................................................... 35
vIII
Guest House being constructed by the Women’s Group in Mahdiaplay.
1 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
This report documents key findings, lessons, and recommendations from an evaluation 
carried out in early 2020 of the “Connect for Peace” (C4P) project in Liberia. Catholic 
Relief Services (CRS), the Liberian Catholic Church’s Justice and Peace Commission
from July 2017-July 2020. The United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) Office funded the project.
Against a backdrop of negative peace in Liberia, C4P sought to strengthen vertical 
and horizontal social cohesion in Nimba County through trainings, workshops, public 
gatherings, cultural events, savings and lending communities, and connector projects. 
The interventions aimed to rebuild trust within and between identity groups; promote 
constructive relationships between citizens and the state; reconnect center and 
periphery via hometown associations and expand access to justice by supporting 
Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (I-ADRMs).
C4P employed CRS’s “Applying Appreciative Inquiry to the 3Bs”— binding, bonding, 
and bridging methodology, which addresses implicit biases and trauma at the 
individual level, and builds trust, tolerance, respect, and cooperation within and 
across identity groups including citizens and the state. The project targeted “key” and 
“more” people as part of its “People-to-People” (P2P) approach.
C4P’s theory of change was: “If mutual trust between citizens of Nimba County 
and their public officials is established, and if Indigenous Alternative Resolution
Mechanisms (I-ADRMs) are strengthened, and if capacity for reconciliation between 
and among individuals and social groups is enhanced and ties between Monrovia 
and kinship communities in Nimba County are reinforced using P2P methodologies, 
then vertical and horizontal social cohesion will be strengthened, and positive peace 
will take root, because grassroots P2P relationship-building has been demonstrated 
to promote inclusive reconciliation that transforms relationships, cultivates trust,
rebuilds public institutions and restores state legitimacy, all of which are necessary for 
sustainable peace and development in Liberia.”
C4P reached some 230,000 men, women, and youth across Nimba County and 
50,000 residents of selected electoral districts in greater Monrovia. Networks of 
community-based organizations (CBOs) were the conduits for reaching these targets. 
These featured the Federation of Motorcyclists and Tri-cyclists’ Unions of Liberia 
(FOMTUL), Hometown Associations, and traditional leaders.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation’s terms of reference (TOR) included:
1. Assess the relevance and appropriateness of C4P design and strategies;
2. Assess the effectiveness of strategies and implementation of interventions and 
provide recommendations to further improve the program;
3. Assess the efficiency of intervention strategies in ensuring adequate and timely 
project service delivery;
4. Identify key lessons learnt and good practices.
2 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
The evaluation reviewed the results framework (RF), critical assumptions, enabling 
and constraining factors, documented outcomes and assessed the extent to which 
outcomes contributed to the stated goals, objectives, and sustainability of the project. 
Progress was measured against baseline and mid-term targets.
The evaluation also assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, 
and sustainability of the service delivery mechanisms outlined in the detailed 
implementation plan (DIP) and technical narrative of the project. Elements of 
contribution analysis were incorporated to explore C4P’s contributions to peace, 
reconciliation and social cohesion in Nimba County.
Data collection consisted of a desk review of project documents; a household survey 
that assessed changes in the knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of 
individuals resulting from C4P interventions; key informant interviews; and focus 
group discussions. The evaluation surveyed 431 participants via randomized sampling 
in Nimba County’s six administrative districts (see Appendix 2). Synthesis of field 
notes in an “After-Action Reflection” workshop provided additional qualitative data 
(see appendices for further details).
KEY FINDINGS
The evaluation documented four categories of key findings: 1) relevance and 
appropriateness of project design; 2) effectiveness of project intervention strategies;
3) project efficiency; and 4) sustainability.
Relevance and Appropriateness of Project Design. The evaluation found that the 
key project activities— 3Bs/4Ds workshops, connector projects, I-ADRMs, communal 
farms and SILC groups contributed to increasing the frequency and quality of cross￾identity encounters, gave voice and influence to minority groups; and increased 
access to justice. Connector projects brought community members together across 
age, gender, ethnic, and religious divides. Undertaking these projects in collaboration
with Monrovia-based Hometown Associations generated vertical and horizontal social 
cohesion. Although SILC empowered women to speak up in public spaces without 
feeling threatened, the scale and depth of initiatives to increase women’s voice and 
influence need to be broadened and deepened for more impactful change.
Effectiveness of Project Intervention Strategies. Indicators of C4P effectiveness 
included the reduction in the number of dispute cases brought to the town chiefs 
and elders for resolution; the importance of the connector projects to community 
development, the organization of sports tournaments for inter-ethnic encounters;
communal farming that enhanced social cohesion while increasing production, robust 
SILC membership and cross-ethnic participation in child dedication ceremonies and 
religious festivals. The evaluation identified five success factors that contributed to 
the effectiveness of C4P’s interventions:
▪ Consultative Project Implementation: Participants praised the project for 
creating the space that enabled communities to deliberate, choose and 
undertake activities that met their needs. C4P small grants stimulated 
discussions, planning, and engagement of community members and the 
process was enhanced by the 3Bs/4Ds methodology, which contributed to
healing and reconciliation.
3 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
▪ Community Leadership of Project Implementation: The P2P approach 
enlisted the active participation of county and community leaders. By 
building the capacities of chiefs to administer justice and lead connector 
projects and other development initiatives in their communities, the project 
reaffirmed the value of local institutions and processes for local governance 
and conflict management. It gave communities control over the processes 
and outcomes of project interventions.
▪ Use of Connector Projects: Connector projects enabled communities to 
focus on their immediate needs, which triggered and sustained active
participation. In Mahdiaplay, the women’s FGD observed that youth 
were working together with the elders in the community on 
development projects.
▪ Ability to Demonstrate Concrete Dividends of Peace: The inclusion of the 
Small Grants Fund provided a stimulus package that attracted Hometown 
Association members to the project. The funding offered a quick, direct, 
and concrete way to demonstrate the dividends of peace and social 
cohesion as communities worked together to achieve their collectively 
conceived projects.
▪ Inclusion of Youth as Peace Ambassadors: The war years had reversed roles 
between youth and community elders. Youth armed with lethal weapons 
disrupted social and political order, and disrespect for elders amounted to a total 
breakdown of law and order in the communities. Support for youth as active 
agents of peace enabled communities to begin restoring customary values and 
rebuilding intergenerational relationships.
Despite the successes, drug use, aggressive behavior, abusive language and displays 
of disrespect for elders were still evident. However, blanket characterizations of youth 
were found to be inaccurate and unhelpful, and many examples of positive youth 
agency were identified in the FGDs.
Project Efficiency. C4P was judged to be highly efficient in partnering with the JPC, 
MARWOPNET, and FOMTUL, which had name recognition and credibility in project 
communities. Tapping into local resources enabled the project to benefit from local 
knowledge systems, to launch quickly and to reach distant communities. Training 
chiefs and elders in I-ADRM mechanisms resulted in greater and speedier access to 
justice. In addition, holding trainings in or near the communities allowed community 
members to observe the training and to feel involved in the process. Radio broadcasts 
to disseminate and reinforce peace and social cohesion messaging could have 
increased the efficiency of peace messaging.
Sustainability. The sustainability of C4P’s interventions was predicated on building 
local capacity for peace Training of local traditional leaders and elders, as well as 
youth and women’s groups on peacebuilding, justice promotion, and social cohesion 
increased knowledge and improved skills leading to changes in attitudes, beliefs, 
values, and practices. The connector projects also fostered peace, social cohesion, 
and development. Overall, project participants indicated a keen interest to sustain 
the interventions.
Sustainability was constrained by the limited number of participants able to receive
I-ADRM training; the lack of refresher trainings for FOMTUL members; and the inability 
of the project to include all members of FOMTUL Some politicians tried to sow disunity 
in FOMTUL’s ranks by sponsoring rival unions. FOMTUL members complained about 
aggressive and reckless driving by taxis and passenger buses in attempts to force them
4 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
off the road. Resistance to perceived western cultural worldviews conveyed in trainings 
also posed a threat to sustainability of social cohesion.
KEY LESSONS AND GOOD PRACTICES
Nimba County Residents are less likely to engage socially than economically. Citizens in 
Nimba County were more likely to cross ethnic lines for economic than social reasons. 
SILC and training for FOMTUL offered attractive entry points for ethnic interaction 
and encouraged social interactions where interethnic tensions historically ran high.
Ethnic stereotypes, prejudices, and animosities persist between Gios/Manos and 
Mandingoes. Despite gains in horizontal social cohesion County, challenges to 
rebuilding trust between Gios, Manos, and Mandingoes requires time. Historically, 
Mandingoes were traders and providers of goods and services while Manos/Gios 
performed other occupations. The war erased trust and interdependency. The
rebuilding of bridges between these groups requires patience and investments in the 
younger generation.
The 4Ds layered on the 3Bs has contributed to relational change. The 4Ds component 
of the C4P initiative permitted participants to reimagine identity through discovery, 
dream, design and delivery processes. Communities (re)created positive 
relationships through constructive reinterpretation of historical narratives and 
events, and overcame cultural, psychological, social, and economic barriers to create 
visionary, more inclusive, development-oriented peaceful coexistence. “Cyclists are
now peace ambassadors. We usually intervene in conflicts and we use peaceful means 
to reduce conflicts” (FGD, Ganta).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Build on momentum to scale peace and reconciliation beyond project communities. C4P 
interventions have unleashed the potential for peace and reconciliation. To sustain 
and grow this momentum, peace actors must promote peacebuilding education; 
support and expand the scope of the connector projects; capture the enthusiasm of 
community groups, and cascade training and peace messaging through community 
associations like FOMTUL.
Utilize radio to expand the reach of interventions into neighboring communities. To 
reinforce and scale peace education and workshops, CRS and partners should 
capitalize on the experience of local partners to use FM community radio to host 
discussions in local languages with phone-in or text-in audience participation.
Promote social media platforms. Opportunities for using social media should be 
assessed to stimulate and promote learning and sharing on peace, reconciliation, and 
social cohesion. Social media can cross-feed into FM radio peace education, using the 
text-in and group functionalities of smartphones.
Revive indigenous conflict resolution processes. The Mano-Mandingo-Gio conflict 
requires space for encounter, dialog, airing grievances, and reconciling such as 
indigenous conflict resolution processes permit. Use of these mechanisms for 
restorative justice, pacification rites and customary reparations, restitution, and
5 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
trauma healing is recommended. Resolutions can percolate up from community levels 
to district and county levels for review and ratification.
Focus on justice for women. Cognitive behavior therapy, “Smart Couples,” male 
gender champions, and positive and peaceful masculinity curricula and trainings 
have proven effective in changing attitudes and practices around traditional male 
dominance, hyper-masculinity and gender stereotypes.1 Such activities should figure 
within project designs in post-conflict environments like Nimba County.
Expand citizen engagement with elected officials. Connector projects address the 
pressing need for physical infrastructure in rural communities, but the projects are 
small and too few. Peace actors should intensify Vertical Social Cohesion activities 
to link citizens and public authorities; communities must mobilize and develop 
advocacy agendas; they need to constructively demand their rights and hold duty 
bearers to account for public funds and infrastructure.
Replicate the FOMTUL model of economic interest-based associations. Where 
high rates of youth unemployment pose threats to peace and stability, employment
provides a platform to mobilize and organize youth to strengthen social cohesion,
grow peace and advance economic interests. Nimba County’s vast agricultural
wealth offers potential for economic interest-based social cohesion in Liberia and
beyond its borders.
Develop peace architecture to counter anti-Western backlash. Concerns about the 
erosion of traditional values owing to western education and influence could signal 
a looming culture war. Local partners can champion local and national dialog on the 
perceived clash between traditional Poro and Sande rites and other social norms.
Respected influential voices such as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Liberia and 
umbrella civil society groups could be engaged to recommend peaceful ways to 
foster tolerance, respect, understanding and appreciation.
1 CRS publications include “Faithful House” (Smart Couples) and “Peaceful Masculinity Curriculum” 
(forthcoming 2020).
6 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
BACKGROUND TO EVALUATION
7 / END LINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
1.
1. Background toEvaluation
Since the end of Liberia’s civil war in 2003, a negative peace has prevailed. Citizens 
and communities need healing and reconciliation. They want to experience the 
demonstrable dividends of peace. Yet many of the factors causing violence 
remain— interethnic stereotypes, suspicions, unresolved animosities, public 
corruption, inadequate and inequitable service delivery, land disputes and a large 
demographic of restless, angry, young adults and youth— war victims— without 
jobs or gainful employment. Despite successful rounds of elections, civic trust in
government is low. A general malaise has enveloped the country as people hope for 
change and search for opportunity.
To respond to these challenges, the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) funded Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and local partners, the 
Justice and Peace Commission (JPC) of the Catholic Church, and the Mano River 
Union Women’s Peace Network (MARWOPNET) to launch the Connect for Peace 
(C4P) project—a 36-month initiative to contribute to peace writ large by conducting 
peacebuilding activities in Nimba County and Monrovia.
For the past 32 months, the project endeavored to strengthen vertical and horizontal 
social cohesion between and among citizens, CSOs and public officials through 
people-to-people (P2P) trainings, workshops, consultative public gatherings, social 
and cultural events, savings and lending, and connector projects. The project’s 
interventions also aimed to expand access to justice by strengthening capacity for 
Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (I-ADRMs).
The C4P targeted “230,146 men, women, and youth across Nimba County and some 
50,000 residents living in greater Monrovia. Community-based organizations (CBOs), 
including the Federation of Motorcyclists and Tri-cyclists’ Unions of Liberia (FOMTUL) 
and traditional leaders, were the conduits for these targets. C4P established two 
strategic objectives and four intermediate results:
1.1 INTERVENTION OBJECTIVES
Strategic Objective 1: Horizontal Social Cohesion Strengthened
„ Intermediate Results 1.1: Capacity for reconciliation enhanced
„ Intermediate Results 1.2: Ties between Monrovia and Nimba County kinship groups 
strengthened.
Strategic Objective 2: vertical Social Cohesion Strengthened
„ Intermediate Results 2.1: Mutual trust between citizens and state in Nimba County 
established
„ Intermediate Results 2.2: Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 
(I-ADRMs) in Nimba Countystrengthened
BACKGROUND TO EVALUATION
8 / END LINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
1.
1.2 THEORY OF CHANGE, STRATEGIES,AND KEY ACTIVITIES
C4P partners employed CRS’s “Applying Appreciative Inquiry to the 3Bs”—binding, 
bonding, and bridging in the design and implementation of the project. The 3Bs/4Ds 
initiatives were designed to support target communities in “relationship building, 
respect, understanding the other, and managing conflict through mediation, 
negotiation, and reconciliation.” Activities were intended to build individual and 
institutional capacity, help oppositional groups reconcile, establish trust between 
citizens and the state, and reinforce Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution 
Mechanisms (I-ADRMs). The theory of change was:
“If mutual trust between citizens of Nimba County and their public officials is 
established, and if Indigenous Alternative Resolution Mechanisms (I-ADRMs) are 
strengthened, and if capacity for reconciliation between and among individuals 
and social groups is enhanced and ties between Monrovia and kinship communities 
in Nimba County are reinforced using P2P methodologies, then vertical and 
horizontal social cohesion will be strengthened, and positive peace will take root, 
because grassroots P2P relationship-building has been demonstrated to promote
inclusive reconciliation that transforms relationships, cultivates trust, rebuilds public 
institutions and restores state legitimacy, all of which are necessary for sustainable 
peace and development in Liberia.”
C4P strategies included:
„ People-to-People (P2P)-inspired trainings, workshops, consultative public 
gatherings, social and cultural events, and connector projects to strengthen vertical 
and horizontal social cohesion between and among CSOs and public officials;
„ CRS’ 3Bs/4Ds approach to build local capacities for sustainable engagements that 
promote peaceful co-existence in participatingcommunities.
Project activities aimed to:
„ Build individual and institutional capacity to lead peace and reconciliation 
processes;
„ Create safe spaces for adversarial groups to encounter each other for reconciliation;
„ Provide opportunities for trust building between citizens and the state,
„ Reinforce capacities of Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 
(I-ADRMs) to create access to justice for women and youth.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND CONDUCT
9 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
2.
2. Evaluation Design and 
Conduct
2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
The TORs for the evaluation specified the following:
1. Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the design and strategies;
2. Assess the effectiveness of strategies and implementation of interventions and 
provide recommendations to further improve the program;
3. Assess the efficiency of intervention strategies in ensuring adequate and timely 
project service delivery;
4. Identify key lessons learnt and good practices.
2.2 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODS
The evaluators reviewed the results framework, including the critical assumptions and 
constraints in the implementing environment; the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
timeliness, and sustainability of the service delivery mechanisms outlined in the 
detailed implementation plan; and identified planned and unplanned outcomes.
Appendix 1 provides details of the evaluation approach and methodology. In 
summary, the three tier requirements of the evaluation as summative, formative, and 
learning assignment required the use of a utilization-focused approach2 to the design 
and conduct of the exercise. Elements of contribution analysis were also incorporated 
to explore current and/or potential contributions of C4P to promoting peace, 
reconciliation and social cohesion in Nimba County and greater Monrovia.
The evaluation employed a mixed design. Qualitatively, the evaluators conducted 
a desk review of baseline and mid-term evaluation reports, and other relevant 
documents. The evaluation also conducted three FGDs involving the FOMTUL in
Ganta city; youth and women in the Mahdiaplay community; and traditional leaders 
in Bahn City. In all, 45 individuals took part in the FGDs. The FOMTUL group was
all male, Mahdiaplay was all female, and Bahn group was mixed. A planned “Most 
Significant Achievement” workshop was abandoned for lack of time.
Quantitatively, the evaluation conducted a household survey concerning the 
knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and practices of individuals 
and communities as a result of the C4P project interventions and how these changes 
or absence thereof affected peace, reconciliation, and social cohesion in the target 
zones. In all the exercise randomly sampled 431 participants in the six administrative 
districts of Nimba Country (see Appendix 2). In addition, field enumerators made 
notes of their observations, which help contextualize the surveys.
2 The utilization-focused approach to evaluation design adopts the client’s perspective in the methods 
used, the questions asked, and the kinds of analysis carried out on the data. It aims to ensure that the client 
can see the usefulness of the evaluation outcomes to their needs.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND CONDUCT
10 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
2.
2.3 REPORTING
This report presents the main findings of the evaluation in Section 3. Section 4 
offers a discussion of the findings. Section 5 captures the main the conclusions and 
recommendations. In addition to providing further details on methodology, the 
appendices include supporting data from tables generated by the analysis.
EVALUATION FINDINGS
11 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
3. EvaluationFindings
3.1 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
i. Gender and age distribution of survey participants
The sample comprised 431 respondents— 210 females and 221 males. Of the total, 
47.8% (206/431) of respondents of both categories were 35 years and younger, 
thereby falling within the Government of Liberia’s definition of youth3
. An additional 
37.4% (161/431) fell within the 36-55 age bracket. More than 85.2% of respondents 
were within the economically active age range of 18 to 60 years.
80
18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 66–75 75 years
years years years years years years or older
Figure 1: Age Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Although there were more male respondents (51.3% or 221/431) than females (210/431 
or 48.7%) among the respondents, there were more females than males within the 
youth age bracket (112/210 or 53.4% vs. 94/221 or 42.6%). Figure 1 presents the 
distribution of respondents across the six (6) districts of Nimba County.
Sanniquelleie-Mah
Gbehley-geh
Tappitta 
Zoe-geh
Saclepea-Mah
Yarwein-Mehnsonnah
 100
54
31
 74
35
137
0 30 60 90 120 150
Figure 2: Distribution of Respondents by District
3 Government of Liberia (2012) The Revised National Youth Policy (2012 –2017), A Presentation, accessed 
from https://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Liberia_2012_Revised_Youth_Policy_Presentation.pdf
70
73 Female Male
60 62
50
45
40 39 42 39
30 29
20
10 13
7
0 1 1
13
35 32
EVALUATION FINDINGS
12 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
3.2 HORIZONTAL SOCIAL COHESION IN NIMBA COUNTY
C4P aimed to improve horizontal and vertical social cohesion among residents in 
Nimba County. The project relied on interactions and engagements of disparate 
groups; the frequency, spaces, and content of interactions, and participants’ 
psychosocial readiness to embrace diversity and change. The methodology involved 
CRS’s binding, bonding, and bridging approach. Horizontally, the evaluation assessed 
the contribution of C4P to achieving social cohesion among residents in Nimba 
County through:
i. Participation in community groups
ii. Membership of multiethnic socialgroup
iii. Willingness to work in multiethnic groups
iv. Participation in social events
v. Personal attitudes, behaviors, and practices as determinants of social cohesion.
vi. Intermarriages as social bonds
vii. Social media platforms as alternative spaces for interethnic engagements
3.2.1 PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY GROUPS
Membership of Single Identity Community Group. Group membership is the basis 
for horizontal social cohesion. Hence, respondents were asked questions relating 
to their membership in multiethnic groups. First, respondents were asked if they 
belonged to any group4
in their community. In response, 79.6% (343/431) said they 
belonged to a group. Notably, however, of the 88 respondents who indicated that 
they did not belong to any group, 56.8% of them (50/88) were 35 years or younger
and an additional 15 respondents (17.05%) fell within the 36-45 age category—again, 
all within the economically active age categories. Although the findings are
not statistically significant, with chi square value of 0.089, the implications for 
associational life and impact on social cohesion are notable, and are discussed in 
subsequent sections.
TABLE 1 RESPONDENTS’ MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY GROUP
PART OF 
COMMUNITY 
GROUP
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID 
PERCENT
No 88 20.4 20.4
Yes 343 79.6 79.6
Total 431 100.0 100.0
Disaggregated by ethnic group of respondents, 51.1% of the 88 respondents who said 
they did not belong to any group were Gios, and 26.1% (23/88) were Manos. Nimba 
County is the home of Gios and Manos. The Gios represented 50.8% of respondents 
in the survey, with the Manos taking up 36.9%—see Table 2. The number of Gios
4 “Group” was defined as any associational form such as youth, women’s, hunters’, and farmers’ 
associations.
EVALUATION FINDINGS
13 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
and Manos (378/431 or 87.7%), who said they did not belong to any group (77.3%), 
constitutes a sizeable proportion of this demographic and further investigation of this 
finding would be insightful.
TABLE 2: MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY GROUP BY ETHNICITY OF RESPONDENTS
ETHNIC GROUP YES NO TOTALS % OF 
TOTAL
Bassa 0 2 2 0.5%
Gio 174 45 219 50.8%
Grebo 4 1 5 1.2%
Kissi 1 3 4 0.9%
Kpelle 8 5 13 3.0%
Krahn 11 2 13 3.0%
Kru 1 3 4 0.9%
Lorma 1 0 1 0.2%
Mandingo 7 4 11 2.6%
Mano 136 23 159 36.9%
Total 343 88 431 100.0%
Types of Groups for Single Identity Membership. Asked to indicate in a multiple￾choice question what type of associations they belonged to, at least five (5) key 
categories were cited in 505 mentions. Table 3 below shows that mentions for 
farmers’ association, women’s groups, youth group, and village savings and loans 
groups were about even.
TABLE 3: TYPES OF GROUPS OF MEMBERSHIP
TYPE OF GROUP FREQ. %
Farmers Association 95 18.8%
Youth Group 93 18.4%
Women’s Group 76 15.0%
VSLA 76 15.0%
Elders’ Association/Group 36 7.1%
Other 129 25.5%
Total 505 100.0%
Age Determinants of Group Membership. Figure 3 presents the age distribution of 
respondents who were members of community groups. Less than 50% of respondents 
aged 35 years and below said they were members of community groups. Of the 93 
respondents aged 35 years and below who indicated that they belonged to a group, 
77.4% (72/93) said they belonged to youth-centered economic groups that included
EVALUATION FINDINGS
14 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
229 197
5
youth farmers’ association, youth village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA) and/ 
or young women’s farmers’ association—See also Table 1 in Appendix 4.
No53% Yes 46%
Figure 3: Membership of Multiethnic Groups
Don’t know 1%
3.2.2 MEMBERSHIP IN MULTIETHNIC COMMUNITYGROUPS
Respondents were asked if they belonged to any group in which people of other 
ethnic groups are also members. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the respondents 
indicated that they did not belong to any multi-ethnic group. Figure 4 below shows 
that membership of multiethnic groups tends to be age dependent, with less than 
50% of respondents aged 18-35 years indicating membership in such groups.
