Connect for Peace (C4P)
Midterm Evaluation Report
Submission Date: July 1, 2019 
Agreement Number: AID-669-A-17-00003
Activity Start Date and End Date: June 01, 2017 to May 31, 2020
AOR Name: Michael Haines
Submitted by: Mary Beth Molin, Head of Programming
Catholic Relief Services
16th Street and Gardner Avenue, Sinkor, Monrovia
Tel: +231 88 6468 128
Email: mary.molin@crs.org
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development Liberia Mission (USAID/Liberia).
Midterm Evaluation (C4P) | June 2019 ii
Executive Summary
The nuances of Peacebuilding in Liberia are intricate and subject to many tropes, the civil war broke the respect 
of youth towards elders and inter-ethnic disputes are intractable, are just two examples. The midterm 
evaluation for the Catholic Relief Services’ Connect for Peace project, updates our understanding of identity 
groups and how they relate to deepening the peace process. Overall the program is on track and making 
absolute gains, but these gains are slower than anticipated due to the entrenched nature of some of the social 
norms, which need to be challenged in order to achieve a positive peace.
The midterm evaluation was conducted using a household survey (382 respondents), as well as key informant 
interviews. Focus group discussions were held, with a cross section of society and actors within the traditional 
justice system. The data was analyzed, and cross referenced with the baseline report (January 2017) to present 
a picture of cautious optimism for both peace and justice in Liberia.
The evaluation provides an update point by point against the goal and strategic objectives of the project. By 
understanding the data gathered it is also possible to tell a story of social norms and identity amid a context of 
worsening economic conditions.
Overall project progress: Absolute progress, but relatively slow- All indicators are moving in a positive 
direction, but the rate of progress is slower than anticipated. The deteriorating economic conditions and 
unequal outcomes of the peace process (depending on identity), are possible causes of this slower rate of 
progression. Liberians are accepting of the process, which is positive, but unless imbalances are addressed, a 
feeling of injustice might persist.
Project Goal: A tentative move towards positive peace- The peaceful transition of power and broad acceptance 
of the peacebuilding process are positive signs. However, many structural issues remain unaddressed and 
unless identity is considered more in the justice system, these tensions will not reduce and further moves 
towards positive peace will be a challenge.
Strategic Objective 1: No news is mixed news- Results from the survey show the needle has not moved much 
on horizontal social cohesion. Relations between youth and elders remains a complex, but stable. Women 
remain somewhat isolated and accessing justice at a lower level and tribes have maintained an acceptance with 
working with one another, but socialization remains less of a priority. If these underlying differences remain 
unaddressed, positive peace will be hard to achieve.
Midterm Evaluation (C4P) | June 2019 iii
Strategic Objective 2: Not satisfying, but acceptable for now- The project has done much to reinforce the 
traditional justice system. As it stands the population at large are accepting of this process. Potentially it is part 
of a peace dividend after the 14-year civil war. However, by reinforcing traditional systems, traditional 
imbalances have also been reinforced. Therefore, while all are ‘accepting’ of the system, the level of 
dissatisfaction with the outcomes of that system remain low. For now, this pact is holding, addressing these 
underlying tensions will help increase a perception of justice and improve satisfaction.
The findings of the evaluation lead to a range of recommendations for both CRS and other peacebuilding actors. 
Recommendations for the remainder of the connect for peace project
• Gain better understanding of most common sources of conflict. A major point of inquiry should be 
establishing links (if any) between the increase in burglary and the wider economic environment.
• Strengthen mediation strategies to increase satisfaction with dispute resolutions. The project will 
analyze if disputes are resolved in line with the program strategy.
• Engage and understand mediation strategies of youth groups and women’s group. Women and youth 
have a strong role to play in dispute resolution, but more information is needed on exactly how.
• Engage Mandingos to better understand higher levels of dissatisfaction within these social networks as 
well as with those outside of their social networks.
• Examine other mechanisms being used besides the formal judicial system and specifically examine how 
spirituality affects dispute resolution. 
Recommendations for other peacebuilding actors and future peacebuilding in Liberia
• Target the relationship between youth and elders. Society may not return to how it was pre civil war, 
therefore tensions need examining and defusing.
• Explore links between economic development and peacebuilding. Will it be possible to deepen peace 
in a hostile economic climate?
• Introduce a stronger sex lens. The prevalence of domestic violence cannot be ignored, we must further 
explore the question; can you be a peacebuilder if you beat your wife?
0
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ii
List of tables.......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION .....................................................................................................3
OVERVIEW OF THE LIBERIAN CONTEXT: NEGATIVE PEACE CONTINUES .............................................3
OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT: HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE ......................................................3
PROJECT PROGNOSIS......................................................................................................................4
Methodology......................................................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHOD ...............................................................................................5
SAMPLING PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................5
DATA QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................6
LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................6
LESSONS LEARNT ............................................................................................................................6
Results.................................................................................................................................. 7
OVERALL PROJECT PROGRESS: ABSOLUTE PROGRESS, BUT RELATIVELY SLOW..................................7
PROJECT GOAL: A MOVE TOWARDS POSITIVE PEACE ......................................................................8
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1................................................................................................................11
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2................................................................................................................14
Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................... 21
CONCLUSIONS: A TIME OF CAUTIOUS OPTIMISUM ........................................................................21
RECOMMENDATIONS: HOW TO MOVE FROM ACCEPTANCE TO SATISFACTION...............................23
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 25
ANNEX A. MIDTERM EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE..............................................................25
I. Introduction/Background .............................................................................................. 25
ANNEX 2: MAIN INDICATOR TO BE TRACKED DURING THE MIDTERM EVALUATION........................31
ANNEX B. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS .............................................................................................32
1
ANNEX B1 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .........................................................................32
ANNEX B.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE ................................................................................1
ANNEX B.3 TOWN CHIEF INTERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................3
List of key terms
Negative peace: The absence of violence, yet tensions among subnational identities, which are of 
enough magnitude to warrant interventions in order to preempt a return to outright violence.
Positive peace: Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the 
creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution 
of conflict.1
Social norms: Cultural products or perceptions held by a group at large, such as traditions, values and 
customs.
Identity groups: For the purposes of this report identity groups are the collect all term for; age, ethnicity 
and sex, which are the demographic markers studied in the evaluation.
Triggers of conflict: In the context of this report triggers of conflict are a catch all term for the collection 
of conflicts studied i.e. domestic violence, theft, and waterpoint conflicts, et al.
The justice systems: For this report the justice system is both the traditional IADRMS’s and the formal 
judicial system, such as the police and courts.
Vertical social cohesion: The relationship between the state and its citizens. In the Liberian context it 
also includes the link between traditional and formal dispute resolution and justice.
Horizontal social cohesion: The relationship between and among identity groups. In this evaluations 
context it is largely linked to the binding, bonding and bridging (3B’s) framework.
1 “Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of 
conflict in a constructive way. Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict 
positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.” Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful 
means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. Oslo, Norway: International Peace Research Institute Oslo; Thousand 
Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
2
List of tables
Table 1: Performance Indicators..................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Rank of triggers of conflict................................................................................................ 8
Table 3: First attempt at conflict mediation, by type of conflict.................................................. 11
Table 4: Socialization among different ethnic groups.................................................................. 12
Table 5: First Point of Contact for Dispute Resolutions, by ethnic group and sex ....................... 15
Table 6: Level of comfort using the formal judicial system, by sex .............................................. 17
Table 7: Perception of capability of local leaders, by age group.................................................. 18
Table 8: Perception of capability of local leaders, by sex............................................................. 19
Table 9: Frequency of satisfaction with local leaders’ dispute resolutions, by sex...................... 20
List of Abbreviations
C4P Connect for Peace
CMM Conflict Mitigation and Management
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CSO Civil Society Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IADRM Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
JPC Catholic Justice and Peace Commission of Liberia
KII Key informant interview
MARWOPNET Mano River Women’s Peace Network
SO Strategic Objective
3
Introduction
OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION
The goal of the Connect for Peace project is, ‘Restoring positive peace in Liberia’. This midterm 
evaluation will attempt to measure progress towards this goal, as well as provide learning which the 
Catholic Relief Service (CRS) has gathered along the way. Measuring peace is notoriously difficult 
though, firstly, by differentiating between positive and negative peace the connect for peace project is 
dealing with perceptions and the intangible. Understanding how different identity groups experience 
justice, will go some way to explaining how they feel about peace. Secondly, projects to restore peace 
work in a nexus of other forces such as, the wider economy, social norms and contrasting legal 
frameworks. Consequently, providing evidence of success is difficult, due to the problem of attribution. 
However, CRS is committed to rigorous analysis of its work and this report is designed to a) provide an 
update of the connect for peace project against its target indicators and b) highlight key learnings that 
have come to light as part of the evaluation process. The report is thus relevant for the donor (USAID), 
but also the wider peacebuilding community in Liberia.
OVERVIEW OF THE LIBERIAN CONTEXT: NEGATIVE PEACE CONTINUES
Although Liberia’s civil war ended in 2005 and the country has taken significant steps toward democratic 
governance, positive peace has yet to take root throughout the country. National security remains 
fragile and under-resourced, and citizens live with the fear that violent conflict could reignite locally and 
spread. Liberians appreciate the state of peace in the country but fear that, given the current threats 
and trends, the peace is fragile and volatile. Liberians acknowledge that strengthening intercommunal 
relations and fostering meaningful reconciliation are crucial for the country to overcome the deep 
divisions from the enduring distrust, hurt and hatred sown by the civil war.
OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT: HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE
The Connect for Peace (C4P) project is a 36-month initiative that is implemented by CRS in Liberia, with 
support from USAID Conflict Mitigation and Management (CMM) program. C4P is designed to strengthen 
vertical and horizontal social cohesion between and among citizens, civil society organizations (CSOs) and 
public officials, with the broader aim of contributing to peace writ large in Liberia. 
C4P activities are designed to build individual and institutional capacity and offer disparate adversarial 
groups opportunities for reconciliation. The program design was informed by a conflict analysis conducted 
by CRS in 2016. A baseline was conducted in January 2017 which established an understanding of 
perceptions of peace and the justice system in Nimba County. The project is supporting the establishment 
of trust between citizens and state and reinforcing Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 
(I-IADRMS), so that all members of civil society (including women and youth), public sector institutions, 
4
and traditional authorities embrace diversity, resolve differences constructively, and establish conditions 
for positive peace in Liberia. 
CRS selected sub-recipient partners, the 
Catholic Justice and Peace Commission 
of Liberia (JPC) and the Mano River 
Women’s Peace Network 
(MARWOPNET) to support the 
implementation of the C4P project. 
Both organizations have a well￾established reputation in the sector of 
peacebuilding and are leading field level 
project activities in Nimba county. It is 
anticipated that C4P activities will reach 
over 230,000 citizens across Nimba 
County and at least 50,000 residents of 
selected statutory districts in greater 
Monrovia. 
PROJECT PROGNOSIS
This evaluation is to measure the impact of the connect for peace project. As such the results portion of 
this report will be split into sections matching the results framework of the project. Each one of these 
sections has a tagline to give the overarching impression of progress, based on the available evidence and 
CRS’s assessment:
• Overall project progress: Absolute progress, but relatively slow
• Project Goal: A tentative move towards positive peace
• Strategic objective 1: No news is mixed news
• Strategic objective 2: Not satisfying but acceptable for now
The headings show a theme of cautious optimism about the state of peace in Liberia and how Citizens of 
Nimba County feel about their access to justice. All indicators have progressed but are facing strong 
headwinds of a deteriorating economic situation and confronting social norms.
The overall picture is one of a project which is on track, but which is vulnerable to the shifting sands of 
Liberian politics and economy. In addition, while some progress has been observed regarding social 
norms, these are often more entrenched than previously understood which is one of the main factors 
behind the slower than anticipated progress. However, the positive feedback given by many beneficiaries, 
coupled with absolute gains against indicators gives CRS the reassurance that the project is making a 
tangible and positive impact.
Figure 1: IADRM structure to prevent or manage conflict
5
Methodology
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHOD
The midterm evaluation applied a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. Employing randomized 
sampling technique, a survey was administered to a total of 382 households in Nimba County. To 
supplement the quantitative data, 10 focus groups discussions (FGDs) and 10 key informant interviews 
(KIIs) were carried out. The ToR for the midterm is found in Annex A. 
Survey
A random sampling of household (382) survey was conducted in 36 towns of the project communities. 
These towns are drawn from the 6 statutory districts in Nimba county. 12 experienced enumerators and 
CRS technical staff supervised data collection in Monrovia and Nimba. Mobile phones and CommCare 
software were used throughout the process, after a two-day training in Monrovia. Enumerators spent a 
half day in Nimba piloting the survey questions and made necessary adjustments to the questionnaire. 
The enumerators were divided into three groups with a CRS technical staff member supervising each 
group.
Focus Group Discussions
The midterm qualitative data was collection through 10 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), that were 
facilitated by three technical staff of CRS. The FGDs were conducted with 6 single identity groups (1 youth 
group, 2 women groups, 3 men groups) and 4 mixed identity groups of representatives from CSOs. The 
FGDs gathered data to support the household survey and expand upon the differences in perception and 
experience between groups. The discussions informed CRS and its partners qualitative understanding of 
social cohesion and dispute resolution mechanisms in the communities.
Key Informant Interview 
10 key informant interviews were conducted across the 6 statutory districts in Nimba county. Each 
interview considered targeting key stakeholders that are relevant to sustaining the peace in the country, 
using indigenous alternative disputes resolution mechanisms (I-IADRMS). Stakeholders interviewed
included town chiefs, district commissioners and statutory district superintendent. The interview was 
used to (i) measure the project challengesfaced by local leaders in resolving community conflict, (ii) assess
how the project has adapted to overcome those obstacles. 
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The sample size of the midterm evaluation was based on the population of the area of intervention. The 
baseline sampling also aided the sample size of the midterm. The population was estimated at 133,557 
leading to a sample size for the household survey at 391, of which 382 were collected. Sample size was 
determined with the following formula:
Formula: 𝑛𝑓 =
𝑛
1+
𝑛
𝑁
n=1/d2 
6
nf= Sample size
N= Population
n= degree of representatives
d is precision (d= 0.05) 
DATA QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT
The household survey data was exported from the CommCare system for analysis in SPSS and Excel by 
CRS’ Regional Technical Advisor for MEAL. Further analysis was conducted by the C4P project team and 
CRS MEAL Officer using Excel for the final interpretation of data and production of report. The FGDs and 
KIIs were consolidated into summary reports. 
To adequately analyze the midterm data, respondents were asked basic demographic questions on sex, 
age, and ethnic group. The survey data categories nine ethnic groups include: Bassa, Dan, Grebo, Kissi, 
Kpelleh, Kru, Lorma, Mende and Via. Respondents were classified into three age ranges 18-35, 36-55, 55 
and above. NB: In order to reduce the length of the report only data of direct relevance to the results 
framework has been selected, for a full dataset please contact CRS Liberia (see cover page for details).