100% 1.4 1.5 2.3
18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 66–75 75 years
years years years years years years or older
Yes No Don’t know
Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents Who Are Members of Multi-ethnic Groups by Age Category
The findings suggest that while various forms of associational life exist in the project 
communities, they tend to be organized around economic interests. For example, 
membership in a youth or women’s group was frequently mentioned in association 
with farming or with women’s SILC groups.
Membership of Unbounded Multiethnic Social Groups. C4P used motorcycle driver 
associations, women’s groups, farmers’ groups, professional, trade associations and
64.8 54.8 46.0 48.6 45.2 65.0 50.0
80
60
51.7 51.4
54.8
40 50.0
43.7
33.8 35.0
20
0
EVALUATION FINDINGS
15 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
cultural and faith-based organizations”5 among others as entry points to foster dialog 
between citizens and government. Unlike community groups that may be historically, 
spatially, and culturally related, unbounded social groups cut across these boundaries 
to bring people from different locations and backgrounds together. Such groups 
have greater potential for narrowing social and psychological distances, allowing 
members of different identity groups to encounter and experience each other, and 
through mutually beneficial interactions, come to appreciate the benefits and gifts of 
the other. Shared interests cement personal relationships and serve as bonding and 
bridging factors for members of unbounded groups. voluntary membership in multi￾ethnic social groups is, therefore, an indication of the degree of social and cultural 
acceptance, tolerance, and accommodation of people of different identities.
To ascertain the extent to which unbounded social groups have opportunities for 
bonding and bridging for the different identity groups in the County, respondents 
were asked if they belonged to any multi-ethnic social group. In response, although 
79.6% (343/431) of respondents said they belonged to a community group, 59.4% 
of respondents said they did not belong to any unbounded multi-ethnic groups. The 
finding also correlates with the 53% of respondents, who indicated above that they 
did not belong to any multi-ethnic community group. While respondents readily join 
groups that are within their communities, they are less likely to join a group that that 
transcends their spatial, cultural, and historical contexts and worldviews.
Economic groups
Social groups
0.5
0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100%
Yes No Don’t know
Figure 5: Respondents’ Membership of Social and Economic Groups
In contrast, when the same question was asked about membership in multi-ethnic 
economic groups, 61.9% of respondents said they were members of SILC groups. This 
finding indicates that economic as opposed to social interests may connect people 
across identity lines. Overall, survey responses confirmed that people in Nimba
County were more likely to coalesce around economic than social interests.
3.2.3 WILLINGNESS TO WORK INMULTIETHNIC GROUPS
The question regarding willingness to take part in multi-ethnic group activities 
indicated that deep ethnic prejudice still exists in Nimba County. Interestingly, 75.1% 
of respondents said they were either likely or very likely to take part in such group 
activities, and 91.6% of respondents said they would work with members of any ethnic 
group. However, when prompted to indicate groups they would not like to work with, 
63.9% (23/36 respondents) said that they would not like to work with Mandingoes; 
13.9% (5/36) said they would not work with Krahns and 5.5% each (2/36) indicated
they would not work with Bassa, Gio, and Manos. Of the 16 Gios who indicated that they 
would not work with members of certain ethnic groups, nine of them said they would 
not work with Mandingoes. Similarly, 13 out ofthe 17 (i.e. 76.47%) Manos who said they
5 Catholic Relief Services (2016) Connect for Peace (C4P) Project A proposal in response to funding 
opportunity FY16 Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs and Activities (Global Reconciliation 
Fund) RFA-OAA-16-000007 TECHNICALAPPLICATION On file with Evaluator, p.9
61.9 37.6
40.4 59.4
EVALUATION FINDINGS
16 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
would not work with members of other ethnic groups also selected Mandingoes as the 
group that they would prefer not to work with. In other words, the majority of Gio and 
Mano respondents who said they would not work with members of other ethnic groups 
identified the Mandingoes as the ethnic group they would not work with.
Overall, Mandingoes constituted 2.5% (11/431) ofthe respondents in the survey (Table 2 
in Appendix 4). Of the 11 Mandingoes respondents, only one (1) indicated unwillingness 
to work with a Gio. The remaining ten had no objections to working with any other 
ethnic group. By district of interview, 47.8 (11/23) of the respondents who said they 
would not work with Mandingoes were from Gbehley-geh, with another five (5 or 21.7%) 
from Sanniquellie-Mah. Saclepea-Mah District also had four (Table 3 in Appendix 4).
Although the findings are not statistically significant (Chi Square value p = 0.921), they 
offer an indication of biases and prejudices regarding members of other groups.
Further, the findings show that resistance to working with members of different ethnic 
groups was location specific. The majority of Gio respondents (52.05% or 114/219) 
were from Gbehley-geh district against the three Mandingo respondents in that 
district. Similarly, more than a third of Mano respondents (63/159 or 39.6%) were in 
Sanniquellie-Mah district, against the four Mandingo respondents encountered there
—Table 4 in Appendix 4. Additional probing into context specific factors is needed 
to determine why people in these districts are opposed to working with people of
other ethnicities, and whether interethnic repulsions are unidirectional (from Gios and 
Manos towards Mandingoes) or reciprocal.
In sum, the historical context of Mandingo–Mano/Gio relationships in Nimba 
County and the reluctance of Gio and Mano respondents to work with Mandingoes 
indicate that reconciliation and social cohesion strengthening in Gbehley-geh and 
Sanniquellie-Mah districts remain paramount.
3.2.4 PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL EVENTS
Cross-identity participation in weddings, birth celebrations, child naming ceremonies, 
thanksgiving services, funerals and burial services provide community-level platforms 
for intergroup cohesion. They present opportunities for community members to 
share their joys and sorrows. The frequency and depth of interpersonal and group 
interactions taking place across identity (ethnic, religious, political, regional) lines
provide measures of the level and quality of horizontal social cohesion in a community.
To assess the level and types of such interactions, the evaluation asked respondents 
whether they had attended such events in the last three months in honor of someone 
who is not a member of their ethnic group. Figure 6 shows that apart from funeral and 
burial services, less than a third of respondents indicated participation in the listed 
events—(Tables 5a-5f, Appendix 4).
Crosstabulation of the event participation responses by district and age category 
showed a consistent pattern across age and district of interview, with more than 60% 
of respondents indicating they did not participate in these social events. Social events 
that attracted more than 40% reported participation were:
„ Funeralandburial services—41.4%(36/87) for respondentsaged 36–45; 40.5%(30/74) 
for respondents aged 46–55; and 54.8% (23/42) for respondents aged 56–65;
„ Thanksgiving services—50.0% (21/42) of respondents aged 56–65 years of age;
„ Child naming ceremonies—40.5% (17/42) of respondents aged 56–65 years of age.
EVALUATION FINDINGS
17 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
For “other events,” respondents mentioned sports, traditional feasts, graduations, 
grave decoration, groundbreaking ceremonies, house openings, and rice 
harvesting celebrations.
The evaluation team observed several celebratory events during the survey data 
collection. In Gomahplay, Garplay, and Mahdiaplay, youth groups staged musical 
shows and dances, but attended by fewer than 20 people. These celebrations 
appeared to attract closely knit youth. Community-wide events were not observed, 
suggesting that Nimba residents were not yet ready to participate in social events 
across identity groups.
Wedding
Birth celebrations
Child naming ceremonies
Thanksgiving service
Funeral and burial Service
Other
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.9
0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100%
Yes No Don’t know
Figure 6: Respondents’ Participation in Social Events
3.2.5 PERSONAL ATTITUDES,BEHAVIORS,AND PRACTICES 
AS DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL COHESION.
Appreciative Inquiry creates capacities for collaborative envisioning and engagements 
that allow once hostile individuals and communities to “…see beyond their present 
circumstances and to engage in practical activities that build harmonious and healthy 
relationships between and among disparate and adversarial groups.”6 Personal 
attitudes, behaviors and practices are important determinants of social cohesion.
They underscore the stereotypes, beliefs, prejudices, and practices that initiate and 
reinforce the definitions of otherness of perceived opposing groups. The evaluation 
therefore sought to gauge the extent to which respondents’ personal attitudes, 
behaviors, and practices constituted barriers to social cohesion in communities. The 
factors assessed the following parameters:
„ Self-assertion: insistence on one’s cultural views or values when engaged in 
discussions with people from other cultures;
„ Social/cultural distancing or avoidance: tendency to stay away from people of 
other ethnic groups to avoid any negative consequences;
„ Empathy: seeing the other’s point of view from their perspective during discussions;
„ Ethno-centrism in voting behaviors in the presidentialelection.
6 CRS (2016), op. cit. p. 5.
28.8 70.8
22.5 76.8
25.8 73.8
28.8 69.4
36.9 62.2
7.9 67.1 25.1
EVALUATION FINDINGS
18 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
Table 4 below provides a summary of the responses received from respondents to the 
various questions.
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ON RESPONDENTS’ ATTITUDES, BEHAvIORS, 
AND PRACTICES SUPPORTING SOCIAL COHESION
CRITERIA PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSE CATEGORIES FOR CRITERIA
Behavior/Practice 
Criterion Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Always
Self-assertion (n = 431) 60.6 4.9 7.2 9.7 17.6
Social distancing or 
avoidance (n = 431) 68.7 3 8.1 5.8 14.4
Empathy (n = 431) 9 3 12.8 16.2 58.9
Ethno-centrism in 
Presidential voting (n
= 431)
87.5 0.7 0.9 1.9 9
Self-assertion: While 60.6% of respondents said they never asserted their views 
“when engaging with persons from other ethnic groups, 27.3% said they frequently 
(8.7%) or always (17.6%) insisted on their views during engagements with people 
from other cultures.
By age category, 22.5% of respondents aged 18-35 said they would always insist on 
their views when discussing with members of other cultural or ethnic groups. By 
district, 33.6% (36/137) of respondents from Gbehley-geh said they would frequently 
or always insist on their views discussing with people from other cultures. Similarly, 
28% of respondents (28/100) from Sanniquellie-Mah said they would frequently 
(12/100) or always (16/100) insist on their views when engaged with persons from 
other cultures. By ethnicity, 94.7% of the 76 respondents who said they would always 
insist on their views during discussions with persons of other cultures were either Gios 
or Manos. While 30.1% of Gio respondents (66/219) held this position, 28.3% (44/159 
of Manos were of the same opinion— see tables 6a-6d in Appendix 4. Women were 
more likely to frequently or always insist on their views (29% or 61/210) than men 
(25.8% or 57/221).
Having close to a third of respondents adopting very assertive and non￾accommodative postures pointed to the need to focus on attitudes and behaviors 
that could be obstacles to building social cohesion across ethno-religious lines in 
Nimba County.
Social distancing or avoidance: In all, 68.7% of respondents said they never try to 
stay away from people from other ethnic groups when they meet. However, 14.4% 
of respondents said they would always avoid people from other ethnic groups. In all,
20.2% of the respondents indicated that they would frequently or always avoid mingling 
with people from other ethnic groups for fear of getting into trouble with them.
All districts reported fewer than 25% of respondents who would always stay away 
from people they did not know in public settings. Saclepea-Mah reported the highest
EVALUATION FINDINGS
19 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
of 20.5% (15/51) of people, who would stay away from strangers. There were no large 
gender differences in distribution of responses either. However, more than 60% of 
respondents of all age categories said they never avoid mingling with people of other 
ethnic groups in public settings. Of the 62 respondents who said they would always
avoid people from other cultures in public settings, 66.1% (41/62) were between the 
ages of 18 and 45, with 22 of them (i.e. 22/62 or 35.48%) falling within the 26-35
age group. Nine (9) others fell in the 18-25 age category. Notably, younger people 
indicated more resistance to mingling with strangers than older people.
Empathy: In all, 58.9% of respondents said they would always try to understand 
divergent points of view when discussing national issues that affected other groups 
directly. An additional 16.2% said they frequently would do so. More than 50% of 
respondents of all age categories said they would always put themselves in the 
shoes of people from other ethnic groups when discussing national issues that 
affected the latter. Ethnically, 25 out of 39 respondents who said they would never 
empathize with people from other ethnic backgrounds were Gios. Non-empathizers 
were concentrated in rural areas, suggesting the need for targeted rural intervention 
strategies, especially in Gio-dominated communities.
Ethno-centrism in voting behaviors: 87.5% of respondents said the ethnic 
background of presidential candidates did not affect their choice for President of 
Liberia. The response patterns were similar for all categories when the responses 
were disaggregated by age, district, and gender. By ethnic affiliation, of the 39 
respondents, who said they would always consider ethnicity in voting for presidents, 
21 were Gios and 15 Manos. The other three respondents in this category were 
Mandingo (2) and Grebo (1). By community, Mahdiaplay, Gbarplay, and Blemieplay 
were the only communities with up to three respondents, who said they would always 
consider the ethnic background of presidential candidates.
With respect to voting for senators or representatives, 59.2% of respondents 
indicated that they frequently (7%) or always (52.2%) considered the issues the 
candidates raised to be as important as their personality and background. However, 
more than 30% of respondents in Sanniquellie-Mah, Gbehley-geh, and Yarwein￾Mehnsonnoh districts said they “never” considered issues to be as important as the 
identity of persons standing for elections as senators or representatives. Therefore, 
more than a third of the respondents in these districts believed the person, as defined 
by ethnic, religious, cultural or other social status criteria, to be more important than 
the issues he or she represented (Table 7d, Appendix 4).
The findings suggest that issue-based voting presents opportunities to strengthen 
cross-identity encounters that could help dismantle spatial, ethnic, religious, and 
other boundaries in favor of advancing shared interests in communities facing similar 
development challenges.
3.2.6 INTERMARRIAGES AS A SOURCE OF SOCIAL BONDS
In many African societies, marriage creates social bonds not only between the bride 
and bridegroom, but among families, clans, ethnic groups, and entire communities. 
Therefore, the degree to which intermarriages occur between members of different 
religious, cultural, and ethnic identity groups is an indicator of the web of relationships 
that lay the foundations for social cohesion between different segments of society. In
EVALUATION FINDINGS
20 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
30.6 30.4 11.8 5.3 4.9 4.4
the 2016 study7 commissioned by CRS/Liberia on peace and reconciliation in Liberia, 
respondents cited social norms that discouraged intermarriages between certain 
ethnic and religious groups as one of the underlying grievances of conflict in Nimba 
County. Gios and Manos complained that while their women could marry Mandingo 
men, Mandingo women were not allowed to marry Gio or Mano men.
To ascertain the level at which intermarriage in Nimba County strengthens interethnic 
and interreligious social cohesion, respondents answered two related questions. First, 
they were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement that in
Nimba County, families readily allow their relatives to marry people from different 
ethnic backgrounds. A similar question replaced “ethnicity” with “religion.”
Figure 7 below provides an overview of the general responses to the two questions. 
The graph shows broad similarities in the patterns of responses, with more than 
73% of respondents saying they agree to varying degrees that both interethnic and 
interreligious marriages are permissible in the County.
Interethnic marriages
Peace is coming 
bit by bit; it 
cannot all come 
in one day. We 
Muslims belief 
Islam is for all. We 
are opened.Now
Muslim women are 
married to Gio men, 
so peace is coming 
back.
—ALHAJI 2, BAHN 
CITY
Inter-religious marriages
0 20 40 60 80 100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Very strongly No opinion
agree agree disagree disagree
Figure 7: Responses on Level of Agreement on Interrethnic and interreligious Marriages
The broad pattern of agreement on interethnic marriages cuts across all age 
categories, with more than 65% of respondents in all age groups agreeing that 
interethnic marriages are permissible in Nimba County—see Table 8a in Appendix
4. By district, however, Sanniquellie-Mah, Gbehley-geh, Zoe-geh, and Yarwein￾Mehnsonnoh found more than 20% of their respondents disagreeing with inter-ethnic 
marriages (Table 8b, Appendix 4). By gender, more women (24.5% of 210) than men 
(19.5% of 221) disagreed with interethnic marriages (Table 8c, Appendix 4).
With respect to interreligious marriages, at least 25% of respondents in the 36-
45 years, 46–55 years, and 66–75 years categories did not support interreligious 
marriages. However, fewer than 20% of respondents 35 years or younger were
opposed to interethnic marriages in Nimba County (Table 8a, Appendix 4) indicating 
slight intergenerational differences in tolerance for interreligious marriages.
7 Pul, H. A. S. (2016) State of Peace, Reconciliation and Conflict in Liberia REPORT BRIEF, Catholic Relief 
Service and United States Agency for International Development, accessed from file:///D:/Emergency%20 
Backup/Desktop/Consultancies/2020/CRS%20Liberia%202020/CRS%20Liberia%20-%202020/Background%20 
Materials/State-of-peace-reconciliation-liberia.pdf
13.2 30.2 31.3 11.65.63.74.4
12.5
“
EVALUATION FINDINGS
21 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
Before, all Muslims, 
and by extension 
Mandingoes,
were considered 
outcasts. But now 
Mandingo women 
have married non￾Muslim Gio men. 
One of them has 
even converted
to Christianity 
and there are no 
problems.”
—LADY 4, FGD, 
BAHN CITY, 
SPEAKING ABOUT 
CHANGING 
ATTITUDES TO 
INTERMARRIAGES
By district more than 20% of respondents in Sanniquellie-Mah, Gbehley-geh, Zoe￾geh, and Yarwein-Mehnsonnoh did not support inter-religious marriages in Nimba 
County (Table 9b, Appendix 4). By gender, women led men by 12 percentage points 
to register their disagreement with the suggestion that interreligious marriages should 
be permitted in Nimba County—23.3% for women disagreeing against 10.3% for men 
(Table 9c, Appendix 4). Disaggregated by ethnic background of respondents, more 
than 20% of Gio, Grebo, Kissi, Mandingo, and Mano respondents did not support 
interreligious marriages in NimbaCounty.
To test the extent to which respondents would translate their beliefs about interethnic 
and interreligious marriages into practice, respondents provided answers to a third 
question on their willingness to accept the wishes of a family member to marry into a 
different ethnic group. A cross-tabulation of the responses from the first and second 
questions on interethnic marriages showed that 76.86% of respondents who said
they would very strongly, strongly, or simply agree that interethnic ethnic marriages 
is permissible in Nimba County also said they would willingly or very willingly support 
the marriage of their relative to a member of a different ethnic group. This finding 
provides consistency in the responses to the question of intermarriages.
Although women’s opinions about interethnic and interreligious marriages differed 
from men’s, younger women were challenging the social, cultural, and religious 
barriers. In the FGD discussions in Bahn, while Muslim/Mandingo community 
elders conceded that a marriage between a Mandingo girl with a non-Mandingo is
possible, one of them insisted that this could only be possible if the bridegroom was 
a Muslim. However, a young lady listening into the discussions interjected that this 
was no longer the case. She declared: “For us women, inter-ethnic intermarriage is 
happening” (Female participant #2). Another female participant cited the example 
of a young Muslim, Mandingo girl who married a Christian, non-Mandingo man and 
even subsequently converted to Christianity— something that would never have 
happened in the past. Interestingly, the young woman’s interjection compelled
one Mandingo elder to concede that interreligious marriages involving Mandingo 
girls to non-Mandingo and non-Muslim men was now possible. A participant in the 
FOMTUL FGD also confirmed that “Intermarriages between Mandingo girls and other 
[ethnicities] now is possible because the training from C4P helped” (Male participant 
#4). Participants in the Women’s FGD in Mahdiaplay agreed, acknowledging that 
“intermarriages are now allowed” (Female participant #3).
The high level of acceptance of cross-identity marriages reported here contrasts 
sharply with the more than 80% of respondents in CRS’ 2016 nationwide study, who 
said they would not support a relative marrying into a different ethnic group. Younger 
people show greater acceptance of interreligious marriage than their elders.
3.2.7 SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AS ALTERNATIVE SPACES 
FOR INTERETHNIC ENGAGEMENTS
C4P did not conduct social media activities as part of social cohesion strengthening. 
However, the emergence of virtual communication platforms, including social media, 
eliminates physical barriers to interactions and provides alternative platforms for cross￾identity engagements. This emergence is worth considering as a learning opportunity.
“
EVALUATION FINDINGS
22 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
To gauge the extent to which C4P communities, especially youth, had leveraged the 
potentials of social media to build bridges across spatial, ethnic, and religious divides, 
respondents were asked to indicate whether they were friends with any Liberian of a 
different ethnic group on some of the common social media platforms.
The summary of responses in Figure 8 show that 8.8% of respondents used Facebook 
and less than 5% of respondents used other social media platforms to encounter 
members of other ethnic groups. Only the 18-25 and 26-35 age categories surpassed 
10% in the use of social media for engagements, with 11.3% and 11.9% respectively
of respondents in these groups. Observational notes indicated low smart phone 
ownership, difficulty in recharging phones, and patchy electrical power and cell phone 
coverage outside district capitals. These constraints limited the possibilities for young 
people to engage across multiple lines of separation.
Other platforms
YouTube
Instagram
Twitter 
Whatsapp
Pinterest
Facebook
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100%
Yes No Can’t recall
Figure 8: Summary of Findings on Usage of Social Media Platforms for Interethnic Engagements
3.3 VERTICAL SOCIAL COHESION(VSC)
vertical social cohesion addresses hierarchical relationships. C4P sought to improve 
relationships between traditional leaders and citizens, focused on strengthening 
traditional and formal dispute resolution and justice systems in Nimba County. The 
evaluation examined intergenerational relationships, relationships between state 
actors and citizens, and it explored the level of acceptance of indigenous alternative 
dispute resolution mechanisms (I-ADRMs) and how these aligned with the needs of 
C4P communities.
3.3.1 IMPROVING INTERGENERATIONAL SOCIAL COHESION BUILDING
C4P’s intergenerational social cohesion building mainly involved improving the nature, 
type, frequency, and quality of intergenerational engagements between young people 
and community elders. The evaluation focused on the extent of improvement of these 
relationships and examined how frequently marginalized citizens’ groups including 
women and youth were invited to participate in the deliberations of the traditional 
authority structures and whether their views counted in the decisions.
1.2 83.3 15.5
1.6 98.1
1.2 98.6
0.9 98.8
2.6 97.2
0.7 99.1
8.8 90.7
EVALUATION FINDINGS
23 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
i. Frequency of intergenerational engagements: The evaluation sought to 
determine the frequency of engagement between respondents and the traditional 
leaders from a bi-directional perspective i.e., i) frequency of engagements that 
the citizens initiated and ii) engagements that the elders and chiefs initiated.
Figure 9 below shows that the frequency of engagements was approximately 
the same between weekly and monthly encounters, and that citizens initiated 
approximately the same number of encounters as did chiefs and elders. At least 
68% of respondents said engagements with traditional authorities took place at 
least once a month.
Citizen’s initiated 3 1.4
0.7
ChiefsandElders initiated 3.2 1.4
0 20 40 60
30.4
0.5
80 100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Once Once Quarterly Every Once Never Can‘t recall
a week a month six months a year
Figure 9: Frequency of Vertical Engagements Initiated by Citizens and By Chiefs/Elders
The findings above held true for all age and gender categories although 14.8% 
(31/210) of female respondents said they had never met with the chiefs and elders. 
This result compares to the 9% of male respondents (20/221) who said they had never 
met with the chiefs and elders in their communities (Tables 10a and 10b, Appendix
4). 80.6% (25/31) of female youth (18-35 years old) said they had never participated 
in community meetings with elders and chiefs, and seven of 20 males in the same 
age group said they had never been invited to such meetings. Of the females who 
said they never initiated a meeting with traditional leaders, 89.6% (26/29) were 18-35
years of age, while those who said they could not recall initiating such a meeting were 
76.9% (30/39) of the female respondents in that response category. In sum, young 
females were less likely to be invited to, initiate, or participate in community meetings 
that involved chiefs and elders than males of the same age group. This age group of 
females was also more susceptible to sexual and gender-based violence, denial of 
access to land, and limited access to justice.
ii. Substance of Intergenerational Engagements: To examine the substance of 
intergenerational engagements, respondents were asked to recall the issues 
they discussed during the last community meeting they attended. Respondents 
generated a list of 404 issues (see Table 5).
37.4 31.3 30.6 30.6
38.5 30.6 30.6
EVALUATION FINDINGS
24 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
TABLE5: SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS’ LIST OF ISSUESRAISED AND DISCUSSED 
AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH CHIEFS AND ELDERS
CATEGORY OF ISSUES RAISED AND 
DISCUSSED
FREQUENCY OF 
MENTION
% OF FREQ. 
OF MENTION
Issues relating to community 
infrastructure development and 
improvement— roads, bridges, schools, 
clinics
171 42.3%
Social cohesion engagements and 
interactions 64 15.8%
General town/community development 
or improvement 44 10.9%
Community environmental cleanliness, 
hygiene, and sanitation 43 10.6%
Agriculture and livelihood systems 
improvement 39 9.7%
Community social service provision and 
improvement 16 4.0%
Community safety, security and mutual 
social support systems 11 2.7%
Youth development and engagement 10 2.5%
Governance— community level 
participation, accountability, and 
transparency engagements
6 1.5%
Total 404 100.0%
Respondents mentioned that 42.3% of issues raised and discussed at community 
meetings centered on developing and rehabilitating community physical 
infrastructure. Frequently cited were:
„ Education infrastructure
„ Health, hygiene, and sanitationinfrastructure
„ Potable water, especially boreholes
„ Agriculture and livelihood infrastructure, includingwarehouses
„ Community town halls, palava huts, and meeting facilities
„ Construction of places of worship, especially churches
„ Community guest houses andhospitals
„ Community roads, bridges andtransport
Another priority was social interactions such as:
„ Unity and peaceful coexistence among community members
„ Peacebuilding, dispute and conflict resolutions
EVALUATION FINDINGS
25 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
„ Mutual respect, understanding, social etiquettes, courteous behavior, and respect 
for community behavioral norms
„ Youth—development, conduct, discipline, and exhortations on unity and 
nonviolence among youth
„ Cross identity inclusion and participation in community meetings and social events
„ Building/sustaining community safety nets and mutual support systems
„ Women’s development and unity amongwomen
Appendix 3a presents the thematic areas and sub-codes for the issues the 
communities raised and discussed in their meetings, while Appendix 3b offers a 
synthesis of key community issues. Because the development of communal assets 
ranks high on the list of community priorities, activities to improve such assets can 
potentially bridge communities across identity lines.
iii. Voice and influence in decision-making processes: Approximately six out of 
ten respondents felt that community leaders took their views into account in 
decision-making (Figure 10), Disaggregated by gender, 64.2% (142/221) of male 
respondents believed their views counted to “a very high extent” (23.5%) in 
decisions or “to a high extent” (40.7%), while 57.1% of females (120/210) had the
same levels of certainty that their views counted in decisions (“very high extent”
= 17.1%; “high extent” = 40.0%).
66–75years (n=20)
56–65 years (n=42)
46–55years(n=74)
36–45years(n=87)
26–35 years (n=135)
18–25 years(n=71)
0 20 40 60 80 100%
Very High High extent Some extent Can’t tell
Table 10: Crosstabulation of Perceived Influence on Community Decision Making BY Age Category of 
Respondents
Notably, more than 20% of respondents aged 18-45 years said they could not tell if 
their views were considered; (27.1% of female respondents (57/210); (19.0% of males 
(42/221). Hence, predominately young people and women could not be certain that
15.0 50.0 5.0 30.0
35.7 38.1 7.1 19.0
24.3 47.3 10.8
28.7 33.3 5.7 25.3
13.3 41.5 14.8 23.7
12.7 38.0 26.8 38.5
16.2
EVALUATION FINDINGS
26 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
their views counted in community meetings. The findings were statistically significant 
with chi square value of p = 0.008 for age, but not for gender (p = 0.286).
The evaluators observed a tendency for some individuals and groups to avoid 
participation and instead to seek special invitations and favors— sometimes referred 
to as “control drama.” In one FGD, a Mandingo Muslim leader portrayed his ethnic 
group as sidelined in the composition of the City Council. However, other participants 
pointed out that membership to the City Council was open, and that Mandingoes 
could have nominated candidates, but instead, they chose to lobby for Council seats 
to be allocated to them. A participant noted, “We have Gios and Manos who are 
Muslims. Elections are based on popularity of candidate, not ethnicity or religion. 
There is no discrimination in voting” (Female participant #1). A male participant 
observed that Mandingoes and other Muslims in Bahn city were interspersed 
throughout the city and should have been able to nominate candidates freely (Male 
participant #6).
3.3.2 VSC: IMPROVING SOCIAL COHESION BETWEEN CITIZENS 
AND THE STATE
Liberians exhibit high levels of cynicism regarding the performance of their 
civil authorities, including security personnel; district, county, and national 
level government officials; and members of the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC). In Nimba County, distrust of officials occasionally has led to 
running battles between youth and the police. The evaluation assessed the extent to 
which citizens requested services from or participated in activities sponsored by state 
security agencies, the INEC, and county and district elected and appointed officers.
i. Improving citizen-police relations: The evaluation asked respondents how 
frequently they had contacts with the police or other security agencies to discuss 
security issues concerning their communities.
In response, 64.1% (276/431) either said the police had never contacted their 
community (37.6%) or they could not recall when the police contacted their 
communitytodiscusssecurityissues(26.5%).Only11.1%(48/431)and18.8%(81/431) 
said they had such visits once a week or once a month respectively. Figure 11 presents 
a summary of responses on “Never” and “Can’t Recall” by districts of interview., 
Yarwein-Mehnsonnoh reported the highest level of “never” responses (71.4%)—(Table 
12, Appendix 4). Results for the crosstabulation yielded a p-value = .000.
0
Figure 11: Summary of responses on “Never” and “Can’t Recall” by districts of interview
Yarwein-Mehnsonnah 71.4 8.6
Sanniquelleie-Mah 44.0 35.0
Gbehley-geh 47.4 18.2
Tappitta 20.4 29.6
Saclepea-Mah 16.2 33.8
Zoe-geh 16.1 32.3
20 40
Never
60
Can’t recall
80 100%
EVALUATION FINDINGS
27 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
ii. Civic engagement: The C4P project recognized that elections could create “… 
an opportunity [for Liberians] to come together as a nation and to continue to 
craft a vision and a narrative of peace on which the next generation will build.”8
Accordingly, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which—besides
voting—they were individually or collectively involved in the 2017 presidential and 
senatorial elections.
In response, 11.6% of the respondents said they were involved to “a very high extent” 
with another 28.3% saying they were involved to “a high extent.” Conversely, 36.2% of 
respondents either said they “never” got involved (28.8%) or could not recall getting 
involved (7.7%).
By district, Yarwein-Mehnsonnoh had the highest percentage of respondents who 
said they did not get involved in the last election at all (45.7% or 16/35), followed by 
Gbehley-geh (29.9% or 41/137), Sanniquellie-Mah (28.0% or 28/100) and Saclepea￾Mah (27.0% or 20/74). Zoe-geh had only 12.9% of respondents (4/31) in this category 
(Table 13, Appendix 4). Findings were statistically significant with p < 0.05.
By age category, respondents 18-25 years reported the highest rate of non￾involvement. Their “not at all” responses amounted to (32.4% or 23/71), followed by 
individuals in the 26-35years age bracket (31.9%). Persons in the 36-45 years and 46-
55 years ranges had 28.7% and 27.0% “not at all” responses (Table 13b, Appendix 4). 
Findings were statistically significant with p = 0.006.
By gender, the percentage of women who said they did not participate at all in any 
activities to support the last general elections was only marginally more (32.9% or 
69/210) than those who said they participated to “a very high extent” or a “high 
extent” (31.9% or 67/210). In contrast, 47.5% of male respondents said they either 
participated to “a very high extent” (16.3% or 36/221) or “to a high extent” (31.2% or 
69/221)—(Table 13c, Appendix 4). These findings were statistically significant with
p = 0.004. Twenty respondents indicated “Non-engagement” because they said 
“everything was peaceful.”
Respondents who got involved did so mainly to advocate for peaceful/nonviolent 
elections and to encourage and get out the vote. Others acted as political party 
agents policing and protecting the ballots on behalf of their candidates or serving as 
election observers for CSO and other third-party agencies. The evaluators did not 
hear of efforts by respondents to influence INEC policies, rules, regulations, and other 
actions concerning the conduct of free, fair, and transparent elections.
iii. Engagement with county and district officials: The evaluation asked respondents 
how often they engaged with county or district officials on matters of mutual 
interest to them. In response, 46.9% (202/431) of respondents said they could not 
recall the last time they engaged with their county or district officials. Only 6.0% 
said they did once a week, and another 21.6% said they engaged once a month. 
By district, Tappitta recorded the highest percentage of respondents who said 
they could not recall the last time they encountered a district or county official 
(55.6% or 12/54). Sanniquellie-Mah came next with 52.0% (52/100) and Yarwein￾Mehnsonnoh with 48.6% (17/35). Zoe-geh had 38.7% respondents indicating that 
they have once a month engagement with the district and county officials (Table 
13d, Appendix 4).
8 CRS, 2019, p.6
EVALUATION FINDINGS
28 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
Of the 56 respondents who gave “other” responses to the question, 26 said they 
never tried, 12 indicated they could not go there for reasons of illness or lack of 
means, and 10 said the officials only “come during election time.” Civil authorities did 
not reach out to the communities either, except during election time
3.4 CONTRIBUTION OF C4P TO SOCIAL COHESION BUILDING
To assess the overall contribution of the C4P project to the building of social cohesion 
in the project communities, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they 
agreed that participation in the Connect for Peace (C4P) project had:
1. Enabled citizens of Nimba County to have more healthy and positive relationships 
between and among social and ethnic groups in their communities;
2. Created opportunities for youth to engage with the elders in the community to 
address community peace and developmentchallenges;
3. Made it possible for youth to have constructive engagements with the police and 
other security agents;
4. Enabled women to access justice within the traditional authority systems;
5. Encouraged women to seek justice in the formal courts.
Figure 12 below shows that more than 70% of respondents thought that C4P had 
contributed to increased social cohesion. Crosstabulation of the results with the 
profile of the respondents shows that it is only in Zoe-geh district that 16.1% of the 
respondents said they had no opinion on whether the C4P project contributed to 
healthy and positive relationships between different ethnic and social groups in 
Nimba County. There were no noticeable differences by age category or gender of 
respondents. Similarly, 22.6% (7/31) of respondents in Zoe-geh district expressed no 
opinion on whether the project facilitated intergenerational engagements in Nimba 
County. Results by age and gender presented a uniform pattern of agreement on 
this parameter. Results for the other parameters followed the same pattern with 
respondents from Zoe-geh district having higher percentages of respondents
expressing no opinion on the contribution of C4P to social cohesion in Nimba County. 
With respect to access to justice for women, however, more females (92.3% or 
194/210) than males (89.5% or 198/221) said that C4P had improved access to justice 
for women—see Table 14S in Appendix 4.
Encouraged women to
seek justice in courts
Youth constructively
engage security agencies
Facilitated intergenerational
engagements
Womenhave accesstojustice
Healthy and positive
relationships
0 20 40 60 80 100%
Agree Disagree No opinion
Figure 12: Summary of Level of Agreement on Contribution of C4P to Social Cohesion
72.4 15.3 12.3
83.1 7.3 9.7
83.1 17.3 6.5
91.0 1.4 7.7
92.1 1.4 7.0
EVALUATION FINDINGS
29 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
The C4P training 
workshop was the 
most important 
thing to happen 
to us. The project
brought us together. 
We learned about 
nonviolence and the 
culture of peace”
—MANDINGO 
ELDER, BAHN CITY 
FGD
Although the sample size for Zoe-geh district was relatively small (n = 31), the chi 
test results consistently produced statistically significant findings on these measures, 
with p < 0.05. This number suggests that the results are not chance occurrences.
The outlier case of Zoe-geh notwithstanding, the findings suggest that respondents 
believed the C4P project had made a direct contribution to the building of social 
cohesion in their respective communities and districts.
Participants in FGDs confirmed the general positive contribution of C4P to current 
state of peace in their communities. They believed peace and social cohesion, 
both vertical and horizontal were taking root. In the women’s FGD in Mahdiaplay
respondents felt that “…Christians and Muslims have no more problems now” (Female 
participant #8). One participant said it was common that “drunken husbands used to 
beat us, but after the C4P training workshop, there are no more beatings” (Female 
participant #4). Another said the “training workshops are helping Nimba because 
theft of cattle is reducing; we used to practice open defecation, but this is no more, 
which means we are all getting good health” (Female participant #7). In respect to 
vSC participants observed that “now the youth respond to elders because they see 
the benefits; before there was no respect; the youth were rude to elders” (Female 
participant #6). The participants insisted that concerning vSC “youths and elders 
work together. We and the government officials have a good relationship” (Female 
participant #8). A member of FOMTUL supported these opinions: “We learned about 
ways to resolve conflicts peacefully. We learned many ways to reduce conflict. We 
learned about how to use sports to make peace. So, now we have soccer matches 
between members of FOMTUL and the police” (Male participant #9). A colleague 
added: “We the motorcyclists are now peace ambassadors. We usually intervene in 
conflicts and we use peaceful ways to resolve them (Male participant #4).
3.5 CONTRIBUTION OF C4P TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE 
IN PROJECT COMMUNITIES
3.5.1 EXPANDING LOCAL ACCESS POINTS FOR JUSTICE
Limited access to justice is an underlying grievance in Nimba County. Formal courts 
are physically inaccessible and culturally alienating, and perceived high levels of 
corruption in the judiciary induces many Liberians to believe that formal courts favor 
the rich and powerful. At the same time, neglect and break down in norms and mores, 
especially during the civil war period, severely weakened the indigenous justice 
system, which served as an alternative to formal courts.
To address these limitations, the C4P project sought to create capacities for 
alternative justice systems at community levels rooted in traditional knowledge, 
values, institutions, and actors. Consequently, the project delivered training and other 
capacity building services to give traditional chiefs and elders the knowledge and 
skills they needed to be more effective, efficient, transparent, fair, and accountable in 
the adjudication of cases in communities within their purview.
The evaluation identified and assessed community conflict adjudication mechanisms 
that community members resorted to concerning:
1. Conflict over land ownership
2. Disputes with spouses
“
EVALUATION FINDINGS
30 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
594
678
618
591
588
576
553
547
525
3. Domestic violence
4. Sexual and gender-based violence such as rape, harassment, or torture
5. Property theft
6. Debt owed by a communitymember
7. Disputes over natural resources, e.g., water, grazing fields, and mining areas
8. Commercial disputes, e.g., breach of business contracts
9. Disputes over property rights and inheritance
10. Other (specify)
Spousal disputes
Natural resource
Theft and robberies
Land conflicts
Domestic violence
Commercial disputes
Debt collections
Property rights
SGBV
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 13a: Total Number of Justice Access Points Mentioned
Respondents had the choice of listing more than one access point. Figure 13a 
summarizes the number of justice access points respondents indicated. Of the nine 
types of conflicts, SGBv had the largest range of possible justice access points.
It was also the conflict type that attracted the least preference for the use of 
Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism (I-ADRM)9
. For all other forms 
of conflicts, respondents cited I-ADRMs more than 80% of the time as their preferred 
access point. In the case of SGBv, the combination of indigenous conflict resolution 
mechanisms constituted 65% of the options of justice access points respondents 
considered using (Figure 13b).
Figure 13c presents the distribution of choices among the full range of conflict 
resolution mechanisms for the different types of conflicts. It shows that respondents 
preferred to take different conflicts to different justice access points. For instance, 
except for spousal disputes, clan heads and elders were the most popular points
for redress for all categories of conflicts, including SGBv. For spousal disputes, 
family heads were preferred. Traditional chiefs followed clan heads and elders as the 
preferred dispensers of justice, except in the case of domestic violence, where heads 
of families were preferred. Religious leaders hardly counted as mediators, arbitrators,
9 I-ADRM comprises recourse to heads of families, clan heads and elders, traditional chiefs and community 
elders, and religious leaders for the resolution of disputes.
EVALUATION FINDINGS
31 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
10.3 41.2 33.3 11.2 4.0
Land conflicts 96.2
Spousal disputes 98.3
Domestic violence 96.4
SGBV 65.8
Theft and robberies 84.8
Debt collections 91.9
Natural resource 95.2
Commercial disputes 91.7
Property rights 92.9
020 40 60 80 100%
Figure 13b: Percentage Preference for IADRM
Land conflicts
Spousal disputes
Domestic violence
SGBV 0.6
0.5
2.4
1.5
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.4
0.6
2.7
Theft and robberies
Debt collections 0.5
Natural resource 0.5
Commercial disputes 0.5
1.1
Property rights
44.0 31.1
0.8
3.9
0 20 40 60 80 100%
a 
Head
of family
b 
Clan
head elders
c 
Traditional 
chief
d 
Religious 
leader
e 
Police
f 
District
county court
Figure 13c Percentage Distribution of Justice Access Points by Type of Conflict
9.3 28.9 27.0 21.7 12.5
13.7 48.8 33.3
46.3 29.5 21.0
31.5 37.8 26.0
19.9 41.6 30.0 4.7 3.4
11.2 49.7 33.8 3.7
10.2 44.3 36.5 4.6 3.7
17.0 3.2
EVALUATION FINDINGS
32 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
negotiators, or facilitators of conflict resolution processes in the estimation of 
respondents for the different kinds of conflicts listed. Similarly, respondents did not 
view the police or district courts, which are the entry points for state-sponsored 
formal justice, as primary access points for justice, except in the case of SGBv, thefts 
and robberies. In such cases these points received more than 10% mention among the 
possible redress options available to respondents.
The findings suggest that I-ADRM is a complex system of differing forms of justice, 
led by various actors, who specialize in handling specific types of issues and 
complaints. Clients seek redress from the service provider that most appropriately 
responds to their issue or needs. Therefore, I-ADRM trainings should be customized to 
recognize this complexity.
3.5.2 ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR WOMEN
Male hyper-masculinity and the culture of violence that subjects women to rape, 
domestic violence, and other gender-based abuses continue to afflict post-conflict 
Liberia. However, owing to cultural, economic and other barriers, women—especially 
in rural areas— are largely unable to access justice. The C4P baseline survey 
established that “Although women are affected by land disputes, [they] do not 
participate in the resolution of land disputes.”10
C4P aimed to enhance women’s access to justice through strengthening I-ADRMs 
within communities. The evaluation sought to establish to what extent respondents 
believed women were likely to receive a fair hearing over:
1. Conflicts regarding land ownership
2. Disputes with spouse
3. Domestic violence
4. Sexual and gender-based violence
5. Property theft
6. Debt owed to women by a community member
7. Disputes over natural resources, e.g., water, grazing fields, mining areas
8. Commercial disputes such as breach of business contracts
9. Dispute over property rights and inheritance
Figure 14 shows that more than 80% of respondents consistently felt women had a 
chance of getting a fair hearing for all the listed conflicts either “to a very high extent” 
or to “a high extent”. Even in the case of SGBv, respondents’ belief that the chances 
of women getting justice “to a very high extent” surpassed similar ratings for the 
other types of conflicts listed. Disaggregated by gender, the results show that more 
than 80% of women consistently supported the view that they have a “very high” or 
“high chances” of getting fair hearings for all the listed conflicts. Figure 15 presents 
the breakdown in the level of belief on this among women. It shows that even in
conflicts directly affecting women such as domestic violence, SGBv and spousal 
disputes, women consistently believed their chances of getting fair hearing were “very 
high” and to a “high extent.”
10 Catholic Relief Services and USAID (2017) Connect for Peace (C4P) Baseline Evaluation Report, p.17
EVALUATION FINDINGS
33 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
Property rights 0.5
2.8
Commercial disputes 0.5
4.6
Natural resource
 13.9
Debt collections 0.5
2.1
Theft and robberies
 3.2
SGBV 0.5
9.3
Domestic violence 0.5
3.5
Spousal disputes 0.5
Land conflicts
 3.7
0 20 40 60 80 100%
1
Very high 
extent
2
High 
extent
3
Some 
extent
5
Notatall
6
Can’t tell
Figure 14: Summary of Responses on Women’s Access to Fair Hearing on Different Types of Conflict
The findings in this evaluation indicate observable shifts in perceptions of the I-ADRM 
compared with views expressed in the baseline survey. While the use of I-ADRMs is a 
default option for most community members in both the baseline and this evaluation, 
the baseline established that “men [were] more satisfied with resolutions from local 
leaders” than women.11
11 Catholic Relief Services and USAID (2017) Connect for Peace (C4P) Baseline Evaluation Report, p. 23
10.7
12.3
13.9
11.4
9.0
38.5 43.2 5.3
10.7
17.9 63.3 11.8 4.4
18.8 63.3 11.8
21.3 62.6
16.2 64.5
11.6 69.6
14.2 70.1
15.3 69.8
22.0 59.6
EVALUATION FINDINGS
34 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
Indeed, women in the baseline survey had consistently expressed less confidence in 
the ability of I-ADRMs to deliver the justice they wanted. In the baseline survey, fewer 
women (31.7%) said they had “confidence in their community’s I-ADRM structure/s to 
successfully mitigate or resolve conflict” than men (35.0%). The data further showed 
that men were more likely to express their confidence in the I-ADRMs at higher levels 
such as “very comfortable,” “very capable,” and “always.” Men were also more likely 
to say they were “very comfortable” with seeking justice through an I-ADRM, and they 
were more likely than women to view traditional leaders as “very capable” in resolving 
conflicts. Finally, men were more likely to be always satisfied with a resolution 
compared to women.12
Results of various crosstabulations reported in Tables 1 to 3 of Appendix 5 of this 
evaluation confirm that women’s confidence in I-ARDMs to deliver justice for gender 
and sexual based conflicts has improved. As a result of C4P, the general population, 
and particularly women, demonstrate a higher confidence in dispute resolution 
processes led by family heads, clan heads, traditional authorities, and to a lesser 
extent, religious leaders than from the formal state justice system. Respondents 
preferred to use one or another I-ADRM access points because they believed that 
they would get a fairer hearing than from the state system.
Land conflicts
Spousal disputes
Domestic violence
SGBV
Theft and robberies
Debt collections
Natural resource
Commercial disputes
Property rights
0 20 40 60 80 100%
1
Very high 
extent
2
High 
extent
Figure 15 Perception of Female Respondents on The Chances of Women Getting a Fair Hearing on Different 
Types of Conflicts
3.5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF CP4 TO CAPACITY BUILDING OF I-ADRMS
A major thrust of the C4P project was to increase access to justice in Nimba County 
through building the capacity of I-ADRMs to achieve the following objectives:
„ Traditional leaders have knowledge and skills needed to administer justice at the 
community level
„ Community members have greater confidence in traditional justice system
12 Catholic Relief Services and USAID (2017) Connect for Peace (C4P) Baseline Evaluation Report, p. 37–38
17.6 
19.0
21.4
36.7
14.8
11.9
11.4
16.7
19.5
64.8
61.9
61.4
44.3
70.5
71.4
70.0
65.2
66.2
EVALUATION FINDINGS
35 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
„ There is increased citizens’ use of indigenous I-ADRM
„ Citizens have increased satisfaction in use of I-ADRM
„ There is increased hope of women for justice in I-ADRM
The evaluation asked respondents to indicate to what extent the C4P project had:
„ given local chiefs and elders the knowledge and skills they need to resolve conflicts 
effectively
„ created greater confidence in the traditional justice system
„ increased citizens’ use of I-ADRMs to resolve conflicts
„ increased the level of satisfaction of citizens in the use of I-ADRMs to resolve 
conflicts
„ given women greater hope to resolve disputes through I-ADRMs
General Consensus on Enhanced Access to Justice through I-ADRM: Figure 16 shows 
that more than 80% of respondents consistently said C4P had enhanced the delivery 
of justice through I-ADRMs and that citizens of Nimba County were accessing and 
were highly satisfied with I-ADRM services.