LIMITATIONS
Some of the limitations the project team and enumerators faced during data collection include, 
inaccessibility of a few communities due to poor road conditions, limitation of CommCare, the data 
collection application used, inclement weather conditions due to the rainy season, and respondents 
limited availability due to involvement in farming activities during the morning hours of the evaluation. 
Despite these challenges, the field enumerators visited all 36 project communities and reached out to 382
households, across the 6 statutory districts. Enumerators found that many towns residents leave their 
town early in the morning and come back late in the evening. As a result, enumerators administered the 
household survey during the evening hours, which contributed to a high number of households reached.
LESSONS LEARNT
Daily structured debriefings
Since the household survey took place across Nimba County, the evaluation team was not always able to 
debrief together. While individual teams debriefed at the end of each day, inter group comparisons
were a challenge. More structured daily briefings (e.g. by phone) would allow the team to identify and 
address any issues with the questionnaire early as well as report on any early trends. 
Maintain flexible scheduling for interviews and continue to schedule around daily activities
Some of the interviews occurred in the evening hours after the respondents had returned from their 
agricultural duties. This practice should be continued in the final evaluation.
Work with partner organizations to do some of the scheduling/outreach 
The CRS team did most of the scheduling for the interviews with key leaders. CRS will engage partners 
more to do community mobilization and scheduling to ensure that the communities are aware of the 
upcoming evaluation exercise and are able to participate fully. 
7
Results
OVERALL PROJECT PROGRESS: ABSOLUTE PROGRESS, BUT RELATIVELY SLOW
The conclusions of this evaluation are that the project is on track but is grappling with the problem of 
attribution and confronting social norms. While absolute progress has been made against each indicator 
(see table 1) the relative progress against targets is lower than expected. As we shall see, the reasons 
behind this slower than anticipated performance are the entrenched nature of social norms and an 
unconducive enabling environment. 
Below is the updated indicator tracking table as of the midterm evaluation. The evaluation has focused 
heavily on the strategic objective level of the project, as these indicators require survey data to account 
for perceptions, not simply cumulative data. The table shows an absolute increase from the baseline, but 
a small increase which means that final targets might not be reached. However, given the prevailing 
environment an absolute increase is deemed a cause for cautious optimism.
Table 1: Performance Indicators
Performance Indicators Unit of 
Measurement
Direction 
of 
change
Baseline 
Value
2018 
Targets
FY18 
Evaluation
Final 
Target
Goal: Positive Peace in Liberia is restored
SO1: Horizontal Social Cohesion is strengthened
SO-Indicator 1.1. Percentage of people 
who perceive healthy and positive 
relationships between and among 
social and ethnic groups in their 
communities.
Percent + 41% 51% 43% 70%
SO 2: Vertical Social Cohesion Strengthened
SO-Indicator #2.1. % of people who 
perceive having increased 
opportunities to engage with local 
leaders to discuss issues related to 
peace and security in heir 
communities
Percent + 0 35% 24% 55%
SO Indicator # 2.2 % of people who 
perceive having confidence in their 
community’s IADRM structure(s) to 
successfully mitigate or resolve 
conflict
Percent + 67% 72% 67% 77%
8
PROJECT GOAL: A MOVE TOWARDS POSITIVE PEACE
Enabling environment
While Liberia has passed 16 years of relative peace tribal tensions and old mistrusts persist. The smooth 
transition of power during the 2017 elections signaled deepening of positive peace, but the negative 
performance of the economy is also putting a strain on households and particularly youth who are 
unable to find worthwhile employment to facilitate their transition to adulthood. The poor performance 
of the economy raises the stakes of some of the triggers of conflicts such as land disputes and 
potentially contributes to the rise in frequency of others such as burglaries and theft. 
Connect for Peace does not specifically address the triggers of conflict rather aims to strengthen both 
horizontal and vertical cohesion as a mechanism for contributing to overall peace in Liberia. The project 
has made positive strides in strengthening horizontal and vertical cohesion and the hope is that by 
strengthening relationships between identity groups and between citizens and the state, that conflicts 
can be resolved effectively and peacefully. However, the persistence of the triggers of conflict 
potentially contributes to further entrenching the stereotypes among identity groups and reinforces 
negative interactions, which could explain the slow movement on the C4P strategic objective indicators. 
Triggers of conflict persist, but the ranking has altered
The main triggers of conflict found in the baseline persist though there is some difference in the overall 
ranking. The table below shows the changes in the overall ranking of reported conflicts. It must be noted 
that when aggregated conflicts are reported directly in line with societies demographic makeup (e.g. 
women report 51% of conflicts and men 49%, Manos report 44% of conflicts and are 45% of the 
targeted population). As an aggregate level, conflict is as expected and this holds true across, age, 
ethnicity and sex. However, identity informs which type of conflict is felt by individuals (e.g. women are 
more susceptible to domestic violence) and informs how the conflict is dealt with (women use ‘lower’
levels of justice e.g. household’).
Table 2: Rank of triggers of conflict
Baseline rank of triggers of conflict Midterm rank of triggers of conflict
1. Land disputes 1. Land disputes
2. Domestic violence 2. Burglary and theft
3. Debt collection 3. Domestic violence
4. Water pump 4. Marriage disputes
5. Burglary and theft 5. Physical harm
6. Marriage disputes 6. Debt collection
7. Physical harm 7. Water pump disputes
8. Property destruction 8. Property destruction
9. Adultery 9. Adultery
10. Rape 10. rape
This section will examine the three most prevalent types of conflict according to the survey results, two 
of these (land disputes and domestic violence) are the same as the baseline. Burglary and theft have
replaced waterpoint conflicts in the top three. In addition, water pump conflict will also be examined as 
results indicate its decline can be partially attributed to improved mediation.
9
NB: these are self-reported rankings, as such some may be under reported based on cultural norms. In 
addition, the severity of the conflict has not been measured or accounted for. As stated previously CRS 
is concerned with the resolution of disputes so has not interrogated their causes beyond self-reporting.
Land Disputes 
Land disputes remain the most common source of conflict within the surveyed communities. Land 
disputes comprise 22% of the conflicts that occurred in the past 12 months across all ethnic groups. 
Qualitative data from the baseline shows that confusion over communal land versus inherited land as well 
as delayed payment of land rental fees are triggers for land disputes. The FGD and KII respondents also 
identified tribal differences as a trigger and traditional councils that are not trained in mediation. Most 
land disputes are first brought to the town chief or traditional council. If the dispute is not resolved at that 
level it is escalated to the magistrates. KIIs show that town/district chiefs will escalate land dispute cases 
to magistrates or the police around 50% of the time. Middle aged respondents are more likely than youth 
or elderly respondents to list land disputes as a common source of conflict, most likely because middle 
aged respondents are more likely to own land.
Land disputes, across all ethnic groups, are most likely to be brought to a town or clan chief first followed 
by the magistrates. Manos and Mandingos report higher percentages of bringing land dispute issues to 
clan chiefs than Gios. 100% of Mandingos and 80% of Manos said they bring land disputes first to the clan 
chief, while 62% of Gios said the same. Gios are more likely (31%) to bring land disputes to a family 
member first, which is much higher than the other ethnic groups. This could potentially be because the 
land disputes that Gios experience are intra-family as opposed to the other groups which are potentially 
inter-ethnic group. 
Burglaries and Theft
Burglaries and theft comprise 22% of all types of conflicts cited in the last 12 months. FGDs and KIIs from 
the baseline indicated that the communities have been unable to implement safety measures that 
protects their property such as cattle, crops, clothes, and cooking utensil. While burglaries and thefts are 
initially brought to a town chief, they are often escalated to magistrates or the police. Burglaries and thefts 
are rarely brought to the traditional council. The increase in burglaries and theft could be linked to the 
slow rate of development and the increasingly poor economy in the communities. Chiefs interviewed in 
the KIIs all cited development initiates and economic growth as a key to peacebuilding in their 
communities. Elderly across all ethnic groups are more likely than the other age groups to experience 
burglaries and theft in the past 12 months with 27% of elderly Manos and 33% of elderly Gios. Mandingo 
youth are more likely than elderly to experience burglaries and theft with 36% of youth Mandingos reports 
burglaries and theft in the past 12 months. Gios and Manos are most likely to report burglaries and theft 
to the traditional system while Mandingos are more likely to bring cases of burglaries and theft to the 
magistrates with 50% of Mandingo reports burglaries and theft to the magistrates compares to 13% of 
Gios and 17% of Manos. Manos are more likely than Gios to bring burglaries and theft to the traditional 
chief with 56% of Manos bringing conflicts to the traditional chief compared to 48% of Gios. 
Domestic Violence
Both the baseline and the midterm evaluation show that domestic violence as a common source of 
conflict. Domestic violence comprises 13% of all conflicts reported within the last 12 months with women 
10
more likely than men to see domestic violence as a common source of conflict. 100% of the female FGDs 
said that domestic violence is the most common source of conflict in their community. They also indicated 
that marriage disputes and physical harm are common sources of conflict as well, which could be 
conflated with domestic violence. The FGDs from the baseline provide some information about the 
perceived reasons for the high rate of domestic violence. These include adultery, poverty and unruly 
behavior from one of the partners. Respondents across all ethnic groups indicated that they bring 
domestic violence issues to a family member first and then to either the traditional system or the 
magistrates. 
While physical harm is not a top source of conflict, it is interesting to note that 22% each of Gio men and 
women indicated that physical harm was a source of conflict in the past 12 months, which is a much higher 
percentage than the other ethnic groups. Physical harm was not well defined in the survey (and may well 
be the expression/form of conflict) and could include domestic violence or physical harm as related to 
some of the other sources of conflict. It is noteworthy though the Gios have report more incidents of 
physical harm than the other ethnic group and this will be further explored by the C4P project team. 
Water pump-use dispute
Water pump use has moved from the third most common to fourth most common source of conflict. FGDs 
and KIIs show that these disputes are a result of insufficient water pumps at the community level and 
some community members believing that they should have preferential use of the pumps. The disputes 
often involve physical violence, specifically against children who are traditionally responsible for fetching 
water. Several chiefs interviewed in the KIIs spoke of new community measures that will address these 
disputes. The chiefs and district leadership have passed traditional orders that prohibit beating of young 
children over the use of waater pumps. Those that break the order will be brought the traditional council. 
Some additional strategies outline by the chiefs are working with the water pump committees and 
approaching different NGOs for fundng for additional water pumps. KIIs show that water pump disputes 
have not been escalated beyond the chiefs in the past 12 months.
Society experiences conflict in line with expectations, but identity distorts access to justice
While all identity groups are experiencing some type of conflict, identity and type of conflict affects how 
and when individuals access the justice system. The table below shows how the different ethnic groups 
initially attempt to resolve conflict. Across identity groups, individuals use first a system they know, even 
though they do not have complete confidence in the system. Male respondents are more likely to use a 
system dominated by their peers (e.g. traditional system, formal system), while female respondents use 
systems, they think can support them (e.g. family and friends, traditional system). There is a general 
reluctance to use the formal justice system, though men and youth engage with it more often than 
women or elders. It is also interesting to note that survey shows that the religious system is not widely 
used. This is surprising for Mandingos, a predominately Muslim ethnic group. The baseline showed that 
they often resolve disputes through mosques. 
11
Table 3: First attempt at conflict mediation, by type of conflict
Ethnic Group Type of Conflict Church Traditional Chief Family Member Magistrate
Gio Burglary and Theft 3% 48% 38% 13%
Domestic Violence 0% 42% 53% 5%
Farmland Disputes 0% 62% 31% 8%
Mandingo Burglary and Theft 0% 33% 17% 50%
Domestic Violence 0% 0% 50% 50%
Farmland Disputes 0% 100% 0% 0%
Mano Burglary and Theft 0% 56% 28% 17%
Domestic Violence 4% 50% 42% 4%
Farmland Disputes 0% 80% 18% 3%
Others Burglary and Theft 0% 33% 67% 0%
Domestic Violence 13% 25% 25% 38%
Farmland Disputes 0% 44% 44% 11%
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1
Strategic Objective 1: Horizontal Social Cohesion is strengthened. 
Indicator: Percentage of people who perceive healthy and positive relationships between and among 
social and ethnic groups in their communities.
The midterm evaluation data found only a 2% increase in the percentage of people who perceive 
healthy and positive relationships between and among social and ethnic groups in their communities 
since the baseline. While the majority of Liberian’s indicate that they interact with individuals across 
ethnic groups and generations, progress has been slower than anticipated. 
Despite the slow movement on SO Indicator 1, one area of improvement which has been observed was 
the increase in hometown associations. The growth of these groups represents a positive engagement in 
community development. The increase in usage of such groups is seen as one of the signals that the 
peace is deepening, and positive peace is possible. 
No major changes observed in horizontal social cohesion
Social interactions among Gio, Mano and Mandingo ethnic groups still remains a challenge. 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. This seems to suggest that respondents are 
more willing to work with other ethnic groups, but not as willing to socialize. One reason that could 
explain why there is active participation across identity groups to work together on town projects is 
shared pride in being from Nimba. In fact, the midterm data shows that one of the unifying 
characteristics across identity groups is pride in being from Nimba County with 94% of all respondents 
saying they are proud of being from Nimba. This pride could contribute to individual's willingness to 
12
work together on town issues, which in turn provides individuals of different ethnic groups 
opportunities to work together. 
An individual’s sex contributes to have how they perceive interactions among ethnic groups. The 
midterm data shows that women and specifically Gio and Mano women, are more likely to perceive 
interactions among all ethnic groups as rare than men of the same ethnic groups. Gio women make up 
62% of all Gio that said never. Similarly, 66% of all Mano women said rarely. This shows that women are 
more comfortable working or socializing within their own ethnic groups or that they do not have as 
many opportunities as men to work across ethnic group. In contrast, Mandingo women are more likely 
than Mandingo men to perceive interactions among all ethnic groups as frequent with women 
comprising 85% of the Mandingos that said frequent. This could be because Mandingos are the minority 
group and so by necessity must interact with the majority group more frequently.
Table 4: Socialization among different ethnic groups
Ethnicity of 
Respondent
All Gio Mandingo Mano Others
% % % % %
Gio 38% 25% 7% 16% 14%
Mandingo 59% 19% 15% 7% 0%
Mano 38% 17% 4% 22% 19%
Other 42% 8% 0% 17% 33%
What are the main perceived tensions (received wisdom) in Liberia?
C4P examines social cohesion through the lens of three identity groups, ethnicity, sex and age. These 
correspond to the perceived tensions in Liberia and the common wisdom of what affects how 
individuals interact with each other. The midterm data shows that all these tensions affect social 
cohesion in some way, but perhaps not to the magnitude commonly thought. 