Increased hope for women 0.7
Increased satisfaction 0.2
Increasedpatronage 0.5
Greater confidence 0.5
Increased capacity of traditional leaders 0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100%
1
Very high 
extent
2
High 
extent
3
Some 
extent
5
Notatall
6
Can’t tell
Figure 16 Summary of Recuslts - Perceived Contribution of C4P Enhanced ADRM Capacity In Nimba County
The survey findings on access to justice hold true across communities and age and 
gender categories. FGD participants agreed that C4P interventions contributed to 
increased access to justice, especially for women. In Bahn, traditional leaders credited
54.1 8.4
24.1 62.4 9.3 3.7
20.2 63.1 12.5 3.7
20.2 61.9 13.0 4.6
29.9 56.1 8.8 4.4
33.4 3.9
EVALUATION FINDINGS
36 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
3.
“Yes, women can 
now expect justice. 
However, having 
access to justice
is not the same as 
having fairness in the 
treatment of cases. 
For example, rape 
cases are usually 
compromised or 
suppressed through 
behind the scene 
manoeuvres
by men.”
—WOMAN 1, BAHN 
CITY, ABOUT 
ACCESS TO 
JUSTICE NOT SAME 
AS FAIRNESS
C4P for giving “us knowledge to resolve conflicts” (Elder #4). Female participant #4 
added: “We were trained to mediate conflict resolution so that we can help the chiefs 
to solve disputes.” An elder commented that C4P capacity building training had “… 
helped us to resolve a land dispute; we did land demarcation to resolve the conflicts” 
(Elder #6). With respect to women’s access to justice, participants in the Mahdiaplay 
FGD for women said that “Women feel they can get justice” because of the capacities 
they have obtained through the C4P project. Notably, in Mahdiaplay, the community 
chief is a woman, and she was trained in I-ADRMs. Affirming her increased skills, the 
Chief said: “I attended the one-month training session. I learned a lot about alternative 
dispute resolution. It changed the way I used to handle conflicts. I think I now judge 
cases more fairly” (Mahdiaplay—Female village Chief).
FGD participants cited several advantages that I-ARDMs offer including physical 
proximity, cultural appropriateness and relevance, reliance on customary laws and 
practices, respect for local values and beliefs; cost-effectiveness, and participatory 
approaches. Although processes are led by community elders, everyone can 
participate in the deliberations. There is also renewed confidence in the fairness of the 
system owing to the enhanced capacity of the administrators of the system through 
the training they received from the C4P project. The weakness/absence of the formal 
state system in most communities also explain this preference.
I-ADRM limitations: Despite these positive views of C4P’s enhancement of I-ADRM 
capacity, FGD participants were keenly aware that I-ADRMs have their challenges. 
Community elders recognized that traditional law was not best suited to handle 
criminal cases, and was not always in conformity with modern law (Bahn FGD).
Additionally, as one participant in the FOMTUL FGD noted, “Chiefs have their own 
law; many are in conflict with national laws…Chiefs’ law provides faster justice, but 
not necessarily fair justice and punishments are harsh, e.g. tying down someone in a 
river for three days” (R#4). However, as another participant observed: “distinguishing 
between harmful and nonharmful traditional practices is often problematic.
Sometimes traditional systems of punishment are more effective, but contested by 
human rights organizations” (R#1, FOMTUL).
Limitations to women’s access to justice in I-ADRMs: As one female participant in 
the Bahn FGD pointed out, having access to justice is not equivalent to having access 
to fairness, as the male-dominated traditional leadership structures, and by extension, 
indigenous justice administration structures and processes, are wont to suppress 
some SGBv cases. SGBv-related disputes scored lowest on recourse to family and 
clan heads for resolution. Because rape cases involve criminality, people feel they 
should be handled by the state justice system— despite little trust in the fairness of 
state justice. In the words of another woman, “Women are double victims because at 
the court, women lose because they have no money to bribe” (Female participant #2, 
Bahn, FGD). In sum, while women were thankful to have increased access to justice 
within their communities, the quality and fairness of justice remained inadequate.
“
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
37 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
4. Reflections onFindings
I am a victim of the 
war. During the war 
an armed young 
man from another 
village came and 
took away my wife, 
leaving me with the 
children. I was very 
bitter and would 
have killed the man 
if I had a chance.
But now, we have 
reconciled. The same 
man now comes to 
visit me, stays with 
me and my children. 
All because I learned 
to forgive him 
through the
C4P workshops.”
—MALE FGD 
PARTICIPANT, 
BAHN, PERSONAL 
TESTIMONY 
REGARDING 
RECONCILING 
WITH THE ENEMY
This section offers the evaluator’s reflections on the main findings. C4P aimed to 
promote peace, reconciliation, and social cohesion through creating opportunities for 
citizens of Nimba County to bind, bond, and build bridges within and across historical 
and contemporary lines of division. These divisions were founded on land disputes, 
interethnic rivalries and clashes, ethno-religious differences, and limited state 
capacity for delivery of justice and promotion of peaceful resolution of disputes. The 
project sought to rebuild mutual trust between citizens of Nimba and promote social 
cohesion on the horizontal and vertical planes to sustain and grow the peace in Nimba 
County to contribute to peace writ large in Liberia.
In the context of fratricidal post-conflict societies, scars remain long after the 
cessation of hostilities. Memories last long, and the wounds of war heal slowly. 
Reconciliation is a process that takes its own pace. Patience is required. In such 
contexts, peace is a plant that must take root before it can grow and bear fruit. To 
thrive, the roots must go deep and wide to anchor the plant in times of stress.
Findings from this evaluation indicate that C4P has successfully sowed seeds for 
change. However, drastic changes in perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and 
practices rarely occur in a three-year timeframe. It will take years to reconstruct the 
historical narratives that caused Liberia’s civil war, and to rebuild the cultural value 
systems destroyed by the violence. C4P interventions need to be reinforced, and 
replicated in other communities to bring impactful change to scale.
Evaluation participants noted changes that they consider significant markers of 
success of the C4P project. These include the observation that, although currently on 
a low scale, Mandingos are accepting people from different ethnic backgrounds to 
marry their daughters. This was unthinkable previously. Participants also noted the 
downward trend of tribalism in politics in Nimba County as evidenced by the finding 
that the majority of respondents discount ethnicity in their voting criteria, especially 
for president. Houses and other property of Mandingoes that were confiscated or 
occupied by natives of Bahn are being returned to their original owners. The process 
is slow, but it is working, as a Mandingo elder observed (Bahn FGD). As the mayor
of Bahn put it, “peace is coming to us. Lamine and I used to be afraid of each other 
after the civil war, but now he and I can visit each other (Mayor, Bahn City). Textbox 5 
illustrates how interpersonal reconciliation is taking root in communities.
The findings of the evaluation also provide pointers to what C4P partners need to 
do, moving forward, to consolidate the gains made and spread the benefits of the 
project to other communities. Key among the markers of success are the following 
project outcomes:
“
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
38 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
4.1 RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS OF PROJECT DESIGN
4.1.1 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SOCIAL COHESION ACHIEVEMENTS
FGD participants credited C4P for supporting intra- and inter-ethnic trust and 
engagements in their communities. The following examples given in FGDs affirm the 
relevance and appropriateness of C4P strategy and project design:
Horizontal Social Cohesion (HSC)
„ Connector projects implemented by kinship groups (Hometown Associations) are 
promoting horizontal social interaction, peace and reconciliation;
„ Conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation trainings provided by C4P partners 
(MARWOPNET and NCJPC) have contributed to sustained peace and have 
reconciled conflicted communities across Nimbacounty;
„ Communal farms tended by C4P beneficiaries and SILC groups that have 
incorporated people from different ethnic groups have strengthened social ties and 
built mutual trust among different ethnic groups;
„ Mandingoes are allowing their women to marry men of other ethnicities;
„ Women belonging to farming cooperatives are now able to send their children and 
family members to school. Their cooperatives provide loans that empower their 
members from different ethnicbackgrounds;
„ People of mixed ethnic groups (Gio, Mano and Mandingo) are working together to 
support their kinship communities; they have begun attending childbirth, dowry 
payment, bereavement and religious festivals across ethnic and religious divides.
Vertical Social Cohesion (VSC)
„ Many Nimba residents no longer consider the ethnic backgrounds of presidential, 
senatorial and representative candidates as the deciding factor in their voting;
„ I-ADRMs are working effectively and strengthening the relationship between 
traditional leaders and ordinary citizens. The utilization of the I-ADRMs by residents 
and local leaders has reduced the number of dispute cases taken to the formal 
judicial system for adjudication;
„ In some communities, youth and elders have begun to work together on community 
development projects.
The findings indicate that vSC requires much more strengthening before it 
crystallizes. Citizen-police contacts and engagements remain very limited, even 
in Sannequellie-Mah district, the host district of Nimba County. Communities 
further away from the county seat exhibit less engagement with the police on 
safety and security. In general, citizens still feel alienated from the state. Limited
engagement with county and district officials outside electoral periods is the norm, 
and there is no evidence of district or community-wide engagement based on 
interest group agendas. Members of FOMTUL, for example, transported ballots 
and elections materials during the last election, but did not develop a collective
agenda. Communities need to leverage electoral opportunities and advocate for their 
collective interests to shape campaign platforms.
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
39 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
“CRS has done a 
lot. Most cyclists 
are focusing on 
their development. 
Members have 
returned to school 
and some have 
farms. There is
no more violence 
amongst us and 
with other agencies”
—PARTICIPANT #6, 
FGD, FOMTUL
4.1.2 EMPOWERMENT OF MINORITY GROUPS THROUGH INCREASING 
VOICE AND INFLUENCE:
The vSC initiatives of C4P aimed to give voice and influence to communities on issues 
that affected their lives and livelihoods. The objective was to “…offer opportunities for 
communities and CSOs in Nimba County to voice their concerns and grievances, and 
provide government a chance to listen and to be heard on issues such as land tenure; 
negotiations for granting concessions; public tendering; natural resource exploitation; 
and delivery of essential services such as road construction, potable water, electricity, 
education and healthcare.”
Evaluation findings suggest that while the project was successful in creating spaces 
for citizen engagement through durbars, self-initiated engagements between citizens 
and civil authorities were few. Poor roads and communication infrastructure partly 
explain the lack of contact, but community members failed to capitalize on electoral 
platforms to articulate and feed their demands into debates and manifestoes of the 
political parties or candidates that came to solicit their votes. In the FOMTUL FGD 
participants announced their intention to run their members for the National House 
of Representatives in the 2023 general elections. They attributed this vision to C4P’s 
visioning and capacity buildingexercises.
However, FOMTUL represents a small 
segment of youth in Nimba County. 
Reaching a broader cross-section of 
youth to trigger a groundswell of change 
remains a challenge. FOMTUL members 
have coalesced around their collective 
economic interests. To exercise collective 
voice, youth groups will need to organize 
around their interests.
The evaluation found that access to 
justice had increased for women, and
younger women were more aggressively asserting their right to marry across ethnic 
and religious lines. SILC and other economic activities were empowering women
to speak in public spaces without feeling threatened. However, the scale and depth 
of initiatives to increase women’s voice and influence need to be broadened and 
deepened for more impactful change.
4.1.3 ADDRESSING FELT NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES FOR PEACE 
AND SOCIALCOHESION
The relevance of the project strategies 
and activities to addressing felt 
community needs was apparent in 
connector projects. As highlighted in 
the findings under subsection 3.2.2, 
communities across Nimba County 
rallied around community infrastructure 
development and improvement such
as the building or improvement of 
roads, bridges, schools, and clinics.
The journey to Gomahplay from Blemieplay for 
evaluation interviews. Only FOMTUL members 
could get the team there. The bridge, however, 
would not take passengers sitting upon 
motorcycles.
“
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
40 / ENDLINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
These projects succeeded in bringing community members to work together across 
age, gender, ethnic, and religious divides. C4P’s support to community members to 
undertake these projects, often in collaboration with their Monrovia-based Hometown 
Association members, was critical in generating the level of vertical and horizontal 
social cohesion reported in this evaluation.
4.1.4 ENHANCING ACCESS TOJUSTICE
Alongside the connector projects, training for I-ADRM practitioners delivered relevant 
knowledge and skills for peacebuilding. In the opinions of FGD participants, I-ADRM 
training equipped traditional leaders to perform more effectively in their roles as 
chiefs and elders. This improvement boosted the confidence of citizens to seek justice 
through such mechanisms. FOMTUL members also found the training in non-violent 
conflict resolution highly useful.
Survey respondents, including women, indicated their belief that because of the I-ADRMs, 
access to justice for women had increased. Women also praised SILC as highly beneficial 
to their needs and families. In Mahdiaplay, women participating in SILC proudly showed 
the evaluation team their new guest house, which was under construction.
4.1.5 SELECTION OF TARGET PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The project strategy of targeting women and youth with specialized initiatives was 
extremely relevant because officials and community members frequently viewed 
youth as “the obstacles” to peace (Bahn FGD, Elected Male Community Leader). 
(Woman #1, Bahn FGD), and women were empowered to speak out at public 
meetings. FOMTUL members affirmed the transformative effects of this targeting on 
their members. Some members returned to school (Textbox 6), FOMTUL members “… 
want more training because new members are coming on board every time and need 
training every three to four months” (FOMTUL FGD, Participant #2).
4.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
4.2.1 SUCCESS FACTORS
C4P reduced dispute cases brought to the town chiefs and elders for resolution; 
supported connector projects such as road-side brush clearing, rehabilitated bridges, 
and built community infrastructure. The project also assisted community groups
to organize sports tournaments, to farm communally, and to fund-raise for local 
development projects. Respondents cited increased cross-ethnic participation in 
child dedication ceremonies and religious festivals, and robust membership in SILC. 
Success factors included:
i. Consultative project implementation: Participants noted that project implementers 
created the space and provided the technical and material resources that enabled 
communities to deliberate, choose and undertake activities that met their needs. 
C4P small grants for connector projects stimulated discussions, planning, and 
engagement of community members on a wide range of development projects. 
This process enhanced community ownership and pride in the outcomes. In 
addition, the 3Bs/4Ds methodology contributed to healing, reconciliation, and 
social cohesion in the participatingcommunities.
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
41 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
ii. Community leadership in project implementation: The P2P approach enlisted the 
active participation of county and community leaders. At the county level, officials 
in Sanequellie were appreciative that CRS informed them when they came through 
to the communities. At the community level, by recognizing and leveraging the 
potential of local leaders, C4P placed value on local knoin systems, structures, and 
leaders.By building capacity to administer justice and lead connector projects, C4P 
reaffirmed the value of local institutions and processes for local governance and 
conflict management.
iii. Connector projects: Connector projects enabled the communities to focus on their 
immediate needs, which triggered and sustained interest to actively participate in 
the project. As one FGD participant observed “CP4 has brought a lot of changes. 
For example, in the SILC all ethnic groups come together. All ethnic groups partake 
in development work” (FGD, Bahn City, Male #11). In Mahdiaplay, the women’s FGD 
also observed that youth were working together with the elders in the community 
on development projects.
iv. Ability to demonstrate concrete peace dividends: The inclusion of the Small Grants 
Fund attracted Hometown Associations to the project because grants allowed 
communities to undertake projects of their choice and offered a quick, direct, and 
concrete way to demonstrate the dividends of peace and social cohesion. As one 
FGD participant put it, “we learned about the culture of peace” (FGD, Bahn City, 
Mandingo Elder, #2). Another added that through the project they learned about 
the “need to rally round as brothers and sisters to make peace happen. Need to 
forget the past” (FGD, Bahn City, Male, #1).
v. Youth Peace Ambassadors: The war years had reversed roles between youth 
and community elders, and upended social and political order. Disrespect for 
elders amounted to a breakdown of law and order. Focusing on youth as active 
agents of peace enabled communities to restore customary values and revitalize 
intergenerational relationships.
4.4.2 RECOGNIZING AND MANAGING LINGERING CHALLENGES
Despite the successes, respondents and FGD participants noted challenges regarding 
youth. FGD participants in Bahn still believe “youth are the obstacles [to peace
and social cohesion because] when they go behind the leaves (bushes), they take 
drugs— leading to rudeness and stealing. The youth between 18-25 years are the 
trouble causers. Youth are very aggressive” (Elected Community Leader). A female 
participant believed that the music youth listen to was radicalizing and miseducating 
them. The “music is full of abusive language which the youth imbibe” (Woman #4). As 
a result, “the youth do not respect elders” (Man #1).
However, participants rejected blanket characterizations of youth as unhelpful since 
“youth are not homogenous. There are calm ones, others are not. So, we have very 
good ones and bad ones” (Man #1). Hence, “it all depends [what kind of youth one is 
dealing with]; some youth take advice, others do not. Also, deviant behavior and peer 
pressure is reality. [Nonetheless], change is taking place. The youth are now listening 
to advice of parents” (Woman #3, Bahn). Another elder said that he sees change as 
youth are ”now working together on each other’s farms” (Man #6, Bahn).
The Bahn debates about the dual perception of the youth as conflict actors or 
peace agents underscored the urgency to focus on youth as change agents. Youth 
constitute more than 60% of Liberia’s population, but have limited education, skills, 
and suffer from trauma they experienced as child soldiers.
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
42 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
4.3 PROJECT EFFICIENCY
4.3.1 PROJECT EFFICIENCY FACTORS
Assessment of cost-efficiency of the C4P project was beyond the scope of this 
assignment. This report considers C4P’s efficiency in delivering project services.
Choice of partners: C4P’s efficiency in service delivery is most evident in the choice 
and use of local implementing partners— JPC, MARWOPNET, and FOMTUL. All 
partners have a longstanding presence, relationships, and legitimacy in the project 
communities that predate the project. They had name recognition in the project 
communities and evaluation team members gained access and acceptance for field 
work in the communities only when they mentioned the name of the partner institution 
working with them on the project in that community. In discussing the C4P project, 
community members referenced JPC, MARWOPNET or FOMTUL. These partners had
i) access to wide and varied networks and groups that they mobilized to participate in 
the project; ii) deep penetration into the communities beyond the district and county 
capital that permitted a wider reach of project interventions; iii) legitimacy within the 
participating communities due to their prior work with them; and iv) prior experience 
and expertise in community mobilization and peacebuilding work. Tapping into these 
partner resources enabled the project to reach distant, isolated communities.
i. Strategic leveraging of indigenous capacities: Leveraging existing structures, 
knowledge systems, and practices of indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms to 
spread and deepen access to justice create new structures allowed C4P to make 
maximum use of its 36-month lifespan.
ii. Training and capacity building methods: Evaluation participants uniformly rated 
the training workshops as “very efficient” in delivering project interventions. Rather 
than taking people out of their environments and into county and national capitals, 
training was largely held in or near the communities. Participants appreciated this 
decentralized approach because it allowed other community members to witness 
the training that their leaders experienced. In field interviews, all FGD participants 
indicated their awareness that their leaders had been trained. The women in 
Mahdiaplay said they initiated their Guest House project because they wanted the 
trainers to stay with them in their community, instead of having to shuttle daily 
from Sanequeillie.
“I am a peacemaker. I serve as a ToT agent using outreach to send the peace 
messages to other members who did not attend the training. I work to protect the 
reputation of FOMTUL against infiltrators who use our name to commit crimes. I 
also insist with our members that we should allow the law to take its own course. 
For instance, the recent killing of one of our members by a police officer (six days 
prior to FGD event) compounded grievances for many other previous cases. The 
members therefore gathered to seek vengeance on the police. In response, the 
Police called for reinforcement. I had to intervene and ask our members to allow 
the police to do the investigations. This helped to diffuse potential riot. If this
had happened before this training, we would have attacked the Police without 
hesitation. I am an ex-fighter and there is no weapon I cannot handle. I can assure 
you we would have attacked them.”
—PARTICIPANT, FGD, GANTA, SPEAKING ABOUT A PERSONAL 
TRANSFORMATION AS A RESULT OF PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS
“
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
43 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
4.3.2 EFFICIENCY CHALLENGES
Reliance on in situ training events to initiate and disseminate project messages, however, 
limited the spatial reach and depth of the project. While workshops are unavoidable as 
outlets for knowledge and skills dissemination, use of radio broadcasts would have helped 
take the messages of peace and social cohesion further and deeper. Structured and 
synchronized radio programs in local languages could have opened the door to drama, 
hosted call-in talk shows, and broad public discussions of social cohesion.
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
4.4.1 OPPORTUNITIES FORSUSTAINABILITY
Building local capacity for peace was the core of CRS’ sustainability plan for C4P. 
Hence, the training of local traditional leaders and elders, as well as youth and 
women’s groups on various aspects of peacebuilding, justice promotion, and social 
cohesion was intended to increase knowledge and improve skills leading to changes 
in attitudes, beliefs, values, and practices to uphold a culture of peace. The connector 
projects were also expected to demonstrate the benefits of communities working 
together and foster peace, social cohesion, and development. Overall, communities 
expressed high interest to sustain the interventions beyond the life of the project.
4.4.2 CHALLENGES TOSUSTAINABILITY
The evaluation noted concerns about internal and external factors and forces that 
undermine sustainability. Critical among these were:
Capacity limitations. Capacity limitations included the age and limited number of
I-ADRM trainees. To sustain the capacity needed for effective and efficient I-ADRMs, 
a system of recruitment, training, and retraining additional/replacements is essential. 
In addition, FOMTUL members require refresher training to sustain a culture of 
nonviolence because new members are added daily to the ranks of drivers. Further,
C4P engagement with FOMTUL is limited to Nimba County. Even then, not all members 
of FOMTUL in Nimba County have benefitted from the training. To ensure progress 
toward peace writ large, training for other members of the Federation in and outside 
Nimba County, and beyond FOMTUL members, is essential. Formation of peace 
committees offers another means to institutionalize a culture of peace by capacitating 
peace committee members to conduct refresher and in-service training for I-ADRMs.
Political Interference. FOMTUL members expressed their frustration with attempts 
by some politicians to create disunity by sponsoring rival unions to negatively 
compete with them. As one member noted “Government is the problem. CRS helped 
us to develop a vision and a plan for FOMTUL. We want one union, but the State
is creating its unions. Right now, Nimba City has three unions” (Participant # 8). 
Fracturing of FOMTUL is viewed as an attempt by political elite to disrupt, subjugate, 
control and the operations of FOMTUL for their parochial agendas. FOMTUL members 
fear that the growth of such disruptive activities risk triggering violent encounters 
between the rival unions.
Competitive business tensions with drivers. FOMTUL members also complained 
about the aggression and reckless driving behaviors that drivers of commercial 
vehicles such as taxis and passenger buses exhibited towards them. These drivers 
see FOMTUL members as taking away their business. Hence, they tailgate the
REFLECTIONS ON FINDINGS
44 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
4.
motorcyclists or try to edge them off the road. FOMTUL members fear this growing 
aggression as a provocation that will trigger violent confrontations, thereby 
undermining commitment to peace.
Confrontation between tradition and modernity. Community members complained 
bitterly about their inability to bring up their children the way they want because
of the interference of human rights concepts and groups. In their view, the major 
challenge to peace was that “our kids are not trained; western education is destroying 
them; they have no culture. Now, a child can slap you when you are correcting them. 
But you cannot train a child alone” lamented a mayor in one FGD. Another said “we 
could correct our children, but for the interference of human rights groups who jump 
in [and make us] put away our culture” (Man #8, FDG, Bahn). A female participant 
echoed that “yes this human rights culture has killed our culture” (Woman #5, FGD, 
Bahn). A Mandingo elder added that “Western child rights concepts are destroying 
us” (Male #5), with his colleague adding that these days, “saying sorry no longer 
exists; and that is the problem. Government stopped discipline in schools because of 
human rights. Human rights are causing the conflict” (Male #7). A Gio elder added 
that “in Gio culture, we say the mind of a child is blank and we need training to fill it 
with knowledge. But that practice is lost now” (Man 4). In sum, “human rights have 
overruled everything because European law [which is imposed on us] gives all rights 
to kids” (Mayor).
Although these concerns mainly arose from older FGD participants, they were a 
much-debated issue among FOMTUL members in the Ganta FGD where members 
felt the loss of cultural training undermined social harmony and cohesion. As the 
president of the union summed it: “we are losing our communal responsibility for 
collective education and welfare of children […] children are losing basic courtesy.” 
He cited the example of how “a student beat up a teacher” in a recent incident in 
one of the schools . He added that it was important for “the western system [of
education] to be modelled on traditional system e.g., the Bush school. We have values 
of Liberian culture in the curriculum, but this is not taught in school. There is the
need to incorporate the Poro and Sande into the school system. Neglect has led to 
indiscipline” (Ganta, FOMTUL FGD). There was applause from the FGD on this point.