Ethnicity: Gios and Mandingos still at odds
In Nimba in particular, there has been ongoing tension between the majority tribes (Mano and Gio) and 
the minority Mandingo tribe. This stems from both the fact that Mandingos are Muslim in a majority 
Christian country, but also from accusations from the war that Mandingos were more loyal to Guinea 
where Mandingos are a majority tribe. While only 10% of all respondents said there is an ethnic group 
that they would not work with Mandingos were cited 73% of the time (of the 10%), as the group to be 
excluded. This shows that Mandingos are still being excluded or viewed as the “other”. 
13
Gios are more likely than Manos or Mandingos to say that there is an ethnic group that they would not 
work with (58% of Gios). Manos comprise 40% of the respondents that said they would not work with a 
specific ethnic group. This could suggest that the tension between Gios and Mandingos is potentially 
slightly more pronounced than between Manos and Mandingos.
Sex: less opportunities to interact with others contributes to weak social cohesion
Women are more likely than men to only associate with their own ethnic groups. In fact, Gio women are 
more likely than Gio men to say that there is a group that that would not work with Gio women 
comprise 33% of those that said there is an ethnic group that they would not work with compared to 
Gio men who comprise 25%. There is a similar trend with Mandingo women in which 64% of Mandingo 
men socialize with all ethnic groups compared to 56% of Mandingo women. Again, this could be because 
men have more opportunities to interact with other ethnic groups than women. In contrast Mano 
women are more likely to say all than Mano men with 43% of Mano women saying all compared to 33% 
Mano men.
Intergenerational tension: unclear relationships between youth and elders
Age is also a perceived tension in Liberia leftover from the war in which the use of child soldiers 
disrupted the traditional village systems and set up youth and elders as antagonists. Interestingly, when 
it comes to age the quantitative and qualitative data shows two different stories. The household survey 
shows that overall most people survey say that people of all generations work together frequently and 
an average of 70% of all youth surveyed say that people of all generations work together on town issues. 
However, the FGDs and KIIs revealed that there is some tension between elders and youth. Youth 
believe that the elders exclude them from town issues and elders view the youth as antagonists. There 
seems to be a desire on the part of the youth to take a larger leadership role in the community, which is 
sometimes perceived by the elders as a negative comment on their ability to leader. The FGDs also 
reveal that the youth prefer to resolve conflicts amongst themselves. KIIs with chiefs indicates that this 
is an accepted mechanism, but it is unclear how this is contributing to the perception of distrust and 
antagonism on both sides.
Hometown associations: a cause for optimism
Hometown Associations are social groups based in Monrovia that are comprised of people from 
communities in Nimba County. Hometown Associations can vary, and some are made up of single 
identity groups while others are mixed. The Connect for Peace project has been engaging the 
Hometown Associations through connector projects which are small scale development or community 
projects that benefit the entire community. Some examples are brushing the road and communal 
farming. Overall 71% of the population has some sort of contact with Hometown Associations with the 
most frequent being once a week and least frequent once a year. This is an increase from 54% reported 
in the baseline. There are some differences among the different identity groups. Women have slightly 
more contact with HAs than men with Gio and Mandingo women having stronger engagement than 
Manos. 
14
Ethnicity is a stronger driver of engagement between the HAs and communities than age. Of the 29% of 
respondents that do not have any contact with HAs, Mano youth representing 25% of those 
respondents. Gio youth in contrast are more engaged with the Hometown Associations and represent 
24% of those respondents who said they have contact with the HAs once a month. Middle aged Manos 
are 24% of those that said they have contact with the HAs once a year. 
As stated above, one of the main activities of HAs is to lead community-based projects that support 
development in the community or contribute to improving the well-being of community members. 31% 
of all respondents said that they sometimes do projects with or because of HAs. This has remained 
about the same since the baseline in which 27% of respondents said the same. There has been a 
decrease in the percentage of respondents that have never done a project because of the HAs. During 
the baseline 56% of respondents said they had never done a project while the midterm shows that 40% 
of all respondents said that they have never done a project with or because of the HAs.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2
Strategic Objective 2: Vertical cohesion is strengthened 
Indicator 2.1.: Percentage of people who perceive having increased opportunities to engage with local 
leaders to discuss issues related to peace and security in heir communities
Indicator 2.2: Percentage of people who perceive having confidence in their community’s IADRM
structure(s) to successfully mitigate or resolve conflict
Individuals in Nimba County use both the formal judicial system and Indigenous Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Mechanisms (IADRM) to resolve disputes. There are different levels within the IADRMS, and 
the levels include household elders, town chiefs, district chiefs and the traditional councils (see 
introduction for overview). 60% of the respondents, regardless of age group and sex, said they turn to 
the household elder first, followed by town chief with 31%. 27% of the respondents that said they would 
turn to the household elder first are Gio females and 23% are Mano males. Elders are just one level within 
the IADRM hierarchy and cases brought to the elders can be escalated according to severity. Generally, 
attempts are made to resolve the issue within the family. This is particularly true of domestic conflicts 
such as marriage disputes, infidelity and domestic violence. Women are also more likely to bring conflicts 
to household elders first than men. 82% of all women interviewed said they first bring their conflicts to 
household elders while 58% of all men interviewed said the same. 
15
Table 5: First Point of Contact for Dispute Resolutions, by ethnic group and sex
Ethnic 
Group
Sex Household 
Elder
Town 
Chief
Clan Chief Others
% % % %
Gio Female 27% 24% 0% 5%
Male 21% 24% 0% 29%
Mandingo Female 3% 4% 15% 0%
Male 1% 3% 8% 10%
Mano Female 21% 24% 38% 10%
Male 23% 20% 38% 43%
Other Female 1% 2% 0% 0%
Male 3% 0% 0% 5%
Total 60% 31% 3% 6%
Beyond household elders, citizens then follow the administrative structure for resolving community 
conflict, which begins with the household elders and continues to the Paramount Chief and the traditional 
council. The traditional council is comprised of members of the ADRM hierarchy. Chiefs and the traditional 
council will also often consult with youth groups and women groups especially when the conflict involves 
one of their peers. The FGDs also show the town chiefs will often refer conflicts to youth groups or women 
groups first so that they can be resolved instead of escalating to the clan chief or traditional council. 
While the household survey shows that most respondents prefer IADRMS, there are cases in which 
conflicts are referred to the formal judicial system or in which actors from the formal judicial system are 
invited to participate in the ADRM process. The KIIs show that chiefs and the traditional council will 
sometimes invite the district commissioner or the district superintendent to participate in dispute 
resolutions specifically if they unable to resolve the dispute themselves. Per KIIs with the district chiefs, 
the District Commissioner and Superintendent also work with the town/district chiefs to communicate 
messages to their communities and to address district wide issues. Certain types of cases are almost 
always referred to the Commission and Superintendent, such as rape cases and criminal cases. 
The traditional justice system is widely accepted and used
Overall, community members trust traditional leadership more than government leadership and are 
more comfortable bringing conflicts to traditional leadership rather than the government. 68% of all 
respondents said that they sometimes bring their conflicts to local leaders compared to only 39% that 
said the same about the formal judicial system. 13% of all respondents said that they either bring 
conflicts to local leaders every time or often compared to only 4% that said the same about the formal 
judicial system. Manos seem to use IADRMS more frequently than the other ethnic groups with 10% of 
Manos saying that often bring conflicts to local leaders compared to 6% of Gios and 0% of Mandingos. 
Within the Mano ethnic group, middle aged Manos use IADRMS most frequently and make up 52% of 
those that said they use IADRMS every time they have a conflict. 
16
57% of Nimba county citizens interviewed feel comfortable using IADRM structures with 52% of those 
interviewed indicating that they believed the chiefs and community leaders to be capable. The KIIs and 
FGDs validated this data. Interviewees elaborated to say that the majority of Nimba county citizens 
prefer IADRM structures to the formal judicial systems because they are cheaper and more accessible. 
Community members believe that I-ARDM strucures contribute significantly to community cohesion and 
peace.
Despite use there are divergences in the level of comfort
While overall respondents prefer IADRMS, there are some divergences in the level of comfort in engaging 
local leaders in the traditional system especially across certain identity groups. Across all ethnic groups 
13% said that they never bring conflicts to local leaders. While this is a relatively small percentage, it is 
important to consider how these exclusions affect overall peace. Women and youth tend to use IADRMS 
less frequently, specifically Gio youth and Mano and Mandingo women. Gio youth make up 26% of those 
that said never while Mandingo and Mano females are more likely than their male counterparts to say 
that they never bring conflicts to local leaders. This could be because some youth and women prefer to 
resolve conflicts within their own peer groups which the FGDs and KIIs revealed to be a common practice
44% of respondents say they are a little comfortable and 18% of all respondents say they are not at all 
comfortable bringing issues to the traditional council. Of those respondents there are equally 27% of 
male Manos and female Manos compared to 20% female Gios and 14% male Gios. This suggests that 
Manos are more reluctant to bring issues to the traditional council than Gios. Mandingo women feel 
more comfortable bringing issues to the traditional council than Gio and Mano women with 65% of 
Mano women and 69% of Gio women having low comfort approaching the traditional council compared 
to just 40% of Mandingo women. This could also be a commentary on the trust that Mandingo women 
place in the traditional councils as being an impartial source of conflict resolution compared to the 
family structure, where Mandingo women typically begin with any sort of conflict and have a high level 
of dissatisfaction. 
47% of female said they are comfortable or very comfortable bringing disputes local leaders, which 
shows that women are fairly split on whether they are comfortable bringing issues to local leaders. 
Female Manos seem to be less comfortable bringing issues to local leaders than female Gios. Female 
Manos comprise 29% of those that said they are not at all comfortable bringing issues to the traditional 
council. In contrast female Gios comprise 29% of those that said very comfortable. 
While most people feel comfortable bringing disputes to their local leaders, the KIIs reveal that chiefs 
often distrust the community. Several chiefs indicated that community members do not respect town 
leadership and are not involved in development activities. One chief also indicated that community 
members refuse to participate in meetings on important issues. These opinions are interesting when 
you consider that overall community members seem to feel comfortable bringing their issues to local 
leaders. This could be linked to the dual purposes that the chiefs self-identified in the KIIs. While all 
chiefs listed that peace and social cohesion are part of the roles, they all also indicated that managing 
development projects is also part of their role. It is unclear if community members also see that as the 
role of traditional leadership. 
All the chiefs mentioned that they are not paid for their services and indicated that payment would 
improve IADRMS. The lack of payment introduces a potential bias as mentioned earlier and some in the 
17
FGD indicated that they felt traditional leaders are often biased by the potential for financial gain. While 
community members feel this, the chiefs feel that they are providing a service and are not receiving the 
respect they deserve from the community as well as not receiving payment which could exacerbate any 
existing tensions or distrust. 
Reluctance to engage with government leadership and use formal justice system 
To understand how people, interact with the government leadership, the household survey asked 
people to rate their comfortability bringing issues to government leaders. The survey also examined the 
perception of the usefulness of government funds and structures and whether respondents believed 
that those things contributed positively to the community. Overall, people are far less comfortable 
bringing issues to government with only 26% of all respondents saying they are comfortable or very 
comfortable. This is in comparison with 72% that are comfortable or very comfortable bringing issues to 
local leaders. 58% of the people interviewed said they are not at all comfortable using the formal judicial 
system.
Reasons that could explain why people are less comfortable using the formal judicial system include; its 
comparative expense, its distance from communities (people are often unwilling to travel to a 
magistrate), it takes a long time and FGDs indicated that formal justice may not be good for social 
cohesion.
The KIIs with the town and district chief seem to suggest that the chiefs actively discourage community 
members from bringing their issues to the formal judicial system as there is the perception that that it 
promotes discord within the community. That said, there are some types of cases that always brought to 
the formal judicial system such as rape and physical violence. This could contribute to some individual’s 
comfortability of bringing issues to the formal judicial systems as it could be reserved for very serious 
conflicts
Table 6: Level of comfort using the formal judicial system, by sex
Ethnicity Sex Very 
comfortable
Comfortable somewhat Not at all 
% % % %
Gio female 8% 17% 30% 26%
male 17% 26% 26% 19%
Mandingo female 0% 3% 0% 5%
male 8% 2% 3% 2%
Mano female 17% 18% 18% 25%
male 50% 31% 21% 20%
Other female 0% 1% 0% 2%
male 0% 1% 2% 2%
Total 3% 23% 16% 58%
18
Are dissatisfactions linked to identity?
To understand how satisfied community members are with conflict resolution mechanisms, the 
household survey asked respondents to rate how capable the local leaders as well as the frequency with 
which they are satisfied with the resolution. 77% of all respondents said that local leaders are either 
capable or very capable. Mano youth comprise 26% of those that said very capable compared to Gio 
youth that make up 18% of those that said very capable suggesting the Mano youth have a slightly more 
positive perception of their leaders' capabilities. 18% of all respondents said that the local leaders are 
only a little capable. Gio youth comprise 30% of those that said a little capable. 
Table 7: Perception of capability of local leaders, by age group
Ethnic Group Age Group Very Capable Capable A little Not at all
% % % %
Gio elderly 11% 5% 6% 13%
middle aged 13% 21% 16% 13%
youth 16% 19% 30% 19%
Mandingo middle aged 2% 4% 4% 0%
youth 3% 2% 3% 13%
Mano elderly 6% 8% 7% 0%
middle aged 20% 23% 20% 6%
youth 26% 17% 7% 25%
Other elderly 1% 1% 3% 0%
middle aged 0% 0% 0% 13%
youth 1% 1% 4% 0%
Women, particularly Gio and Mandingo women, tend to perceive the local leaders as less capable than 
men. Gio women make up 30% of those that said leaders are a little capable when the data is 
disaggregated by sex and ethnic group. 27% of all Mandingo women interviewed said that the local 
leaders are a little capable of resolving disputes while 22% of Mandingo men said the same. That said, 
compared to men of other ethnic groups Mandingo men are more likely to have negative perception of 
local leaders’ capabilities. 22% of Mandingos said that the leaders are a little capable which is a much 
higher percentage than men of other ethnic groups. 23% of Gio women said the leaders are a little 
capable compared to 18% of Gio men. 
19
Table 8: Perception of capability of local leaders, by sex
Ethnic Group Age Group Very capable Capable A little Not at all 
% %` % %
Gio female 24% 22% 30% 19%
male 18% 23% 21% 25%
Mandingo female 4% 4% 6% 0%
male 1% 3% 1% 13%
Mano female 24% 22% 16% 31%
male 28% 25% 19% 0%
Other female 0% 1% 3% 6%
male 2% 1% 4% 6%
Total 25% 52% 18% 4%
While 77% of all respondents perceive local leaders as capable or very capable, 55% of all respondents 
indicate that they are either often or always satisfied with local leaders’ dispute resolutions. This 
suggests that while the respondents believe that local leaders are capable, that they are not always able 
to resolve conflicts and meet the needs of the community members. This could be another reason why 
community members turn away from IADRMS. Men are slightly more likely to be satisfied with the local 
leaders’ resolutions with 35% of all men saying they are often satisfied compared to 27% of all women. 