In sum, the evaluation noted issues of political interference, negative competition, 
and resistance to western cultural worldviews as potential disrupters to the formation 
of a viable interest-based association for FOMTUL civic engagement. Such threats 
need not undermine peace and social cohesion if they are openly acknowledged
and addressed. CRS and partners may not have the capacities and power to directly 
address these concerns, but they can convey to citizen groups the methods and skills 
that have proven effective in helping leaders and ordinary citizens engage peacefully 
in the messy and at times highly contentious change process.
KEY LESSONS AND GOOD PRACTICES
45 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
5.
5. Key Lessons and Good 
Practices
5.1 NIMBA COUNTY RESIDENTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO
ENGAGE ECONOMICALLY THAN SOCIALLY
The midterm evaluation had established that “Social interactions among Gio, Mano 
and Mandingo ethnic groups still remain a challenge [as only] 39% of respondents 
said that they socialize with all ethnic groups though 54% of all respondents said 
that all ethnic groups work together frequently on town issues.”13 The midterm 
evaluation then attributed the willingness of different ethnic groups to work together 
on communal projects to the sense of “shared pride”14 that they derived from
such projects. Whereas the midterm evaluation did not disaggregate findings for 
community, social and economic groups, the endline evaluation established that 
while 61.9% of respondents said they belonged to economic groups, only 40.1% of 
respondents said they belonged to social groups (see Figure 5 in the report). The 
findings on membership of social groups is only marginally higher than the findings of 
the midterm evaluation (Figure 6 in the report). If citizens in Nimba County are more 
likely to engage economically than socially across ethnic lines, activities like SILC and 
training for FOMTUL offer attractive entry points for bridging and interaction.
5.2 THE 4DS LAYERED ON THE 3BS HAS CONTRIBUTED 
TO RELATIONAL CHANGE
The 4Ds component of C4P permitted participants to re-engineer narratives through 
discovery, dream, design and delivery processes. Communities in conflict (re)created 
positive relationships through constructive reinterpretation of historical narratives and 
events, which enabled then to address cultural, psychological, social, and economic 
barriers, and to create new, visionary, more inclusive, and development-oriented 
visions of peaceful coexistence.
FOMTUL members reimaged themselves away from violence to being peace 
ambassadors. “Cyclists are now peace ambassadors. We usually intervene in conflicts 
and we use peaceful means to reduce conflicts” (FGD, Ganta, Participant #4).
Similarly, women no longer see themselves as voiceless victims in their communities. 
They have found their voices to engage with men in community dialog sessions, and 
intermarriages between Muslim-Mandingo girls and non-Muslim men are redefining 
the identities and interaction boundaries between Mandingos, Gios, Manos, and 
other ethnic groups in Nimba County. Change will be slow, but healing, reconciliation,
peace, and social cohesion are evident. For change to become more fully cultural and 
structural requires nurturing and accompaniment from C4P partners and others to 
keep the flame alive and spreading to other communities.
13 Catholic Relief Services (2019) Connect for Peace (C4P) Midterm Evaluation Report Background 
document on Evaluator’s file, p. 11
14 Ibid., p. 12
KEY LESSONS AND GOOD PRACTICES
46 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
5.
5.3 INTERETHNIC STEREOTYPES, PREJUDICES, AND ANIMOSITIES 
PERSIST BETWEEN GIOS AND MANOS ON THE ONE HAND, 
AND MANDINGOES ON THE OTHER
Despite gains in strengthening horizontal social cohesion in Nimba County, challenges 
to rebuilding peaceful coexistence between Gios/Manos, and Mandingoes requires a 
reengineering of trust, trade, and transactional relationships. Historically, Mandingoes 
established their presence and reputation among their host communities as traders 
who brought in goods, offered loans, and provided other goods and services.
Divided allegiances of Mandingoes and their host communities during the war erased 
trust and mutually beneficial financial transactions that had been the foundation of 
interconnectedness and interdependency. Over time, the Gios and Manos claimed a 
portion of the trade and financial services market that Mandingoes once monopolized.
These communities require ongoing assistance to repair breaches in trust, trade, 
and transactional relationships. Engaging youth in this endeavor through peace 
education and Peace Committees could provide a way forward. Children and youth 
have not encountered the same grievances and ruptures of relationships that older
Gios, Manos, and Mandingoes have experienced, and which have hardened prejudice, 
biases and reluctance to re-engage with the other.
RECOMMENDATIONS
47 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
6.
6. Recommendations
The recommendations below are offered to help take future actions to the next level 
of sustainable impact. They are not ranked, and some of the actions are cross-cutting.
6.1 BUILD ON MOMENTUM TO SPREAD PEACE AND 
RECONCILIATION BEYOND PROJECTCOMMUNITIES.
C4P interventions have unleashed the potential for peace and reconciliation in the 
participating communities. The pace of change is slow, but the communities are 
experiencing peace “small-small”, as the Bahn FGD participants captured it. To 
sustain and grow this momentum, CRS and partners need to find the ways and means 
beyond the funding cycle of the current project to intensify and spread peacebuilding 
education; support and expand the scope of the connector projects; and harvest the 
enthusiasm of community groups, as well as, cross-community associations such as 
FOMTUL to cascade out the messages of peace.
6.2 UTILIZE RADIO TO EXPAND THE REACH OF INTERVENTIONS 
INTO NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
To complement and reinforce peace education and workshops, CRS and partners 
should explore the use of radio to expand outreach into other communities.
MARWOPNET has experience running radio stations, and Radio veritas of the 
Catholic Church has a long history, legacy, and legitimacy as an advocate for peace 
and justice. It has an extensive reach as well. The scope and reach of the existing 
FM Radio infrastructure of the partners and/or their affiliates could be leveraged
to expand their programming capacity to take the peace education messages of 
C4P into homes beyond the 36 project communities. Enhanced programming that 
allows for hosted discussions in local languages with phone-in or text-in audience 
participation engagements would not only create opportunities for broader citizen 
participation, it would provide the platform for cross-community knowledge 
generation and experience-sharing to advance a collective agenda for peace.
6.3 PROMOTE SOCIAL MEDIAPLATFORMS.
Although social media is severely constrained by the deficit in telecommunication 
infrastructure, opportunities for using social media should be explored. C4P partners 
should consider providing content on the social media platforms to stimulate and 
guide engagements that promote learning and sharing on peace, reconciliation,
and social cohesion. Support for the development of social media communication 
capacities can cross-feed into the radio-based peace education programming, using 
the text-in and phone-in functionalities of smartphones.
6.4 REVIVE INDIGENOUS CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESSES.
The Mano-Mandingo-Gio conflict has deeper historical roots that cannot be 
addressed solely through trainings. It requires the creation of spaces for encounter
and dialog that allow the disputing parties to explore and use indigenous conflict
resolution processes for unearthing and airing grievances and finding mutually 
acceptable solutions. Indigenous pacification rites and customary methods of
RECOMMENDATIONS
48 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
6.
reparations, restitution, and trauma healing should be valued. verdicts at community 
levels can be vetted at district and county levels.
6.5 FOCUS ON JUSTICE FOR WOMEN.
Justice, especially in SGBv cases, does not favor women. Cognitive behavior therapy, 
“Smart Couples,” male gender champions, and positive and peaceful masculinity 
curricula and trainings have proven effective in changing attitudes and practices 
around traditional male dominance, hyper-masculinity and gender stereotypes.15 
Such activities should figure within project designs in post-conflict environments like 
Nimba County.
6.6 EXPAND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Connector projects are popular with communities because they improve physical 
infrastructure in rural communities. However, infrastructure deficits in roads, bridges,
schools and health facilities far outstrip the ability of community connector projects
to meet the need. The state must do its part, but citizens and elected and appointed 
officials are alienated from each other. Projects like C4P should intensify vSC 
activities to link citizens and public authorities, and communities must learn how
to mobilize and constructively engage state functionaries to demand their rights 
and insist on accountability from their duty bearers. C4P partners can help prepare 
communities to develop election-year agendas, and in out years, they can support 
communities to conduct social accountability.
6.7 REPLICATE THE FOMTUL MODEL OF ECONOMIC 
INTEREST-BASEDASSOCIATIONSTOMOBILIZEYOUTH 
FOR PEACE.
This evaluation established the magnetism of livelihoods as a motivator for social 
engagements across identity lines. In the Liberian context where high rates of 
youth unemployment pose real threats to peace and stability, employment provides 
a platform to mobilize and organize youth to strengthen social cohesion, grow 
peace and advance economic interests. Nimba County’s vast agricultural wealth 
offers potential for economic interest-based social cohesion, and could even serve 
neighboring Giuinea and Coted’Ivoire.
6.8 DEVELOP PEACE ARCHITECTURE IN NIMBA COUNTY.
Concerns about the erosion of traditional values owing to western education and 
influence are real, and could signal a looming culture war. FGD participants advocated 
that traditional Poro and Sande educational systems be incorporated into the formal 
school systems to redress the perceived cultural dichotomy in Liberia’s educational 
systems. C4P partners, especially the Catholic JPC and MARWOPNET, can champion 
national discussions on the issue and leverage their connections with their respective 
influential voices such as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Liberia and umbrella 
civil society groups to trigger national policy debate and action on the matter.
15 CRS publications include “Faithful House” (Smart Couples) and “Peaceful Masculinity Curriculum” 
(forthcoming 2020).
APPENDICES
49 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODS
1. EVALUATION APPROACH
1.1 USE OF SUMMATIvE, FORMATIvE AND UTILIZATION-FOCUSED 
EvALUATION PROCESSES
Based on the purpose and scope, the evaluation was designed to provide both 
formative and summative outcomes, with a learning intent in-built. The formative 
component assessed the extent of progress, relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency 
of the project implementation strategies and activities, and the implementation 
experiences of CRS, implementing partners (MARWOPNET and JPC), and other 
stakeholders, including community-based actors such as members of the FOMTUL, 
traditional leaders, mentors and trainers. The summative component assessed i)
the outcome of the interventions in promoting peace, reconciliation, and conflict 
mitigation and management in participating communities; ii) improvement in access 
to justice from enhanced capacities of local and indigenous ADRMs compared to 
the state justice system; iii) contribution to improving vertical and horizontal social 
cohesion within and between in project communities and identity groups in the
County, and iv) sustainability of the intervention outcomes and processes beyond the 
life of the project.
1.2 USE OF PARTICIPATORY AND LEARNING APPROACHES
The evaluation adopted the following participatory approaches to optimize the use of 
local talents and resources while ensuring shared learning throughout the exercise:
i. Institutional Level Participatory approaches: The use of a co-design approach 
allowed CRS and partners to lead the preliminary process for the evaluation. 
This included the framing of the evaluation questions, based on the SoW of the 
evaluation; the setting of the initial protocols for the survey; the determination 
of the sample frame and size for the survey; the recruitment and training of the 
enumerators; and the selection of evaluation communities and groups for the 
survey and FGD. Subsequent collaborative engagement with the technical lead
produced mutually agreed protocols, timeframes, and final evaluation processes.
ii. Harnessing Local Talents for Data Collection: The evaluation used 10 young 
Liberians for the survey data collection. The use of locally recruited young 
enumerators put Liberian faces on the assignment. This facilitated community 
entry, creating the rapport needed to set respondents at ease for free, open and 
frank engagements in the data collection processes.
The training of the enumerators emphasized best practices in community 
entry, interviewing skills, observation and memoing, as well as, ethics and data
protection. This enabled them to go beyond the roles of enumerators. They served 
as participatory research observers, making notes of observations of community 
environments, engagement processes, and other happenings in the evaluation 
settings that provide context and contend to explain evaluation findings. Their
APPENDICES
50 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
reflections from the After-Action sessions form part of the qualitative data that inform the findings of this 
evaluation.
The Enumerators also had an opportunity to participate in a data analysis and validation workshop, where 
they reviewed the preliminary run of the results for both the survey and the qualitative data. They then had 
the opportunity to comment on and provide further input into the findings, based on their observations and 
memos during the field processes.
For most of the enumerators, participation in this evaluation was an opportunity to get to know their 
country better (many had never seen the country outside Monrovia) and to have a better appreciation of the 
challenges that underscore the grievances of co-citizens outside Monrovia. Getting to interview their age￾peers in rural and very inaccessible communities was a key learning moment for them.
In furtherance of the learning agenda of the evaluation, the participatory approaches provided the enumerators 
opportunities to acquire important research and evaluation knowledge and skills through participation in data 
collection and analysis processes—acquiring essential knowledge and skills that CRS and partners can use later.
iii. Community Level Participatory approaches: Three focus group discussions were held— one each for the 
youth, women, and traditional leaders, in different communities. The FGDs offered participants of the 
project an opportunity to express themselves on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and outcomes 
of the project. In addition to the FGD, the evaluation teams also made observations and engaged with
community members during the transect walks through the communities to identity and interview survey 
respondents or to hold the FGD. Notes from the observations of the field staff have fed into the qualitative 
component of this study.
2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND TOOLS
2.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The evaluation used mixed methods that combined:
„ Desk review of project texts and reports, including the project documents, baseline study, mid-term 
evaluation, and other field reports to gather insights into what was planned, progress made, and other 
relevant background information. Results of the desk study informed the final design of the evaluation 
process and protocols.
„ Household Survey: covered 431 respondents in 36 selected communities across the Nimba County, as 
detailed below. Ten (10) trained enumerators carried out the surveys over a period of two weeks.
„ Focus Group Discussions: The technical lead carried out with three FGDs with key categories of actors i.e. 
a Women’s Group, Members of FOMTUL, and Traditional leaders. A fourth FGD with a youth group could 
not take place due to the truncation of the visit of the lead evaluator.
„ Field Observations and Reflection: Although enumerators had primary responsibilities for collecting the 
pre-defined quantitative data, they were also asked to take notes of any explanatory statements 
respondents gave to preface or explain their responses to any question. They were also asked to note 
any observations they may have made while walking through the community in search of interviewees. 
A post fieldwork after action reflection session created space for the enumerators to share, discuss, and 
synthesize their notes and observations into a consolidated narrative report. This report is incorporated 
as part of the data set for this evaluation, and findings made therein have been used as explanatory or 
complementary data in thereport.
„ A Most Significant Achievement (MSA) workshop with a cross section of project participants from 
selected communities/groups was planned. The MSA session was intended to create opportunities for 
project participants to establish what they considered the most significant achievement of the project 
in their respective operational areas; the criteria they used for defining success; and the factors that 
they believed contributed to the achievement of that success. It also offered an added layer of mapping,
APPENDICES
51 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
documenting, and/or validating what changes, if any, have taken place in the communities as a result of 
the project, how change happened, and what the impact of the observed change, positive or negative, 
have been on the state of peace in the 17 targeted communities of the project. However, the MSA event 
could not take place due to the truncation of the field time for the lead evaluator. This remains an 
exercise that can be done when the results of the evaluation are shared with members of participating 
communities.
2.2 DATA COLLECTION LINES OFENQUIRY
Six (6) lines of enquiry provided the frame for the evaluation protocols for both quantitative and qualitative 
components of the assignment. The predesigned protocols were used to assess:
„ Achievements: To what extent has the project achieved the planned results. This component included 
harvesting both positive and negative, planned and unplanned outcomes of the project.
„ Voice and Influence: How have the project interventions affected the ability of the participating youth, 
women, and marginalized groups to have amplified voices and influence in their communities, Districts, 
and County levels on matters that promote peace, reconciliation and social cohesion?
„ Relevance: How pertinent have the project’s strategies and activities been to addressing the felt needs of 
the communities?
„ Effectiveness: How effective were the project strategies and activities in instigating the desired changes 
at the personal, community, district and County levels for the promotion of peace, reconciliation, and 
social cohesion? This also included taking account of undesired but positive or negative changes that the 
project may have induced or contributed to.
„ Efficiency: How efficient (in terms of cost, time, and scale of delivery) were the project strategies and 
activities in delivering planned services? What were the scales of reach in comparison to the cost of 
resources, time, and effort put into the delivering of project interventions?
„ Sustainability: To what extent can communities sustain the momentum and spread of project 
interventions beyond external technical and financial support?
2.3 SAMPLING STRATEGIES, SAMPLE FRAMES, AND SIZES
Sampling for Survey: CRS and partners used the following procedures for determining and selecting 404 
interviewees for the survey. However, a total of 431 people that participated in the survey component of the 
evaluation, as explainedbelow:
„ Sample Frame Determination: This evaluation focused on the 36 communities that have participated 
directly in the Connect for Peace (C4P) project. Nimba has 712 communities across the 6 statutory districts. 
However, due to budgetary limitations and the strategic nature of the interventions of C4P, the project team 
along with USAID decided to work in 36 communities. These communities were selected based on location 
in the statutory district and the history of conflict experienced during the Liberian civil war. Nonetheless, 
there were other communities that participated in the project Open Space Theater events and district 
durbars, but those communities were accounted for under indirect beneficiaries and the level of outreach 
made in those communities seem not to be equivalent to the project communities.
„ Sample Size Determination: The sample size for the endline evaluation is based on the population of the 
Connect for Peace (C4P) project communities. The population is estimated at 143,257 leading to a sample 
size for the household survey at 404. The project team updated the sample size of the midterm and
used random selection to qualify households for the interview. The sample size was determined with the 
following formula:
APPENDICES
52 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
„ Determination of Sample Distribution: The number of interviews to be conducted in a community was 
predetermined by proportional sampling, based on the weighted population size of the community within 
the 36 targeted communities. Hence, enumerators went to each identified community with a pre-assigned 
number of interviews by gender to carry out. Appendix 2 provides details of the distribution of the 
selected communities and number of interviews to be conducted for the survey.
„ Selection of Interviewees: Since the households in the target communities were not prenumbered, 
random pre-selection of the target household for interviews was not possible. However, most 
communities were demarcated into quarters. Hence, enumerators randomly shared out the quarters 
among themselves, ensuring that each quarter was covered. To ensure randomness in the selection of 
households, and by extension the individuals to be interviewed, enumerators were trained to find the 
center of their assigned community or quarter, spin a bottle, and follow the pointed direction to get to the 
first household. They requested interviews from the first person 18 years or older and of sound mind who 
agreed to be interviewed. If the first person declined, they asked the next until they secured an interview. 
If they failed to secure an interview in the first household, they went to the next house in the direction 
they faced coming out of the first household.
Enumerators chose the subsequent households by following the direction they faced coming out of their 
first and subsequent interviews. They repeated this process until they secured the required number of 
interviews assigned them. A field supervisor shuttled between enumerators, tallying the gender distribution 
of interviews already carried out and providing guidance to the teams on the gender of their next contacts 
for interviews. This ensured that the gender proportionality of interviewees assigned per community was 
respected.
During the field data collection, however, several community members (both men and women, young and 
old) insisted on being included in the interview, even when the enumerators had reached the total number of 
interviews assigned for their respective communities. Enumeration Team Leaders were authorized to make 
judgment calls to include such persons if i) the inclusion afforded greater diversity (gender, age, ethnic, 
religious) diversity in the interviews in the community; ii) there was time to do it. Consequently, the total 
number of interviews admitted into the database came to 431 i.e. 27 more interviews than sampled.
Sampling for Focus Group Discussions: CRS and partners purposefully chose the groups that participated 
in the FGD. This was based on their knowledge of the degree of organization of the groups, their level of 
participation in project activities, and their availability to take part in the discussions, based on the schedule 
of evaluation field visits. Hence, a women’s group in Mahdiaplay, traditional rulers in Bahn, and members of 
the FOMTUL in Ganta participated in the FGD.
2.4 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ANDPROCESSES
i. Tools for Survey: A largely close-ended questionnaire that explored respondents’ knowledge, beliefs, 
attitudes, behaviors, and practices in respect of observed changes in conflict management and resolution, 
peacebuilding, vertical and horizontal social cohesion, and access to justice was used in the data collection. 
The tool was mounted on Comcare offline data collection platform running on android smartphones and 
devices. Trained enumerators read the questions from the devices and recorded responses directly onto 
the devices. The Technical Lead for the evaluation and the CRS Program Officer supervising the field work 
reviewed the data from each enumerator for completeness before uploading to a cloud server.
ii. Focus Group Discussion Guide: A discussion guide with open-ended questions served as the tool for the 
facilitation of the FGDs. Though the generic question suited all categories of FGD participants, on the spot 
probing questions were generated to follow through on unexpected twists in discussions yielding important 
insights on a topic. Similarly, some preplanned questions were tweaked in process, where need be, to
zoom in on issues of interest to specific focus groups such as women, youth, and traditional leaders. With 
prior permission from each of the participating members, discussions were audio-recorded for subsequent
APPENDICES
53 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
transcription. This was to ensure accuracy of capture of the discussions as well as minimize note-taking 
interruptions to the flow of the discussions.
iii. Data Collection Team: Ten enumerators working in three (3) teams carried out the 431 interviews in 36 
Communities over a two-week period under the supervision of Brezhnev Paasewe, CRS’ Programs Officer 
responsible for the C4P project, and Hippolyt A. S. Pul, PhD, the technical lead for the evaluation.
2.5 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD ANDREPORTING
i. Quantitative Data Analysis Methods: The quantitative survey data from ComCare was downloaded into 
Excel, reviewed, cleaned, and exported into SPSS to generate the frequencies and crosstabulations for the 
data analysis. Extracted textual data from the open-ended questions in the survey were re-exported into 
Excel for open coding and analysis. Some of the analyses from the quantitative data were also re-exported 
into Excel for the generation of graphs and some tables.
ii. Qualitative Data Capture and Analysis Methods: Open coding techniques were used to cluster and analyze 
the typed field notes and transcribed audio recordings from the FGDs field observations. The hierarchy of 
codes and subcodes allowed for the clustering of the data into categories and themes that have informed the 
reporting.
iii. Reporting: This report blends the findings from the quantitative and qualitative data. SPSS and Excel 
generated tables and graphs have been incorporated into the word-processed texts to provide an integrated 
report. Qualitative data from the FGDs and field observation notes have been triangulated with interpretive 
findings from the survey data to provide a holistic view of the evaluation findings.
2.6 ETHICAL AND DATA PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS
Express Consent: A standardized participant consent was read out to all participants and each and every 
participant was requested to expressly and clearly indicate their consent or otherwise to i) participate in the 
interviews ii) have their names recorded in the list of participants, and iii) have their voices audio-recorded 
for note taking purposes in some sessions of the FGDs encounters. Participants were assured that the voice 
recordings nor the list of names will be held in absolute confidentiality by the technical lead alone and would 
not be shared with anyone else except when demanded by law.
Safety and Security: Safety and Security considerations were paramount criteria in the choice of venues, 
travel logistics, and timing of all data collection encounters. Accordingly, enumerators and FGD facilitators 
travelled to the communities instead of having participants come to them. Interviews were held in open, 
safe, and secured environments. Pre-deployment training ensured that all interviewers were equipped with 
cultural and religious sensitivity practices, especially as it relates to dressing codes and gender relations in 
social encounters such as the interview settings.
Psychosocial Care and Healing: Evaluators were mindful that some participants could be living with traumatic 
experiences from being part of or affected by the incidents of the civil war and the Ebola Disease outbreak, 
which devastated communities. Consequently, the field teams were trained to uphold Do No Harm principles and 
approaches to engaging the participants in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks and costs to 
participants in the evaluation process. Steps taken included training on sensitivity to identity-based stereotypes, 
prejudices, and other forms of narratives that divide rather than unite people. It also included the use of gender￾based evaluation design and analytical frameworks that ensure that the evaluation questions and processes 
considered the impacts of the conflict and the peacebuilding processes on different ethnic, age, and gender 
categories ofparticipants.
Additionally, the evaluation recognized that peacebuilding evaluation processes can be therapeutic in 
and by themselves, when participants have the opportunity to tell and reflect on their stories, share
APPENDICES
54 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
their experiences and grievances, past and present, and have a say in the analysis of the outcomes. This 
helps to give them a broader view of the issues in relations to their personal and collective experiences. 