40% of all respondents said that they are sometimes satisfied with the local leaders’ resolutions which 
could correspond to the 50% of people that said the resolutions are only sometimes legally binding. It is 
possible that respondents are only sometimes satisfied with the local leaders’ resolutions because there 
is nothing that prevents the disputants from disregarding the local leader’s decision. 
The system is working, but needs some changes to work for all
Only 5% of all respondents said that they are never satisfied with local leaders’ resolutions. 37% of those 
that said never are Mano women. This could suggest that Mano women are disengaged from their local 
leaders or that the leaders do not have enough expertise to resolve the issues that Mano women 
commonly face.
Youth are slightly more likely to be satisfied with local leaders’ dispute resolutions than middle-aged 
respondents with 44% of all youth saying that they are always or often satisfied with leaders’ dispute 
resolutions compared with 39% of middle-aged individuals that said the same. That said, youth of 
certain ethnic groups are less satisfied. Mano youth comprise 32% of those that said they are never 
satisfied with local leaders’ dispute resolutions. This is a very important finding from the midterm 
evaluation which indicates that there are inter-ethnic tensions amongst the Mano tribe. 
20
Table 9: Frequency of satisfaction with local leaders’ dispute resolutions, by sex
Ethnic Group Sex Always Often Sometimes Never
% % % %
Gio female 25% 21% 27% 11%
male 21% 24% 21% 16%
Mandingo female 1% 4% 6% 0%
male 3% 2% 1% 11%
Mano female 22% 19% 22% 37%
male 25% 28% 20% 21%
Other female 1% 0% 2% 5%
male 1% 3% 2% 0%
Total 24% 31% 40% 5%
The top two reasons respondents gave for not being satisfied with local leaders’ resolutions are 1. Local 
leaders are not fair (42%) and 2. Cases are not resolved (28%). The FGDs provide us more in-depth 
information about why people are unsatisfied. Some reasons given for dissatisfaction, include claims 
that the traditional leaders are biased or make decisions based on financial gain. The KIIs revealed that 
traditional leaders such as the town chief or the district chief are not paid for their services, which could 
contribute to the perception that the leaders are swayed by financial incentives. 
90% of the FGD groups indicated that there has been improvement in the conflict resolution mechanism 
used by traditional leadership and the rulings have been fairer. However, those interviewed in the FGDs 
explain that often one party feels cheated by the resolution and either refuses to comply with the 
resolution or leaves the IADRMS and goes to the formal justice system which prolongs the conflict. The 
FGDs also show that there is some tension between the church and the traditional leadership. Some of 
the people interviewed believed that traditional leadership were biased against those who are religious 
though specifics about this were not specified. This reveals a potential tension between religious 
institutions and IADRMS, which could potentially be investigated throughout the next phase of 
programming. This seems particularly relevant for Mandingos, who are predominately Muslim. The 
baseline revealed that Mandingos often preferred to mediate disputes through their mosques. While 
the FGDs say “church” rather than Mosque, this tension seems relevant and will be explored in more 
depth. Those interviewed in the FGD also expressed that the resolutions often favor one of the parties 
and that traditional leadership makes decisions based on financial gain. Those interviewed during the 
FGDs also noted that if one of the parties in the conflict is dissatisfied that they will refuse to pay the 
fine or obey the resolution as determined by the traditional leadership. This can contribute to additional 
conflict as well as tension between the traditional leadership and the community. 
21
Conclusions and Recommendations
CONCLUSIONS: A TIME OF CAUTIOUS OPTIMISUM
Overall project progress
The program is on track, in an absolute sense, all the indicators have moved in a positive direction. 
However, the rate of progress towards future targets is slower than anticipated. Despite, this slow rate 
of progression, CRS deem the program successful and impactful, notably because 90% of FGDs report an 
improvement in the dispute resolution process. Absolute gains are a measure of success, a) once 
headwinds in the enabling environment are accounted for and b) once other nuances (social norms) are 
elucidated. To date the project has worked within the traditional systems and has not fully confronted 
all social norms, some of which are driving levels of dissatisfaction with the justice system. With a 
greater understanding of how identity shapes access to justice, C4P will be able to iterate improvements 
and compounding successful implementation.
Project Goal: A move towards positive peace
The enabling environment has shown a mixed trend to date. The peaceful transition of power in the 
government signaled a deepening of positive peace. The fact that 94% of respondents reported ‘pride’ 
in being from Nimba also could indicate the presence of an identity within the state system, yet tribal 
tensions and old mistrusts persist. Meanwhile, the negative performance of the economy is putting a 
strain on households and it is yet to be seen if this will lead of negative outcomes, such as a return to 
violence and political instability. 
All triggers of conflict persist, although there has been a slight change in the rates of these instances. 
Land disputes, domestic violence and theft are the most common forms of triggered now. Debt 
collection and water pump conflicts have moved down the list.
Notably, reports of conflict are directly correlated with the demographics of the identity groups. 
Therefore, at an aggregate level it is possible to say that conflict still pervade society, as all are exposed 
to it equally. However, once we unpack how identity affects access to justice, we can see that who you 
are matters a great deal, when it comes to conflict and justice.
Strategic Objective 1
With regards to horizontal social cohesion, no major changes have been observed when comparing with 
the baseline. The picture this leaves is a mixed one. While 54% of all respondents said that all ethnic 
groups work together frequently on town issues, only 39% of respondents said that they socialize with 
all ethnic groups. Tribal tensions and other social norms run deep and exclusion from justice does occur. 
Only by disaggregating identity groups in detail does a full picture emerge.
Ethnicity and tribal culture are deeply ingrained in Liberian society. The status of the Mandingos as one 
of the most excluded groups, but also given that they are a minority group, they themselves are open to 
working with all other ethnic groups. This exemplifies a trend where groups are more open to work 
across ethic groups but socialize more harmoniously.
22
Age presents more complexities and contradictions. Quantitative data seems to show that youth resolve 
disputes with elders (70% of youth reported this). However, focus groups and key informants give 
responses more in alignment with traditional opinions, namely, the civil war broke the trust in the tribal 
system. 
Women remain somewhat isolated and seem to socialize less outside their ethnic group. This isolation 
may be linked to other traditional sex roles and social norms. Notably, domestic violence is a systemic 
problem and of large concern for women. Women’s access to justice is at a lower level, household elder 
escalating to town chief, whereas men tend to enter the justice level at town chief and escalate above 
that. 
Lastly, one area of improvement which has been observed was the increase in hometown associations. 
The increased use of these groups (71% up from 54%) represents a positive engagement in community 
development. The increase in usage of such groups is seen as one of the signals that the peace is 
deepening.
Strategic Objective 2
Reporting of conflict might be in line with demographic expectations, but the type of conflict and how it 
is resolved are heavily determined by who you are. However, at present people are accepting of the justice 
system, but prefer the traditional justice system. 68% of all respondents said that they sometimes bring 
their conflicts to local leaders compared to only 39% that said the same about the formal judicial system.
People are far less comfortable bringing issues to government with only 26% of all respondents saying 
they are comfortable or very comfortable. This is in comparison with 72% that are comfortable or very 
comfortable bringing issues to local leaders. With 58% of the people interviewed saying they are not at 
all comfortable using the formal judicial system, there is clearly a space for IDRAMS, but they are far from 
perfect.