Consequently, all evaluation tools and processes created space for storytelling and reflections on how the 
past can inform a better future in the analysis processes. For the survey, enumerators were trained to use 
conversational methods in posing questions and getting answers. Besides setting respondents at ease, this 
approach allowed respondents to provide insights and comments that provide context to the responses they 
give. FGD sessions also provided safe spaces for participants’ introspection and sharing. Lessons derived 
from these exercises have informed the derivation of meanings and conclusions captured in the report.
Observance of Professional Standards: The Program Evaluation Standards of the American Evaluation 
Association guided the design and conduct of the evaluation. This included ensuring the grounding of 
the evaluation design and process in technical, ethical, legal, cultural, and evidence-based principles and 
practices so that evaluation outcomes meet the needs of all stakeholders and in respectful ways.
2.7 LIMITATIONS OF THEEvALUATIONS
Sampling Frame versus Scope of the Project: The scope of the C4P project envisaged work with Hometown 
Associations linked to communities in Nimba country for the promotion of connector initiatives that support 
social cohesion building. However, the sample frame, and consequently the sampled communities and 
population groups that CRS and partners arrived at for this evaluation did not include interviews with project
participants from the Hometown Associations. Therefore, findings in this evaluation do not cover perceptions 
on project interventions and outcomes from that dimension. Perspectives of these group of participants
may be brought onboard either i) through a validation workshop that allow representatives of participating 
Hometown Associations to review, comment, or input on the findings of this evaluation or ii) organise a mini 
evaluation that targets this subgroup of project participants.
Travel and Logistical Challenges to field work: Communities participating in the evaluation were far apart. 
Access roads to these communities were either non-existent or unmotorable. Therefore, the evaluation teams 
spent long hours traveling to and from the communities. Consequently, meeting scheduled appointments with 
communities was a challenge, and teams often had to travel back after sunset to their bases.
Language and communication barriers: The FGDs were sometimes conducted across multiple languages. 
Although Liberian English is the lingua franca in most part of the country, some participants did not speak 
it. Besides, expressions in Liberian English do not always correspond to the English commonly spoken in 
the anglophone world. Hence, questions posed in standard English often required translation into Liberian 
English, and then into local languages. Responses often took the reverse route. The FGD facilitator felt a lot 
of information was lost between the multiple levels of translation; thereby compromising the depth of the 
data that was otherwise available from the respondents.
Restricted Generalizability of Findings: The evaluation was carried out only in the communities that 
participated in the C4P project activities. Hence, the views solicited and used in this evaluation are from 
respondents or who are either direct participants in the projects or have been closely associated with it. This 
limits the generalizability of the findings to the entire Nimba County or Liberia. Nonetheless, the findings 
provide important benchmarks for wider impact post hoc assessment at a later stage.
DISTRICT
LOCALITY/ 
TOWN
TOTAL POPULATION
MALE FEMALE POPULATION
TOTAL HH
HOUSEHOLD
SAMPLING PROCESS
WEGHT HH WEIGHT 
(HH) SAMPLE FEMALE
WEGHT 
MALE
SAMPLE 
FEMALE
SAMPLE 
MEN
FINITE SAMPLE
HH FEMALE MALE
TOTAL 
PERSONS
Sanniquellie
-Mah 
Satutory District
Gbuyee 1567 1923 3,490 500 2% 10 55% 45%
7
4 10
7
4 11
Nehngben 769 741 1,510 196 1%
4 49% 51%
3
2
4
3
2
5
Gampa 1470 1530 3,000 375 2%
8 51% 49%
4
4
8
4
4
8
Dormah 137 173 310 26 2%
8 56% 44%
4
3
8
4
3
8
Tonglaywin 550 720 1,270 45 1%
3 57% 43%
2
2
3
2
2
3
Gbinyouyee 1150 1185 2,335 366 2%
6 51% 49%
3
3
6
3
3
6
Gboayeela 1554 1598 3,152 500 2%
9 51% 49%
4
4
9
4
4
9
New 
Yekepa 4512 4789 9,301 3000 6% 26 51% 49% 13 12 26 13 12 26
Zolowee 2500 2081 4,581 620 3% 13 45% 55%
6
7 13
6
7 13
Lugbeyee 1989 1991 3,980 475 3% 11 50% 50%
5
5 11
5
5 11
DISTRICT TOTAL 10 16198 16731 32929 6103
0 98
5
5 53 48 98 53 48 100
Gbehley GEH 
Statutory District
Gotowin 2109 2029 4138 530 3% 11.3839 49% 51%
5
6 11
5
6 11
Beo
-Yolay 3360 3412 6,772 500 5% 19 50% 50%
9
9 19
9
9 19
Karnplay 1537 1963 3,500 2710 2% 10 56% 44%
5
4 10
5
4 10
Duoplay 2420 2242 4,662 388 3% 13 48% 52%
6
7 13
6
7 13
Mahdiaplay 2235 2465 4,700 1800 3% 13 52% 48%
7
6 13
7
6 13
Garplay 3975 3775 7,750 500 5% 21 49% 51% 10 11 21 10 11 21
Lontuo 2001 2345 4,346 500 3% 12 54% 46%
6
6 12
6
6 12
Gbarplay 2233 2465 4698 650 3% 17% 52% 48% 9% 8% 18
9
9 18
Blemieplay 1327 1412 2,739 379 2%
8 52% 48%
4
4
8
4
4
8
Garlay 1129 1311 2,440 359 2%
7 54% 46%
4
3
7
4
3
7
DISTRICT TOTAL 10 22326 23419 45745 8316 32% 126 51% 49% 64 61 126 64 61 126
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2 COMMUNITY SELECTION AND INTERVIEWS ALLOCATION
55 / END LINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
DISTRICT
LOCALITY/ 
TOWN
TOTAL POPULATION
MALE FEMALE POPULATION
TOTAL HH
HOUSEHOLD
SAMPLING PROCESS
WEGHT HH WEIGHT 
(HH) SAMPLE FEMALE
WEGHT 
MALE
SAMPLE 
FEMALE
SAMPLE 
MEN
FINITE SAMPLE
HH FEMALE MALE
TOTAL 
PERSONS
Tappitta Statutory 
District
Zuoplay 2110 2289 4,399 500 3% 12 52% 48%
6
6 12
6
6 12
Beatuo 1779 1770 3,549 490 2% 10 50% 50%
5
5 10
5
5 10
Kaylay 2117 2501 4,618 800 3% 13 54% 46%
7
6 13
7
6 13
Tappita one 2578 2775 5,353 1000 4% 15 52% 48%
8
7 15
8
7 15
DISTRICT TOTAL
4 8584 9335 17919 2790 13% 49 52% 48% 26 24 49 26 24 49
ZOE
-GEH
Bahn 2450 2908 5,358 2286 4% 15 54% 46%
8
7 15
8
7 15
Tiaplay 1578 1232 2,810 360 2%
8 44% 56%
3
4
8
3
4
8
Gomahplay 1460 1469 2,929 400 2%
8 50% 50%
4
4
8
4
4
8
DISTRICT TOTAL
3 5488 5609 11097 3046 8% 31 51% 49% 15 15 31 15 15 31
Saclepea
-Mah
Yarsonnoh 1589 1303 2,892 235 2%
8 45% 55%
4
4
8
4
4
8
Karnwee 2675 2592 5,267 398 4% 14 49% 51%
7
7 14
7
7 14
Loyee 2500 2350 4,850 3% 13 48% 52%
6
7 13
6
7 13
Guawin 1787 1771 3,558 2700 2% 24 50% 50% 12 12 24 12 12 24
Sanquoi 2750 3050 5,800 1200 4% 16 53% 47%
8
8 16
8
8 16
DISTRICT TOTAL
5 11301 11066 22,367 4533 16% 62 49% 51% 30 31 62 30 31 62
Yarwein
-
Mehnsonnoh 
Statutory District
Garnwee 1092 1221 2,313 377 2%
6 53% 47%
3
3
6
3
3
6
Zekepa 1764 1700 3,464 503 2% 10 49% 51%
5
5 10
5
5 10
Glehyee 
Zorpea 1532 1667 3,199 498 2%
9 52% 48%
5
4
9
5
4
9
Volay 2011 2213 4,224 600 3% 12 52% 48%
6
6 12
6
6 12
DISTRICT TOTAL
4 6399 6801 13200 1978 9% 36 52% 48% 19 18 36 19 18 36
TOTAL = N = 36 70296 72961 143257 26766
1 401
8
7 207 196 401 207 196 404
APPENDICES
56 / END LINE EVALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
APPENDICES
57 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
CODE DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED AND DISCUSSED SUBTOTAL THEME 
TOTAL
APPENDIX 3A: THEMATIC AREAS AND SUBCODES FOR COMMUNITY DISCUSSION 
ISSUES
100 General Town/Community Development or Improvement 44 44
Issues Discussed Relating to Community infrastructure development 
and improvement— roads, bridges, schools, clinics, etc 171
101.1 Educational infrastructure development and improvement 38
101.2 Health,hygiene,andsanitationinfrastructuredevelopmentandimprovement 38
101.3 Potable water resource development and maintenance 16
101.4 Agricultural and livelihood resource development 7
101.5 Community town hall, palava hut, and meeting facilities development and 
maintenance
101.6 Construction of places of worship 2
101.7 Community Guest House and hospital infrastructure development and 
maintenance
101.8 Community roads, bridges and transport infrastructure development and 
maintenance
101.9 Other Community Infrastructure development 11
102 Community environmental cleanliness, hygiene, and sanitation 43
102.1 General town and community cleaning of the environment 29
102.2 Brushing of access roads to town 2
102.3 Environmental cleanliness behavior change engagements 3
102.4 Cleaning surroundings of specified community infrastructure 6
101
32
6
21
APPENDICES
58 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
CODE DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED AND DISCUSSED SUBTOTAL THEME 
TOTAL
102.5 Livestock care and community hygiene and sanitation 3
200 Social Cohesion engagements and interactions 64
201 Discussions on unity and peaceful coexistence 21
202 Peacebuilding, Dispute and conflict resolutions 12
203 Mutual respect, understanding, social etiquettes, courteous behavior, 
community behaviorsnorms
10
204 Youth— development, conduct, discipline, and exhortations on unity and 
nonviolence among the youth 8
205 Cross identity inclusion and participation in community meetings and social 
events 4
206 Building/sustaining community safety nets and mutual support systems 4
207 Women’s development issues, Unity among women 5
300 Agriculture and livelihood systems improvement 39
301 Improving farming systems and practices: adoption and 
adaptation of agronomic technologies and practices
301.1 Discussions on agricultural production and farm size expansion 12
301.2 Technology adoption and adaptation 11
302 Land issues— including acquisition, allocation, usage, 
management and disputes resolution
302.1 Land acquisition and allocation 5
302.2 Land dispute and resolution 3
303 Agribusiness and Agroenterprise development
303.1 Discussions on Agro-marketing opportunities and strategies 6
APPENDICES
59 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
CODE DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED AND DISCUSSED SUBTOTAL THEME 
TOTAL
303.2 Agriculturalfinancing:includingmicrocredit,savingsandloansmechanism 2
400 Community Social Service Provision and Improvement 16
401 Promotion of school enrolment, attendance, and participation in the 
community 8
402 Discussing good water and sanitation knowledge and practices 2
403 Improving access to healthcare, health and hygiene knowledge and practices 6
500 Governance— community level participation, accountability, transparency 
engagements 6 6
600 Community Safety, Security and mutual social support systems 11 11
700 Youth Development and engagement 10
701 Sports and Recreational Activities 8
702 Youth employment; employment and training centers 2
Total Count of Issues Raised and Discussed 404 404
APPENDIX 3B: SYNTHESIS OF ISSUES DISCUSSED DURING COMMUNITY MEETINGS
1. GENERAL TOWN/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT
• Issues Discussed Relating to Community infrastructure development and improvement - roads, 
bridges, schools, clinics, etc
• Educational infrastructure development and improvement
• Health, hygiene, and sanitation infrastructure development and improvement
• Potable water resource development andmaintenance
• Agricultural and livelihood resourcedevelopment
• Community town hall, palava hut, and meeting facilities development and maintenance
• Construction of places of worship
• Community Guest House and hospital infrastructure development and maintenance
• Community roads, bridges and transport infrastructure development and maintenance
• Community environmental cleanliness, hygiene, and sanitation
• Brushing of access roads to town
• Environmental cleanliness behavior change engagements
• Cleaning surroundings of specified communityinfrastructure
• Livestock care and community hygiene and sanitation
2. SOCIAL COHESION ENGAGEMENTS AND INTERACTIONS
• Peacebuilding, Dispute and conflict resolutions
• Discuss how to resolve conflicts using traditional leaders rather than using the court
APPENDICES
60 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
• Discussion was about how to settle domestic conflict in our home, our role as 
women.
• Discussing confusion among members of our group
• Do avoid confusion in the community
• How to settle conflicts among themselves (through JPC)
• Peace building and reconciliation and community development
• Peace building, Developments andAssociations.
• Settle all dispute amongourselves.
• The Building of a peace Hut to discuss peace promotion
• To settle misunderstanding among groupmembers
• To talk about conflict in our town and how to solve it
• We discussed resolving the conflict between a member from Garplay and a 
member of our near by village.
• Mutual respect and understanding,including
• social etiquettes, courteous behavior, community behaviors norms
• Youth - development, conduct, discipline, and exhortations on unity and 
nonviolence among the youth
• Cross identity inclusion and participation in community meetings and social 
events
• Building/sustaining community safety nets and mutual support systems
• Caring for the poor and needy
• Women’s development issues,
• Unity among women
• Women’s economic developmentinitiatives.
3. AGRICULTURE AND LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT
• Improving farming systems and practices: -adoption and adaptation of 
agronomic technologies and practices
• Land issues - including acquisition, allocation, usage, management and disputes 
resolution
• Agribusiness and Agroenterprise development
4. COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICE PROVISION AND IMPROVEMENT
• Promotion of school enrolment, attendance, and participation in the community
• Encourage parents to send their children to school.
• Encouraging Youth to go to school
• Development of our Muslim school
• Improvement in the functioning of the school
• Tried to make the Elders understand why there was increment in the tuition
• We discuss how to develop our Arabic school
• Our children don’t want to go to school so we discussed how to complete the 
building for them to go back to school.
APPENDICES
61 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
• We discussed that we should be serious in Educating our children because they are our future 
Leaders.
• We also remember our background from where we come.
• Discussing good water and sanitation knowledge and practices
• Discussion on safe drinkingwater
• Safe drinking water.
• Improving access to healthcare, health and hygiene knowledge and practices
• We discussed about our health center to ensuring that we get medical assistance to improve our 
clinic.
• Healthcare,
• Facilitate birth and preventive methods to avoid coronavirus.
• Helping infant in treating their illness
• The wellbeing of the community, such as medical facilities
5. GOVERNANCE—COMMUNITY LEVELPARTICIPATION, ACCOUNTABILITY, 
TRANSPARENCY ENGAGEMENTS
• The youth met the elders on the cash that they receive from the three (3) of the five active borders￾borders (motorcyclist), to know how much they have received from last year, what they have spent 
how much do they have now and what can be done with the balance to help the community.
• Borrowed materials that were given us during the last elections.
• we discussed how to carry our petition to the president about the bad road conditions for 
improvement.
• Discussion was to clarify that we didn’t received any supplies from the NGO as speculated around 
the town.
• Discussed how to make rules to govern the Association and to resolve conflicts among members.
• Conduct election for new youthleadership.
6. COMMUNITY SAFETY, SECURITY AND MUTUAL SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS
• Discussion was about cautioning the town dwellers that if anybody found in the act of theft will be dealt 
with according to the laws of the town.
• Discussion was mainly about a theft case.
• The lost of a community member and to collect money.
APPENDICES
62 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
• The safety of thevillage
• To build fence around thecommunity,
• We discussed on the safety of the community regarding security team being established
• To help the women in the community with money to start their business and to send their children to 
school
• We the women discussed that everybody will hug sand from along the road to bring it in the town to 
build the clinic.
• We the women group did a project (which is a Guest house) and is yet to complete so we discussed 
with Elders for help to complete the building.
7. YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ANDENGAGEMENT
• Sports and Recreational Activities
• Discussing how sports activities should be done
• The upbringing of sports programs for the Youth.
• Recording of movie
• Youth center
• We also discussed to build a youth center for the community
• Building of community youthcenter
• Building of youth center
• Youth Center Building, etc.
• Youth employment; employment and trainingcenters
• Creating Job for the youngpeople
• We have a computer training center we also discuss training center
APPENDICES
63 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
APPENDIX 4 TABLES OF SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
TABLE 1: CROSSTABULATION OF MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY GROUP BY AGE CATEGORY 
OF RESPONDENTS
Missing
22 28 15 8 9 5 1 88
31.0% 20.7% 17.2% 10.8% 21.4% 25.0% 50.0% 20.4%
elder
0 0 1 9 12 7 0 29
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 12.2% 28.6% 35.0% 0.0% 6.7%
elder other_specify
0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.7%
farmers_associatoion
4 16 22 9 6 0 0 57
5.6% 11.9% 25.3% 12.2% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2%
farmers_associatoion elder
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
farmers_associatoion other_specify
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
other_specify
3 7 2 6 2 2 0 22
4.2% 5.2% 2.3% 8.1% 4.8% 10.0% 0.0% 5.1%
vsla
0 18 14 8 2 2 0 44
0.0% 13.3% 16.1% 10.8% 4.8% 10.0% 0.0% 10.2%
vsla elder
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
vsla farmers_associatoion
1 2 1 7 1 0 0 12
1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 9.5% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%
vsla farmers_associatoion elder
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
vsla other_specify
0 3 0 2 0 0 0 5
0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
womens_group
9 15 12 13 7 1 1 58
12.7% 11.1% 13.8% 17.6% 16.7% 5.0% 50.0% 13.5%
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
75
YEARS 
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 OR
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OLDER TOTAL
APPENDICES
64 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
womens_group elder
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
womens_group farmers_associatoion
2 2 1 1 0 1 0 7
2.8% 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1.6%
womens_group vsla
0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
womens_group vsla farmers_associatoion
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
womens_group vsla other_specify
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
youth_group
25 26 12 3 0 0 0 66
35.2% 19.3% 13.8% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%
youth_group farmers_associatoion
2 5 3 0 0 0 0 10
2.8% 3.7% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%
youth_group farmers_associatoion elder
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
youth_group other_specify
2 5 1 0 0 0 0 8
2.8% 3.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
youth_group vsla
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
youth_group vsla farmers_associatoion
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
youth_group womens_group
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
youth_group womens_group farmers_ 
associatoion
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
TOTAL 71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
65 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 2: CROSSTABULATION OF ETHNIC GROUPS YOU WOULD NOT WORK WITH 
BY * ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT
TOTAL
No 
Preference
bassa
2 219 5 4 13 13 4 1 11 159 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2 203 5 4 11 13 4 1 10 142 395
100.0% 92.7% 100.0% 100.0% 84.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 90.9% 89.3% 91.6%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.5%
grebo
kpelle
krahn
mandingo
mano
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.2%
0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 23
0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 5.3%
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1
9.1%
0
gio
0.0%
2
0.5%
ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT
BASSA GIO GREBO KISSI KPELLE KRAHN KRU LORMA MANDINGO MANO TOTAL
APPENDICES
66 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 3: CROSSTABULATION OF ETHNIC GROUPS YOU WOULD NOT WORK 
WITH BY DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
01-SANNIQUELLIE￾MAH
02-GBEHLEY￾GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA￾MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
91 122 53 29 70 30 395
---
91.0% 89.1% 98.1% 93.5% 94.6% 85.7% 91.6%
1 0 0 0 0 1 2
bassa
1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.5%
2 0 0 0 0 0 2
gio
2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
grebo
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.2%
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
kpelle
0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
1 2 0 1 0 1 5
krahn
1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 2.9% 1.2%
5 11 0 1 4 2 23
mandingo
5.0% 8.0% 0.0% 3.2% 5.4% 5.7% 5.3%
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
mano
0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
67 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 4: ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT * DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
ETHNIC GROUP 
OF RESPONDENT
01-SANNIQUELLIE￾MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
bassa 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
gio 19 114 37 27 14 8 219
grebo 1 0 1 0 3 0 5
kissi 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
kpelle 4 5 1 2 1 0 13
krahn 0 0 13 0 0 0 13
kru 3 0 0 0 1 0 4
lorma 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
mandingo 4 3 0 1 3 0 11
mano 63 15 1 1 52 27 159
Total 100 137 54 31 74 35 431
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL EVENTS
TABLE 5A: EvENT ATTENDED—WEDDING
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 124 28.8 28.8 28.8
2-no 305 70.8 70.8 99.5
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 2 .5 .5 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
TABLE 5B: EvENT ATTENDED—BIRTHDAY_CELEBRATIONS
FREQUENCY PERCENT
VALID P 
ERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 97 22.5 22.5 22.5
2-no 331 76.8 76.8 99.3
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 3 .7 .7 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
APPENDICES
68 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 5C: EVENT ATTENDED—BIRTHDAY_CELEBRATIONS
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 97 22.5 22.5 22.5
2-no 331 76.8 76.8 99.3
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 3 .7 .7 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
TABLE 5D: EvENT ATTENDED—CHILD_NAMING_CEREMONY
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 111 25.8 25.8 25.8
2-no 318 73.8 73.8 99.5
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 2 .5 .5 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
TABLE 5D: EvENT ATTENDED—THANKSGIvING_SERvICE
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 124 28.8 28.8 28.8
2-no 299 69.4 69.4 98.1
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 8 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
TABLE 5E: EvENT ATTENDED—FUNERAL_AND_BURIAL_SERvICE
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 159 36.9 36.9 36.9
2-no 268 62.2 62.2 99.1
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 4 .9 .9 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
APPENDICES
69 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 5F: EvENT ATTENDED—OTHER_GATHERINGS
FREQUENCY PERCENT VALID PERCENT
CUMULATIVE 
PERCENT
1-yes 34 7.9 7.9 7.9
2-no 289 67.1 67.1 74.9
valid 3-can’t_ 
recall 108 25.1 25.1 100.0
Total 431 100.0 100.0
TABLE 6A: INSIST ON MY vIEWS * AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS CROSSTABULATION
1_Never
2_Seldom
3_Occasionally
4_Frequently
5_Always
Total
39 83 48 46 27 17 1 261
54.9% 61.5% 55.2% 62.2% 64.3% 85.0% 50.0% 60.6%
5 9 4 2 1 0 0 21
7.0% 6.7% 4.6% 2.7% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9%
6 10 7 5 2 1 0 31
8.5% 7.4% 8.0% 6.8% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 7.2%
5 10 11 9 5 1 1 42
7.0% 7.4% 12.6% 12.2% 11.9% 5.0% 50.0% 9.7%
16 23 17 12 7 1 0 76
22.5% 17.0% 19.5% 16.2% 16.7% 5.0% 0.0% 17.6%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
AGECATEGORYOFRESPONDENTS
INSIST ONMY 
VIEWS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
APPENDICES
70 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 6B: INSIST ON MY vIEWS * DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
INSIST ON MY 
VIEWS
01-SANNIQUELLIE￾MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Never 53 74 39 22 53 20 261
53.0% 54.0% 72.2% 71.0% 71.6% 57.1% 60.6%
2_Seldom 6 11 0 2 1 1 21
6.0% 8.0% 0.0% 6.5% 1.4% 2.9% 4.9%
3_ 
Occasionally
13 6 2 2 5 3 31
13.0% 4.4% 3.7% 6.5% 6.8% 8.6% 7.2%
4_ 
Frequently
12 12 6 2 6 4 42
12.0% 8.8% 11.1% 6.5% 8.1% 11.4% 9.7%
5_Always 16 34 7 3 9 7 76
16.0% 24.8% 13.0% 9.7% 12.2% 20.0% 17.6%
Total 100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 6C: INSIST ON MY vIEWS * SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
1_Never
2_Seldom
3_Occasionally
4_Frequently
5_Always
Total
124 137 261
59.0% 62.0% 60.6%
12 9 21
5.7% 4.1% 4.9%
13 18 31
6.2% 8.1% 7.2%
19 23 42
9.0% 10.4% 9.7%
42 34 76
20.0% 15.4% 17.6%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
INSIST ON MY VIEWS FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
71 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 6D: INSIST ON MY vIEWS * ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
1_Never
1 126 3 4 11 11 3 0 9 93 261
50.0% 57.5% 60.0% 100.0% 84.6% 84.6% 75.0% 0.0% 81.8% 58.5% 60.6%
2_Seldom
0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 21
0.0% 5.5% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 4.4% 4.9%
3_Occasionally
0 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 31
0.0% 6.8% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 8.8% 7.2%
4_Frequently
0 25 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 14 42
0.0% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 8.8% 9.7%
5_Always
1 41 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 31 76
50.0% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.5% 17.6%
Total
2 219 5 4 13 13 4 1 11 159 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 7A: AvOID PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES * DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
AVOID PEOPLE
FROM OTHER 01-SANNIQUELLIE- 02-GBEHLEY- 05-SACLEPEA- 06-YARWEIN￾CULTURES MAH GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Never 64 89 48 21 51 23 296
64.0% 65.0% 88.9% 67.7% 68.9% 65.7% 68.7%
2_Seldom 4 9 0 0 0 0 13
4.0% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
3_Occasionally 8 13 4 1 4 5 35
8.0% 9.5% 7.4% 3.2% 5.4% 14.3% 8.1%
4_Frequently 7 9 0 3 4 2 25
7.0% 6.6% 0.0% 9.7% 5.4% 5.7% 5.8%
5_Always 17 17 2 6 15 5 62
17.0% 12.4% 3.7% 19.4% 20.3% 14.3% 14.4%
Total 100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT
INSIST ON MY
VIEWS BASSA GIO GREBO KISSI KPELLE KRAHN KRU LORMA MANDINGO MANO TOTAL
APPENDICES
72 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 7B: AvOID PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES
* AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS CROSSTABULATION
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
AVOID PEOPLE 
FROM OTHER 
CULTURES
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
1_Never
2_Seldom
3_Occasionally
4_Frequently
5_Always
Total
46 86 61 55 28 18 2 296
64.8% 63.7% 70.1% 74.3% 66.7% 90.0% 100.0% 68.7%
0 8 1 2 2 0 0 13
0.0% 5.9% 1.1% 2.7% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
9 12 10 2 2 0 0 35
12.7% 8.9% 11.5% 2.7% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1%
7 7 5 2 4 0 0 25
9.9% 5.2% 5.7% 2.7% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8%
9 22 10 13 6 2 0 62
12.7% 16.3% 11.5% 17.6% 14.3% 10.0% 0.0% 14.4%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 7C: AvOID PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES * SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
1_Never
2_Seldom
3_Occasionally
4_Frequently
5_Always
141 155 296
67.1% 70.1% 68.7%
8 5 13
3.8% 2.3% 3.0%
18 17 35
8.6% 7.7% 8.1%
9 16 25
4.3% 7.2% 5.8%
34 28 62
16.2% 12.7% 14.4%
Total 210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
AVOID PEOPLE 
FROM OTHER 
CULTURES
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
73 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 7D: CONSIDER ETHNICITY OF SENATORIAL OR REP CANDIDATES
* SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
1_Never
30 61 9 4 13 11 128
30.0% 44.5% 16.7% 12.9% 17.6% 31.4% 29.7%
2_Seldom
2 4 0 3 0 1 10
2.0% 2.9% 0.0% 9.7% 0.0% 2.9% 2.3%
3_Occasionally
4 8 14 2 3 7 38
4.0% 5.8% 25.9% 6.5% 4.1% 20.0% 8.8%
4_Frequently
5 12 2 4 3 4 30
5.0% 8.8% 3.7% 12.9% 4.1% 11.4% 7.0%
5_Always
Total
59 52 29 18 55 12 225
59.0% 38.0% 53.7% 58.1% 74.3% 34.3% 52.2%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
CONSIDER 
ETHNICITY OF
SENATORIAL 01-SANNIQUELLIE￾ORREPCANDIDATES MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA
06-YARWEIN￾04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
APPENDICES
74 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 8A: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS CROSSTABULATION
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
ACCEPTANCE OF 
INTERETHNIC 
MARRIAGES IN NIMBA 
COUNTY
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
1_Very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
3 14 14 13 7 2 1 54
4.2% 10.4% 16.1% 17.6% 16.7% 10.0% 50.0% 12.5%
31 40 23 22 14 2 0 132
43.7% 29.6% 26.4% 29.7% 33.3% 10.0% 0.0% 30.6%
23 47 21 14 17 9 0 131
32.4% 34.8% 24.1% 18.9% 40.5% 45.0% 0.0% 30.4%
9 15 13 11 1 2 0 51
12.7% 11.1% 14.9% 14.9% 2.4% 10.0% 0.0% 11.8%
2 7 5 5 1 3 0 23
2.8% 5.2% 5.7% 6.8% 2.4% 15.0% 0.0% 5.3%
3 8 6 4 0 0 0 21
4.2% 5.9% 6.9% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9%
0 4 5 5 2 2 1 19
0.0% 3.0% 5.7% 6.8% 4.8% 10.0% 50.0% 4.4%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
75 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 8B: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
9 16 9 4 7 6 51
9.0% 11.7% 16.7% 12.9% 9.5% 17.1% 11.8%
5_Strongly_ 
disagree
4 13 2 3 1 0 23
4.0% 9.5% 3.7% 9.7% 1.4% 0.0% 5.3%
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
11 7 0 0 2 1 21
11.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.9% 4.9%
7_No_opinion
Total
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
ACCEPTANCE OF
INTERETHNIC
MARRIAGES IN 01-SANNIQUELLIE- 05-SACLEPEA- 06-YARWEIN￾NIMBACOUNTY MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Very_strongly_ 18 9 12 4 8 3 54
agree 18.0% 6.6% 22.2% 12.9% 10.8% 8.6% 12.5%
26 44 15 8 26 13 132
26.0% 32.1% 27.8% 25.8% 35.1% 37.1% 30.6%
26 45 12 12 25 11 131
26.0% 32.8% 22.2% 38.7% 33.8% 31.4% 30.4%
6 3 4 0 5 1 19
6.0% 2.2% 7.4% 0.0% 6.8% 2.9% 4.4%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
76 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 8C: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
ACCEPTANCE OF 
INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES 
IN NIMBA COUNTY
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
24 30 54
11.4% 13.6% 12.5%
59 73 132
28.1% 33.0% 30.6%
65 66 131
31.0% 29.9% 30.4%
27 24 51
12.9% 10.9% 11.8%
16 7 23
7.6% 3.2% 5.3%
9 12 21
4.3% 5.4% 4.9%
10 9 19
4.8% 4.1% 4.4%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
77 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 9A: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERRELIGIOUS MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS CROSSTABULATION
1_Very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
4 14 14 12 9 3 1 57
5.6% 10.4% 16.1% 16.2% 21.4% 15.0% 50.0% 13.2%
30 43 19 24 12 2 0 130
42.3% 31.9% 21.8% 32.4% 28.6% 10.0% 0.0% 30.2%
23 48 25 14 17 8 0 135
32.4% 35.6% 28.7% 18.9% 40.5% 40.0% 0.0% 31.3%
8 16 11 11 1 3 0 50
11.3% 11.9% 12.6% 14.9% 2.4% 15.0% 0.0% 11.6%
3 5 7 6 1 2 0 24
4.2% 3.7% 8.0% 8.1% 2.4% 10.0% 0.0% 5.6%
3 5 6 2 0 0 0 16
4.2% 3.7% 6.9% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7%
0 4 5 5 2 2 1 19
0.0% 3.0% 5.7% 6.8% 4.8% 10.0% 50.0% 4.4%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
AGECATEGORYOFRESPONDENTS
ACCEPTANCE OF 
INTERRELIGIOUS 
MARRIAGES IN NIMBA 
COUNTY
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
APPENDICES
78 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 9B: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERRELIGIOUS MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
3_Agree
4_Disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
ACCEPTANCE OF
INTERRELIGIOUS
MARRIAGES IN 01-SANNIQUELLIE- 06-YARWEIN￾NIMBACOUNTY MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Very_ 19 10 13 4 8 3 57
strongly_agree 19.0% 7.3% 24.1% 12.9% 10.8% 8.6% 13.2%
2_Strongly_ 26 43 14 8 26 13 130
agree 26.0% 31.4% 25.9% 25.8% 35.1% 37.1% 30.2%
25 51 12 12 25 10 135
25.0% 37.2% 22.2% 38.7% 33.8% 28.6% 31.3%
11 13 9 3 7 7 50
11.0% 9.5% 16.7% 9.7% 9.5% 20.0% 11.6%
5_Strongly_ 5 12 2 4 1 0 24
disagree 5.0% 8.8% 3.7% 12.9% 1.4% 0.0% 5.6%
6_Very_ 8 5 0 0 2 1 16
strongly_
disagree 8.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.9% 3.7%
6 3 4 0 5 1 19
6.0% 2.2% 7.4% 0.0% 6.8% 2.9% 4.4%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
79 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 9C: ACCEPTANCE OF INTERRELIGIOUS MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
27 30 57
12.9% 13.6% 13.2%
55 75 130
26.2% 33.9% 30.2%
67 68 135
31.9% 30.8% 31.3%
27 23 50
12.9% 10.4% 11.6%
16 8 24
7.6% 3.6% 5.6%
8 8 16
3.8% 3.6% 3.7%
10 9 19
4.8% 4.1% 4.4%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ACCEPTANCE OF 
INTERRELIGIOUS MARRIAGES 
IN NIMBA COUNTY
SEXOFRESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
80 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 9D ACCEPTANCE OF INTERRELIGIOUS MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY
* ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
3_Agree
4_Disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
ETHNIC GROUP OF RESPONDENT
BASSA GIO GREBO KISSI KPELLE KRAHN KRU LORMA MANDINGO MANP TOTAL
1_Very_ 0 32 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 20 57
strongly_agree 0.0% 14.6% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 7.7% 25.0% 100.0% 0.0% 12.6% 13.2%
2_Strongly_ 2 61 3 1 6 5 0 0 1 51 130
agree 100.0% 27.9% 60.0% 25.0% 46.2% 38.5% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 32.1% 30.2%
0 69 1 2 3 5 2 0 7 46 135
0.0% 31.5% 20.0% 50.0% 23.1% 38.5% 50.0% 0.0% 63.6% 28.9% 31.3%
0 26 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 21 50
0.0% 11.9% 0.0% 25.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 13.2% 11.6%
5_Strongly_ 0 18 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 24
disagree 0.0% 8.2% 20.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 5.6%
6_Very_ 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 16
strongly_
disagree 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 5.7% 3.7%
0 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 8 19
0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 4.4%
2 219 5 4 13 13 4 1 11 159 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.00%
APPENDICES
81 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 9E ACCEPTANCE OF INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES IN NIMBA COUNTY * 
ACCEPT FAMILY INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES CROSSTABULATION
ACCEPT FAMILY INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES
ACCEPTANCE OF
INTERETHNIC 
MARRIAGES IN NIMBA 
COUNTY 1 NEVER 2_RARELY 3_RELUCTANTLY 4_WILLINGLY
5_VERY_ 
WILLINGLY TOTAL
1_Very_strongly_ 
agree
2 0 2 13 37 54
3.7% 0.0% 3.7% 24.1% 68.5% 100.0%
14.3% 0.0% 20.0% 4.7% 28.7% 12.5%
2_Strongly_agree
0 0 1 104 27 132
0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 78.8% 20.5% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 37.7% 20.9% 30.6%
3_Agree
2 0 1 98 30 131
1.5% 0.0% 0.8% 74.8% 22.9% 100.0%
14.3% 0.0% 10.0% 35.5% 23.3% 30.4%
3 0 3 34 11 51
4_Disagree 5.9% 0.0% 5.9% 66.7% 21.6% 100.0%
21.4% 0.0% 30.0% 12.3% 8.5% 11.8%
2 1 2 12 6 23
5_Strongly_disagree 8.7% 4.3% 8.7% 52.2% 26.1% 100.0%
14.3% 50.0% 20.0% 4.3% 4.7% 5.3%
5 0 1 4 11 21
6_Very_strongly_
disagree 23.8% 0.0% 4.8% 19.0% 52.4% 100.0%
35.7% 0.0% 10.0% 1.4% 8.5% 4.9%
0 1 0 11 7 19
7_No_opinion 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 57.9% 36.8% 100.0%
0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 4.0% 5.4% 4.4%
14 2 10 276 129 431
Total 3.2% 0.5% 2.3% 64.0% 29.9% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
82 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 10A: FREQUENCY OF MEETING WITH CHIEFS AND ELDERS BY AGE CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
FREQUENCY 
OF MEETING 
WITH 
CHIEFS AND 
ELDERS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER TOTAL
24 60 32 31 8 6 0 161
1_Once_a_
week 14.9% 37.3% 19.9% 19.3% 5.0% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0%
33.8% 44.4% 36.8% 41.9% 19.0% 30.0% 0.0% 37.4%
20 37 25 25 20 8 0 135
2_Once_a_
month 14.8% 27.4% 18.5% 18.5% 14.8% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%
28.2% 27.4% 28.7% 33.8% 47.6% 40.0% 0.0% 31.3%
2 0 3 3 4 1 0 13
3_Quarterly 15.4% 0.0% 23.1% 23.1% 30.8% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%
2.8% 0.0% 3.4% 4.1% 9.5% 5.0% 0.0% 3.0%
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
4_Every_Six_
Month 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
2 0 1 1 1 0 1 6
5_Once_a_
year
33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%
2.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.4% 2.4% 0.0% 50.0% 1.4%
9 23 11 5 2 1 0 51
6_Never 17.6% 45.1% 21.6% 9.8% 3.9% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12.7% 17.0% 12.6% 6.8% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 11.8%
14 15 14 7 7 4 1 62
7_Can’t_recall 22.6% 24.2% 22.6% 11.3% 11.3% 6.5% 1.6% 100.0%
19.7% 11.1% 16.1% 9.5% 16.7% 20.0% 50.0% 14.4%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
Total 16.5% 31.3% 20.2% 17.2% 9.7% 4.6% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
83 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 10B: FREQUENCY OF MEETING WITH CHIEFS AND ELDERS 
BY GENDER CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS
INVITATION TO 
ENGAGEMENT 
BY TRADITIONAL 
AUTHORITIES
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
74 87 161
1_Once_a_week 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
35.2% 39.4% 37.4%
59 76 135
2_Once_a_month 43.7% 56.3% 100.0%
28.1% 34.4% 31.3%
4 9 13
3_Quarterly 30.8% 69.2% 100.0%
1.9% 4.1% 3.0%
1 2 3
4_Every_Six_Month 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
0.5% 0.9% 0.7%
3 3 6
5_Once_a_year 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
1.4% 1.4% 1.4%
31 20 51
6_Never 60.8% 39.2% 100.0%
14.8% 9.0% 11.8%
38 24 62
7_Can’t_recall 61.3% 38.7% 100.0%
18.1% 10.9% 14.4%
210 221 431
Total 48.7% 51.3% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
84 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 11A
INVITATION TO 
ENGAGEMENT 
BY TRADITIONAL 
AUTHORITIES AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
SEX OF RESPONDENT: 
FEMALE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75
YEARS 
OR 
OLDER
TOTAL
12 29 15 12 4 2 0 74
1_Once_a_week 16.2% 39.2% 20.3% 16.2% 5.4% 2.7% 0.0% 100.0%
30.8% 39.7% 35.7% 34.3% 30.8% 28.6% 0.0% 35.2%
8 16 11 12 7 5 0 59
2_Once_a_month 13.6% 27.1% 18.6% 20.3% 11.9% 8.5% 0.0% 100.0%
20.5% 21.9% 26.2% 34.3% 53.8% 71.4% 0.0% 28.1%
1 0 1 2 0 0 0 4
3_Quarterly 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.6% 0.0% 2.4% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
4_Every_Six_
Month 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
7 18 3 3 0 0 0 31
6_Never 22.6% 58.1% 9.7% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
17.9% 24.7% 7.1% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.8%
10 10 11 5 1 0 1 38
7_Can’t_recall 26.3% 26.3% 28.9% 13.2% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 100.0%
25.6% 13.7% 26.2% 14.3% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0% 18.1%
39 73 42 35 13 7 1 210
Total 18.6% 34.8% 20.0% 16.7% 6.2% 3.3% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
85 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
INVITATION TO 
ENGAGEMENT 
BY TRADITIONAL 
AUTHORITIES AGECATEGORYOFRESPONDENTS
SEX OF 75
YEARS RESPONDENT: MALE 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 OR
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OLDER TOTAL
12 31 17 19 4 4 0 87
1_Once_a_week 13.8% 35.6% 19.5% 21.8% 4.6% 4.6% 0.0% 100.0%
37.5% 50.0% 37.8% 48.7% 13.8% 30.8% 0.0% 39.4%
12 21 14 13 13 3 0 76
2_Once_a_month 15.8% 27.6% 18.4% 17.1% 17.1% 3.9% 0.0% 100.0%
37.5% 33.9% 31.1% 33.3% 44.8% 23.1% 0.0% 34.4%
1 0 2 1 4 1 0 9
3_Quarterly 11.1% 0.0% 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 11.1% 0.0% 100.0%
3.1% 0.0% 4.4% 2.6% 13.8% 7.7% 0.0% 4.1%
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
4_Every_Six_
Month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%
3.1% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1.4%
2 5 8 2 2 1 0 20
6_Never 10.0% 25.0% 40.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%
6.2% 8.1% 17.8% 5.1% 6.9% 7.7% 0.0% 9.0%
4 5 3 2 6 4 0 24
7_Can’t_recall 16.7% 20.8% 12.5% 8.3% 25.0% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%
12.5% 8.1% 6.7% 5.1% 20.7% 30.8% 0.0% 10.9%
32 62 45 39 29 13 1 221
Total 14.5% 28.1% 20.4% 17.6% 13.1% 5.9% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
86 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
INVITATION TO 
ENGAGEMENT AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS BY TRADITIONAL 
AUTHORITIES
SEX OF
75
YEARS
RESPONDENT: BOTH 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 OR
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OLDER TOTAL
24 60 32 31 8 6 0 161
1_Once_a_week 14.9% 37.3% 19.9% 19.3% 5.0% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0%
33.8% 44.4% 36.8% 41.9% 19.0% 30.0% 0.0% 37.4%
20 37 25 25 20 8 0 135
2_Once_a_month 14.8% 27.4% 18.5% 18.5% 14.8% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0%
28.2% 27.4% 28.7% 33.8% 47.6% 40.0% 0.0% 31.3%
2 0 3 3 4 1 0 13
3_Quarterly 15.4% 0.0% 23.1% 23.1% 30.8% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%
2.8% 0.0% 3.4% 4.1% 9.5% 5.0% 0.0% 3.0%
0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
4_Every_Six_
Month 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
2 0 1 1 1 0 1 6
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%
2.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.4% 2.4% 0.0% 50.0% 1.4%
9 23 11 5 2 1 0 51
6_Never 17.6% 45.1% 21.6% 9.8% 3.9% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12.7% 17.0% 12.6% 6.8% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 11.8%
14 15 14 7 7 4 1 62
7_Can’t_recall 22.6% 24.2% 22.6% 11.3% 11.3% 6.5% 1.6% 100.0%
19.7% 11.1% 16.1% 9.5% 16.7% 20.0% 50.0% 14.4%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
Total 16.5% 31.3% 20.2% 17.2% 9.7% 4.6% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
87 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 11B
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
SEX OF RESPONDENT 
FEMALE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
12 29 14 13 4 3 0 75
1_Once_a_week 16.0% 38.7% 18.7% 17.3% 5.3% 4.0% 0.0% 100.0%
30.8% 39.7% 33.3% 37.1% 30.8% 42.9% 0.0% 35.7%
9 17 10 9 8 3 0 56
2_Once_a_month 16.1% 30.4% 17.9% 16.1% 14.3% 5.4% 0.0% 100.0%
23.1% 23.3% 23.8% 25.7% 61.5% 42.9% 0.0% 26.7%
1 1 2 2 0 0 0 6
3_Quarterly 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.6% 1.4% 4.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9%
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
4_Every_Six_
Month 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
7 16 3 3 0 0 0 29
6_Never 24.1% 55.2% 10.3% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
17.9% 21.9% 7.1% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8%
9 9 12 7 0 1 1 39
7_Can’t_recall 23.1% 23.1% 30.8% 17.9% 0.0% 2.6% 2.6% 100.0%
23.1% 12.3% 28.6% 20.0% 0.0% 14.3% 100.0% 18.6%
39 73 42 35 13 7 1 210
Total 18.6% 34.8% 20.0% 16.7% 6.2% 3.3% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
88 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
SEX OF 
RESPONDENT 
MALE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
10 30 20 16 10 5 0 91
1_Once_a_week 11.0% 33.0% 22.0% 17.6% 11.0% 5.5% 0.0% 100.0%
31.2% 48.4% 44.4% 41.0% 34.5% 38.5% 0.0% 41.2%
11 19 12 15 13 4 1 75
2_Once_a_month 14.7% 25.3% 16.0% 20.0% 17.3% 5.3% 1.3% 100.0%
34.4% 30.6% 26.7% 38.5% 44.8% 30.8% 100.0% 33.9%
1 3 1 3 0 0 0 8
3_Quarterly 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
3.1% 4.8% 2.2% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6%
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
3.1% 0.0% 2.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
4 4 8 2 1 1 0 20
6_Never 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%
12.5% 6.5% 17.8% 5.1% 3.4% 7.7% 0.0% 9.0%
5 6 3 2 5 3 0 24
7_Can’t_recall 20.8% 25.0% 12.5% 8.3% 20.8% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%
15.6% 9.7% 6.7% 5.1% 17.2% 23.1% 0.0% 10.9%
32 62 45 39 29 13 1 221
Total 14.5% 28.1% 20.4% 17.6% 13.1% 5.9% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
89 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
SEX OF 
RESPONDENT 
TOTAL BOTH
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
22 59 34 29 14 8 0 166
1_Once_a_week
13.3%
31.0%
13.3% 35.5% 20.5% 17.5% 8.4% 4.8% 0.0% 100.0%
31.0% 43.7% 39.1% 39.2% 33.3% 40.0% 0.0% 38.5%
20 36 22 24 21 7 1 131
2_Once_a_month
15.3%
28.2%
15.3% 27.5% 16.8% 18.3% 16.0% 5.3% 0.8% 100.0%
28.2% 26.7% 25.3% 32.4% 50.0% 35.0% 50.0% 30.4%
2 4 3 5 0 0 0 14
3_Quarterly
14.3%
2.8%
14.3% 28.6% 21.4% 35.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.8% 3.0% 3.4% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2%
4_Every_Six_ 
Month
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
2 1 1 1 1 0 0 6
5_Once_a_year 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
2.8% 0.7% 1.1% 1.4% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
11 20 11 5 1 1 0 49
6_Never 22.4% 40.8% 22.4% 10.2% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0%
15.5% 14.8% 12.6% 6.8% 2.4% 5.0% 0.0% 11.4%
14 15 15 9 5 4 1 63
7_Can’t_recall 22.2% 23.8% 23.8% 14.3% 7.9% 6.3% 1.6% 100.0%
19.7% 11.1% 17.2% 12.2% 11.9% 20.0% 50.0% 14.6%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
Total 16.5% 31.3% 20.2% 17.2% 9.7% 4.6% 0.5% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
90 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 12: CONTACT WITH SECURITY AGENCIES * DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW CROSSTABULATION
CONTACT WITH 
SECURITY 
AGENCIES
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
01-SANNIQUELLIE￾MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Once_a_week
2_Once_a_ 
month
3_Quarterly
4_Every_Six_ 
Month
5_Once_a_year
6_Never
7_Can’t_recall
Total
2 22 6 2 11 5 48
2.0% 16.1% 11.1% 6.5% 14.9% 14.3% 11.1%
12 19 12 11 25 2 81
12.0% 13.9% 22.2% 35.5% 33.8% 5.7% 18.8%
5 3 7 1 1 0 17
5.0% 2.2% 13.0% 3.2% 1.4% 0.0% 3.9%
1 2 1 0 0 0 4
1.0% 1.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
1 1 1 2 0 0 5
1.0% 0.7% 1.9% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
44 65 11 5 12 25 162
44.0% 47.4% 20.4% 16.1% 16.2% 71.4% 37.6%
35 25 16 10 25 3 114
35.0% 18.2% 29.6% 32.3% 33.8% 8.6% 26.5%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
91 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 13A: CROSSTABULATION OF INvOLvEMENT IN LAST GENERAL ELECTIONS BY DISTRICT
1_very_High_ 
Extent
2_Hight_ 
Extent
3_Some_ 
Extent
4_Limited_ 
Extent
5_Not_at_all
6_Can’t_Tell
Total
13 23 6 3 1 4 50
13.0% 16.8% 11.1% 9.7% 1.4% 11.4% 11.6%
21 32 18 13 29 9 122
21.0% 23.4% 33.3% 41.9% 39.2% 25.7% 28.3%
16 16 10 8 11 4 65
16.0% 11.7% 18.5% 25.8% 14.9% 11.4% 15.1%
14 16 1 3 3 1 38
14.0% 11.7% 1.9% 9.7% 4.1% 2.9% 8.8%
28 41 14 4 20 16 123
28.0% 29.9% 25.9% 12.9% 27.0% 45.7% 28.5%
8 9 5 0 10 1 33
8.0% 6.6% 9.3% 0.0% 13.5% 2.9% 7.7%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
DISTRICT OFINTERVIEW
INVOLVEMENTIN 
LAST GENERAL 
ELECTIONS
01-SANNIQUELLIE- 02-GBEHLEY-GEH MAH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA￾MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
APPENDICES
92 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 13B: INvOLvEMENT IN LAST GENERAL ELECTIONS BY AGE CATEGORY CROSSTAB
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
INVOLVEMENT IN LAST 
GENERALELECTIONS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
1_Very_High_Extent
2_Hight_Extent
3_Some_Extent
4_Limited_Extent
5_Not_at_all
6_Can’t_Tell
Total
2 11 15 7 12 3 0 50
2.8% 8.1% 17.2% 9.5% 28.6% 15.0% 0.0% 11.6%
18 39 16 30 11 6 2 122
25.4% 28.9% 18.4% 40.5% 26.2% 30.0% 100.0% 28.3%
9 17 16 10 8 5 0 65
12.7% 12.6% 18.4% 13.5% 19.0% 25.0% 0.0% 15.1%
8 16 7 5 0 2 0 38
11.3% 11.9% 8.0% 6.8% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8.8%
23 43 25 20 9 3 0 123
32.4% 31.9% 28.7% 27.0% 21.4% 15.0% 0.0% 28.5%
11 9 8 2 2 1 0 33
15.5% 6.7% 9.2% 2.7% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 7.7%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 13C: INvOLvEMENT IN GENERAL ELECTIONS CROSS-TABULATED 
WITH GENDER OF RESPONDENT
1_very_High_Extent
2_Hight_Extent
3_Some_Extent
4_Limited_Extent
5_Not_at_all
6_Can’t_Tell
Total
14 36 50
6.7% 16.3% 11.6%
53 69 122
25.2% 31.2% 28.3%
37 28 65
17.6% 12.7% 15.1%
18 20 38
8.6% 9.0% 8.8%
69 54 123
32.9% 24.4% 28.5%
19 14 33
9.0% 6.3% 7.7%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
INVOLVEMENT IN LAST 
GENERAL ELECTIONS FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
93 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 13D: ACTIvITIES UNDERTAKEN TO SUPPORT ELECTIONS
CODES DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN COUNT % OF 
COUNT
100 Supported distribution of electoral materials 4 3.0%
200 Worked with NEC on voter education 4 3.0%
300 Worked with TL register 6 4.5%
400 Worked with SA Peace 2 1.5%
900 Other (specify) 3 2.3%
901 Encouraged or supported people to go and vote 22 16.7%
902 Urging peaceful elections/Community Election Observations 12 9.1%
903 Political Party engagements, serving as political party representative 18 13.6%
904 Non-engagement 17 12.9%
905 No need for engagement 3 2.3%
906 Advocacy for peaceful/nonviolent elections 30 22.7%
907 Prayers other religious observances for peaceful elections 2 1.5%
908 Worked as a District Coordinator or Returning Officer for the Elections 2 1.5%
909 Worked as law enforcement officer or security officer for elections 2 1.5%
999 Other actions 5 3.8%
Totals 132 100.0%
APPENDICES
94 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 13E: FREQUENCY OF ENGAGEMENT WITH COUNTY OR DISTRICT OFFICERS CROSSTAB BY DISTRICT 
OF INTERvIEW
1_once_a_week
2_once_a_month
7_other_specify
Total
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
FREQUENCY OF
ENGAGEMENT
WITH COUNTY OR 01-SANNIQUELLIE- 06-YARWEIN￾DISTRICT OFFICERS MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
5 17 1 0 1 2 26
5.0% 12.4% 1.9% 0.0% 1.4% 5.7% 6.0%
19 28 4 12 22 8 93
19.0% 20.4% 7.4% 38.7% 29.7% 22.9% 21.6%
3_once_every_ 3 10 4 3 5 1 26
quarter 3.0% 7.3% 7.4% 9.7% 6.8% 2.9% 6.0%
4_once_every_ 4 2 2 0 1 2 11
six_months 4.0% 1.5% 3.7% 0.0% 1.4% 5.7% 2.6%
2
5_once_a_year 6 1 5 3 0 17
2.0% 4.4% 1.9% 16.1% 4.1% 0.0% 3.9%
52 6_I_cannot_recall 63 30 8 32 17 202
52.0% 46.0% 55.6% 25.8% 43.2% 48.6% 46.9%
15 11 12 3 10 5 56
15.0% 8.0% 22.2% 9.7% 13.5% 14.3% 13.0%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
95 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14A: HEALTHY AND POSITIvE RELATIONSHIPS BY DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW
1_Very_strongly_ 
agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_ 
disagree
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
20 29 9 4 23 4 89
20.0% 21.2% 16.7% 12.9% 31.1% 11.4% 20.6%
24 49 28 5 18 15 139
24.0% 35.8% 51.9% 16.1% 24.3% 42.9% 32.3%
42 50 15 17 32 11 167
42.0% 36.5% 27.8% 54.8% 43.2% 31.4% 38.7%
2 1 0 0 1 0 4
2.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.9%
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.2%
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
12 7 2 5 0 4 30
12.0% 5.1% 3.7% 16.1% 0.0% 11.4% 7.0%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 14B: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 57.052a 30 .002
Likelihood Ratio 54.892 30 .004
N of valid Cases 431
a. 21 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.
DISTRICT OFINTERVIEW
C4P- HEALTHY 
AND POSITIVE 
RELATIONSHIPS
01-SANNIQUELLIE- 02-GBEHLEY-GEH MAH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH 06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
APPENDICES
96 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14C: HEALTHY AND POSITIvE RELATIONSHIPS CROSSTAB BY AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
3_Agree
4_Disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
C4P - HEALTHY
AND POSITIVE 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 75 YEARS
RELATIONSHIPS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OR OLDER TOTAL
1_Very_ 10 21 19 18 14 6 1 89
strongly_
agree 14.1% 15.6% 21.8% 24.3% 33.3% 30.0% 50.0% 20.6%
2_Strongly_ 18 41 27 32 13 7 1 139
agree 25.4% 30.4% 31.0% 43.2% 31.0% 35.0% 50.0% 32.3%
39 60 33 18 13 4 0 167
54.9% 44.4% 37.9% 24.3% 31.0% 20.0% 0.0% 38.7%
1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4
1.4% 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
5_Strongly_ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
disagree 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
6_Very_ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
strongly_
disagree 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
2 10 8 5 2 3 0 30
2.8% 7.4% 9.2% 6.8% 4.8% 15.0% 0.0% 7.0%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
97 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14D: C4P—HEALTHY AND POSITIvE RELATIONSHIPS CROSSTAB BY GENDER OF RESPONDENT
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
39 50 89
18.6% 22.6% 20.6%
63 76 139
30.0% 34.4% 32.3%
93 74 167
44.3% 33.5% 38.7%
3 1 4
1.4% 0.5% 0.9%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
11 19 30
5.2% 8.6% 7.0%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
C4P - HEALTHY 
AND POSITIVE 
RELATIONSHIPS
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
98 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14E: C4P—FACILITATED INTERGENERATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS BY DISTRICT OF INTERvIEW
3_Agree
4_Disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
TABLE 14F: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 49.894a 25 .002
Likelihood Ratio 49.192 25 .003
N of valid Cases 431
a. 16 cells (44.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
C4P -
FACILITATED
INTER￾GENERATIONAL 01-SANNIQUELLIE- 06-YARWEIN￾ENGAGEMENTS MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Very_ 17 28 9 2 21 5 82
strongly_agree 17.0% 20.4% 16.7% 6.5% 28.4% 14.3% 19.0%
2_Strongly_ 29 47 23 6 17 12 134
agree 29.0% 34.3% 42.6% 19.4% 23.0% 34.3% 31.1%
41 55 20 16 36 13 181
41.0% 40.1% 37.0% 51.6% 48.6% 37.1% 42.0%
3 1 0 0 0 0 4
3.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
6_Very_ 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
strongly_
disagree 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.5%
10 5 2 7 0 4 28
10.0% 3.6% 3.7% 22.6% 0.0% 11.4% 6.5%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
99 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14G: C4P—FACILITATED INTERGENERATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS CROSSTAB BY AGE 
CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
1_Very_ 
strongly_agree
2_Strongly_ 
agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
6_Very_ 
strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
8 20 15 20 14 4 1 82
11.3% 14.8% 17.2% 27.0% 33.3% 20.0% 50.0% 19.0%
21 42 23 27 12 8 1 134
29.6% 31.1% 26.4% 36.5% 28.6% 40.0% 50.0% 31.1%
39 62 40 23 12 5 0 181
54.9% 45.9% 46.0% 31.1% 28.6% 25.0% 0.0% 42.0%
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4
1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
0.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
2 9 8 3 3 3 0 28
2.8% 6.7% 9.2% 4.1% 7.1% 15.0% 0.0% 6.5%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 14H: C4P—FACILITATED INTERGENERATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS CROSSTAB BY GENDER
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
35 47 82
16.7% 21.3% 19.0%
63 71 134
30.0% 32.1% 31.1%
100 81 181
47.6% 36.7% 42.0%
1 3 4
0.5% 1.4% 0.9%
1 1 2
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
10 18 28
4.8% 8.1% 6.5%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
C4P - FACILITATED 
INTERGENERATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS FEMALE MALE TOTAL
C4P -
FACILITATED 
INTER￾GENERATIONAL 
ENGAGEMENTS
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
APPENDICES
100 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14I CROSSTAB
3_Agree
4_Disagree
Total
TABLE 14J: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 57.703a 36 .012
Likelihood Ratio 52.606 36 .036
N of valid Cases 431
a. 26 cells (53.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.
C4P-YOUTH AGECATEGORYOFRESPONDENTS 
CONSTRUC￾TIVELY ENGAGE
SECURITY 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 75 YEARS
AGENCIES YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OR OLDER TOTAL
1_very_ 9 17 11 13 6 3 0 59
strongly_
agree 12.7% 12.6% 12.6% 17.6% 14.3% 15.0% 0.0% 13.7%
2_Strongly_ 10 34 23 24 18 8 1 118
agree 14.1% 25.2% 26.4% 32.4% 42.9% 40.0% 50.0% 27.4%
46 59 36 26 9 5 0 181
64.8% 43.7% 41.4% 35.1% 21.4% 25.0% 0.0% 42.0%
3 9 6 5 3 0 1 27
4.2% 6.7% 6.9% 6.8% 7.1% 0.0% 50.0% 6.3%
5_Strongly_ 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
disagree 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
6_very_ 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
strongly_
disagree 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.5%
7_No_ 3 14 11 5 6 3 0 42
opinion 4.2% 10.4% 12.6% 6.8% 14.3% 15.0% 0.0% 9.7%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
101 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14K CROSSTAB
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
31 28 59
14.8% 12.7% 13.7%
48 70 118
22.9% 31.7% 27.4%
96 85 181
45.7% 38.5% 42.0%
15 12 27
7.1% 5.4% 6.3%
2 0 2
1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
1 1 2
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
17 25 42
8.1% 11.3% 9.7%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
C4P - YOUTH CONSTRUCTIVELY 
ENGAGE SECURITY AGENCIES FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
102 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14L CROSSTAB
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
01-SANNIQUELLIE￾MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA 04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH
06-YARWEIN￾MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
1_Very_strongly_ 
agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
14 30 10 1 23 2 80
14.0% 21.9% 18.5% 3.2% 31.1% 5.7% 18.6%
29 42 17 4 24 13 129
29.0% 30.7% 31.5% 12.9% 32.4% 37.1% 29.9%
44 55 24 20 26 14 183
44.0% 40.1% 44.4% 64.5% 35.1% 40.0% 42.5%
2 2 0 0 0 1 5
2.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 1.2%
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
11 8 2 6 1 5 33
11.0% 5.8% 3.7% 19.4% 1.4% 14.3% 7.7%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 14M: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 48.863a 25 .003
Likelihood Ratio 50.180 25 .002
N of valid Cases 431
a. 15 cells (41.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.
APPENDICES
103 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14N CROSSTAB
1_Very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
6_Very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
10 21 17 17 8 7 0 80
14.1% 15.6% 19.5% 23.0% 19.0% 35.0% 0.0% 18.6%
17 39 22 26 19 5 1 129
23.9% 28.9% 25.3% 35.1% 45.2% 25.0% 50.0% 29.9%
40 63 37 26 12 5 0 183
56.3% 46.7% 42.5% 35.1% 28.6% 25.0% 0.0% 42.5%
0 2 1 1 0 0 1 5
0.0% 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 1.2%
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
4 10 9 4 3 3 0 33
5.6% 7.4% 10.3% 5.4% 7.1% 15.0% 0.0% 7.7%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 14O: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 70.401a 30 .000
Likelihood Ratio 35.969 30 .209
N of valid Cases 431
a. 21 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .00.
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
C4P - WOMEN HAVE ACCESS 
TO JUSTICE
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
APPENDICES
104 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14P CROSSTAB
C4P - WOMEN HAVE 
ACCESS TOJUSTICE
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
41 39 80
19.5% 17.6% 18.6%
58 71 129
27.6% 32.1% 29.9%
95 88 183
45.2% 39.8% 42.5%
2 3 5
1.0% 1.4% 1.2%
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
13 20 33
6.2% 9.0% 7.7%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
105 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 1Q CROSSTAB
1_very_strongly_ 
agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_ 
disagree
6_very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
17 22 9 0 24 2 74
17.0% 16.1% 16.7% 0.0% 32.4% 5.7% 17.2%
20 34 11 4 12 10 91
20.0% 24.8% 20.4% 12.9% 16.2% 28.6% 21.1%
39 49 15 16 18 10 147
39.0% 35.8% 27.8% 51.6% 24.3% 28.6% 34.1%
10 13 11 3 13 4 54
10.0% 9.5% 20.4% 9.7% 17.6% 11.4% 12.5%
3 2 1 0 4 0 10
3.0% 1.5% 1.9% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 2.3%
0 2 0 0 0 0 2
0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
11 15 7 8 3 9 53
11.0% 10.9% 13.0% 25.8% 4.1% 25.7% 12.3%
100 137 54 31 74 35 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
TABLE 14R: CHI-SQUARE TESTS
VALUE DF
ASYMP. SIG. 
(2-SIDED)
Pearson Chi-Square 58.109a 30 .002
Likelihood Ratio 61.960 30 .001
N of valid Cases 431
a. 16 cells (38.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
DISTRICT OF INTERVIEW
C4P - ENCOURAGED
WOMENTOSEEK 01-SANNIQUELLIE￾JUSTICEINCOURTS MAH 02-GBEHLEY-GEH 03-TAPPITTA
06-YARWEIN￾04-ZOE-GEH 05-SACLEPEA-MAH MEHNSONNOH TOTAL
APPENDICES
106 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14S CROSSTAB
AGE CATEGORY OF RESPONDENTS
C4P - ENCOURAGED
WOMEN TO SEEK JUSTICE 
IN COURTS
18-25
YEARS
26-35
YEARS
36-45
YEARS
46-55
YEARS
56-65
YEARS
66-75
YEARS
75 YEARS 
OR OLDER TOTAL
1_very_strongly_ 
agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_ 
disagree
6_very_strongly_ 
disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
14 19 16 13 7 5 0 74
19.7% 14.1% 18.4% 17.6% 16.7% 25.0% 0.0% 17.2%
11 34 14 17 10 5 0 91
15.5% 25.2% 16.1% 23.0% 23.8% 25.0% 0.0% 21.1%
33 48 32 17 13 3 1 147
46.5% 35.6% 36.8% 23.0% 31.0% 15.0% 50.0% 34.1%
5 14 10 17 4 3 1 54
7.0% 10.4% 11.5% 23.0% 9.5% 15.0% 50.0% 12.5%
1 4 1 1 2 1 0 10
1.4% 3.0% 1.1% 1.4% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 2.3%
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
7 15 14 9 5 3 0 53
9.9% 11.1% 16.1% 12.2% 11.9% 15.0% 0.0% 12.3%
71 135 87 74 42 20 2 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
APPENDICES
107 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
TABLE 14T CROSSTAB
1_very_strongly_agree
2_Strongly_agree
3_Agree
4_Disagree
5_Strongly_disagree
6_very_strongly_disagree
7_No_opinion
Total
38 36 74
18.1% 16.3% 17.2%
41 50 91
19.5% 22.6% 21.1%
74 73 147
35.2% 33.0% 34.1%
32 22 54
15.2% 10.0% 12.5%
4 6 10
1.9% 2.7% 2.3%
1 1 2
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
20 33 53
9.5% 14.9% 12.3%
210 221
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
C4P - ENCOURAGED WOMEN 
TO SEEK JUSTICE IN COURTS FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
108 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
APPENDIX 5 APPENDICES: TABLES SHOWING LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE OF 
WOMEN IN ADRMS
APPENDIX 5A: JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR - DISPUTES OF SPOUSES
* SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
a_Head_of_Family
a_Head_of_Family 
b_Clan_Head_Elders
a_Head_of_Family 
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief
a_Head_of_Family 
c_Traditional_Chief
b_Clan_Head_Elders
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
e_Police
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
c_Traditional_Chief
c_Traditional_Chief 
d_religious_leader 
e_Police
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police
d_religious_leader
e_Police
87 102 189
41.4% 46.2% 43.9%
16 10 26
7.6% 4.5% 6.0%
2 0 2
1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
14 12 26
6.7% 5.4% 6.0%
44 50 94
21.0% 22.6% 21.8%
17 14 31
8.1% 6.3% 7.2%
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
24 22 46
11.4% 10.0% 10.7%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
1 3 4
0.5% 1.4% 0.9%
2 5 7
1.0% 2.3% 1.6%
2 0 2
1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- DISPUTES OF SPOUSES
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
109 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
SEX OF RESPONDENT
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FEMALE MALE TOTAL
f_District_Country_Court
Total
APPENDIX 5B: JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR - DOMESTIC vIOLENCE
* SEX OF RESPONDENT CROSSTABULATION
a_Head_of_Family
b_Clan_Head_Elders
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- DISPUTES OF SPOUSES
SEX OF RESPONDENT
FEMALE MALE TOTAL
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
55 56 111
26.2% 25.3% 25.8%
a_Head_of_Family 16 19 35
b_Clan_Head_Elders 7.6% 8.6% 8.1%
a_Head_of_Family 6 4 10
b_Clan_Head_Elders
c_Traditional_Chief 2.9% 1.8% 2.3%
a_Head_of_Family 0 1 1
b_Clan_Head_Elders
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police 0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
a_Head_of_Family 14 9 23
c_Traditional_Chief 6.7% 4.1% 5.3%
a_Head_of_Family 3 1 4
c_Traditional_Chief
e_Police 1.4% 0.5% 0.9%
a_Head_of_Family 0 1 1
f_District_Country_Court 0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
55 61 116
26.2% 27.6% 26.9%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 30 26 56
c_Traditional_Chief 14.3% 11.8% 13.0%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 0 2 2
c_Traditional_Chief
e_Police 0.0% 0.9% 0.5%
APPENDICES
110 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
c_Traditional_Chief
c_Traditional_Chief d_ 
religious_leader
c_Traditional_Chief d_ 
religious_leader e_Police
c_Traditional_Chief e_Police
c_Traditional_Chief e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
d_religious_leader
e_Police
f_District_Country_Court
Total
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
23 29 52
11.0% 13.1% 12.1%
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
3 2 5
1.4% 0.9% 1.2%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
1 4 5
0.5% 1.8% 1.2%
3 1 4
1.4% 0.5% 0.9%
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
111 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
APPENDIX 5C: JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR - SGBV * SEX OF RESPONDENT 
CROSSTABULATION
b_Clan_Head_Elders
c_Traditional_Chief
SEX OF RESPONDENT
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- SGBV FEMALE MALE TOTAL
23 29 52
a_Head_of_Family
11.0% 13.1% 12.1%
a_Head_of_Family 
b_Clan_Head_Elders
2 2 4
1.0% 0.9% 0.9%
a_Head_of_Family 2 0 2
c_Traditional_Chief 1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
a_Head_of_Family 
c_Traditional_Chief
2 0 2
1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
a_Head_of_Family 0 1 1
e_Police 0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
a_Head_of_Family 
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police
1 1 2
f_District_Country_Court 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
a_Head_of_Family 
f_District_Country_Court
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
43 40 83
b_Clan_Head_Elders
20.5% 18.1% 19.3%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief
37 29 66
17.6% 13.1% 15.3%
APPENDICES
112 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief 
d_religious_leader
1 0 1
0.5% 0.0% 0.2%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police
1 7 8
0.5% 3.2% 1.9%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 8 7 15
c_Traditional_Chief
e_Police
f_District_Country_Court 3.8% 3.2% 3.5%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
c_Traditional_Chief 
f_District_Country_Court
2 2 4
1.0% 0.9% 0.9%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
d_religious_leader 
e_Police
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
5 3 8
b_Clan_Head_Elders
e_Police
2.4% 1.4% 1.9%
b_Clan_Head_Elders 
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
0 2 2
0.0% 0.9% 0.5%
2 0 2
b_Clan_Head_Elders
f_District_Country_Court
1.0% 0.0% 0.5%
c_Traditional_Chief
21 17 38
10.0% 7.7% 8.8%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- SGBV FEMALE MALE TOTAL
APPENDICES
113 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
0 1 1
c_Traditional_Chief
d_religious_leader
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
3 5 8
c_Traditional_Chief
e_Police
1.4% 2.3% 1.9%
c_Traditional_Chief 
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
20 12 32
9.5% 5.4% 7.4%
2 2 4
c_Traditional_Chief
f_District_Country_Court
1.0% 0.9% 0.9%
d_religious_leader
0 1 1
0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
e_Police
27 42 69
12.9% 19.0% 16.0%
e_Police 
f_District_Country_Court
1 1 2
0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
f_District_Country_Court
6 16 22
2.9% 7.2% 5.1%
Total
210 221 431
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SEX OF RESPONDENT
JUSTICE ACCESS POINT FOR
- SGBV FEMALE MALE TOTAL
NOTES AND REFERENCES
114 / END LINE EvALUATION OF CONNECT FOR PEACE (C4P) PROJECT
Notes andReferences
1 Catholic Relief Services (2016), ibid., p.1
2 Catholic Relief Services (2016) Connect For Peace (C4P) Project A Proposal In Response To Funding 
Opportunity FY16 Conflict Mitigation And Reconciliation Programs And Activities (Global Reconciliation 
Fund) RFA-OAA-16-000007,, Background document provided by CRS Liberia, p.1
3 Catholic Relief Services (2016) Connect For Peace (C4P) Project A Proposal In Response To Funding 
Opportunity FY16 Conflict Mitigation And Reconciliation Programs And Activities (Global Reconciliation 
Fund) RFA-OAA-16-000007,, Background document provided by CRS Liberia, p.1
4 Catholic Relief Services (2016), p. 9
115
Catholic Relief Services | 228 W. Lexington Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA | crs.org | crsespanol.org 
CRS Liberia | 16th Street Gardner Ave C-140, Sinkor, Monrovia, Liberia
For more information, contact bill.rastetter@crs.org.
© 2020 Catholic Relief Services. All Rights Reserved. 20OS-287609