While acceptance of the system is high, satisfaction remains low. Only 35% of all men saying they are 
often satisfied, with resolutions through the IRAMS, compared to 27% of all women. The top two reasons 
respondents gave for not being satisfied with local leaders’ resolutions are 1. Local leaders are not fair 
(42%) and 2. Cases are not resolved (28%). The mismatch in satisfaction and acceptance highlight that a) 
identity matters when it comes to justice, and b) unless underling tensions are addressed high level of 
acceptance might not last.
Once again ethnic considerations and age are important to consider. Elders prefer the traditional 
system, whereas youth are more predisposed to use the formal justice system. Whether this is a sign of 
broader social change and a move towards formalization and positive peace is not yet clear. Who you 
are matters greatly in how the system works for you. Indeed the 13% who say they never bring matters 
to local leaders, could be one of several proxy indicators of exclusion. The financial resources required to 
access formal justice provide another clue as to how the system is not yet equal, although this was not 
studied directly in the survey.
The CRS project has built on the traditional system, but in doing so has also reinforced some of the 
prejudices and injustices wrought by that system. As the recommendations will show, now these issues 
are coming to light they can be tackled with tweaks to the program implementation.
23
Overall though the story is one of cautious optimism. The fact that the justice system in its current form 
broadly accepted, shows that the peace is deepening. There are still negatives (e.g. exclusion), but these 
issues are understood, and measures will be taken to tackle them. At present Liberians have a system 
they broadly agree on, improving it and weeding out structural injustices is the next phase of the 
project.
RECOMMENDATIONS: HOW TO MOVE FROM ACCEPTANCE TO SATISFACTION
Recommendations for the remainder of the connect for peace project
Gain better understanding of most common sources of conflict: While land disputes have remained a 
main source of conflict, there has been a marked increase in burglaries and thefts since the baseline. The 
C4P team will explore why incidents of burglaries and theft have increased and how different ethnic 
groups are affected. Similarly, the C4P team will try to gain a better understanding of what groups mean 
by physical harm and to what extent this type of conflict is related to other reported types of conflict, such 
as domestic violence or burglaries and theft. It will also be important to understand whether this is 
occurring within identity groups or among different identity groups. 
Strengthen mediation strategies to increase satisfaction with dispute resolutions: While most people 
feel comfortable going to their local leaders when they have a conflict, less are satisfied with the 
resolution. The resolutions are rarely legally binding, which could contribute to a low level of satisfaction. 
In the next year of the program, the C4P project team will focus on strengthening ADRM leaders’ ability 
to meditate disputes and to implement the strategies they learned through the C4P 3Bs/4Ds trainings. 
The C4P team will also look deeper into why individuals are not satisfied. Is it a problem with the mediation 
techniques or a lack of awareness? 
Engage and understand mediation strategies of youth groups and women’s group: KIIs with the 
traditional chiefs revealed that youth groups and women’s groups play a significant part in conflict 
resolution. These groups often mediated lower level conflicts for their peers and chiefs will sometimes 
consult with the groups for bigger conflicts. The C4P team wants to better understand how these groups 
are mediating conflicts. What mechanisms are they using? 
Engage Mandingos to better understand higher levels of dissatisfaction within social networks as well 
as with those outside of their social networks: The FGDs revealed that there is a perception that IADRMS 
are biased against religious individuals. The C4P team will investigate this tension specifically how it 
relates to Mandingos who primarily Muslim. The team will also try to gain a better understanding of how 
Mandingos resolve disputes especially through the mosques and imams. The midterm report also 
revealed that Mandingos are more often dissatisfied with conflict resolution than other ethnic groups 
even when the conflict is being mediated within the ethnic group. This is especially true for women 
Mandingos
Examine other mechanisms being used besides the formal judicial system and specifically examine how 
spirituality affects dispute resolution: While people are using the formal judicial system as one of the 
24
alternatives to IADRMS, the FGD revealed that communities often turn to traditional methods such as the 
Sah Say Woo or other spiritual traditions. What are these other methods and who accesses them and 
when?
Recommendations for other peacebuilding actors and future peacebuilding in Liberia
Target the relationship between youth and elders: The relationship between youth and elders is often 
tense, with elders believing the youth are disengaged from the community and youth feeling that elders 
lack understanding. The C4P team will specifically work create interventions that will act to bridge the 
relationship between these two group. One strategy could be to pair a youth leader with a household 
elder or chief during conflict mediation or to have youth and elders design specific activities that will get 
at the heart of the root causes of their perceptions towards one another.
Explore links between economic development and peacebuilding: While we do not have specific data on 
why there an increase in burglaries and theft has been, the KIIs and FGDs provide some context. All chiefs 
interviewed note a strong connection between economic development and peacebuilding and 
recommend increasing development projects in their communities to promote social cohesion. The C4P 
project currently provides small grants to the Hometown Associations, which are used to implement 
“connector” projects, which are small community development projects which benefit the community as 
a whole and provide a space for mixed identity groups to interact. The C4P team is proposing to expand 
on this idea and potentially introduce CRS’s Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) 
methodology. SILC is like Village Savings and Loans groups, which are already being implemented within 
the community. SILC will provide opportunities for community members to work cross-identity and gain 
access to savings and credit mechanisms, which in turn will support economic development within the 
community. 
Introduce a stronger sex lens: Domestic violence remains a common source of conflict, but it will not be 
possible to be specifically addressed through the first year of programming. C4P team will try to gain to 
better understanding of how women experience and perceive conflict and how local leaders are currently 
mediating domestic violence conflicts. The C4P will potentially use that information to strengthen local 
leaders’ ability to address domestic violence.
25
Appendices
ANNEX A. MIDTERM EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
Liberia Conflict Mitigation and Management
Connect for Peace (C4P) Project
Midterm Evaluation
Terms of Reference
Overview
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Liberia is undertaking Midterm Evaluation of its Conflict Mitigation and 
Management-Connect for Peace (C4P) Project. The evaluation will take place in Nimba County from 01-
15 September 2018 
I. Introduction/Background
Since the end of the conflict in 2003, Liberians have witnessed three successive democratic elections, but 
they have not experienced the dividends of peace. The structural and systemic causes of the war –
inequitable distribution of development and economic resources; limited access to basic needs and 
services outside of Monrovia; perceived high rates of corruption in government; persistent rivalries and 
conflicts within and between ethnic groups; and the high level of civic distrust of state officials have not 
been addressed substantively and justly, and therefore frequently have led to violent confrontations 
between communities and/or with the police. 
To address these challenges, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Liberia partnered with The Catholic Justice and 
Peace Commission of Liberia (JPC) and the Mano River Women’s Peace Network (MARWOPNET) to launch 
the Connect for Peace (C4P) Project, which is funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development. The C4P project, is a 36-month initiative to support peace efforts in Nimba County and 
Monrovia and contribute to peace writ large in Liberia. 
For the past 12 months, the C4P Project has strengthened vertical and horizontal social cohesion between 
and among CSOs and public officials through P2P trainings, workshops, consultative public gatherings, 
social and cultural events, and connector projects. C4P partners has employed CRS’s methodology 
“Applying Appreciative Inquiry to the 3Bs” (3Bs/4Ds), which is to enhance sustainable impact through 
Training of Trainers and cascading training. Activities have built individual and institutional capacity, offer 
disparate adversarial groups opportunities for reconciliation, establish trust between citizens and the 
state, and reinforced Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (I-IADRMS) so that women 
and youth and all members of civil society, public sector institutions and traditional authorities will 
embrace diversity, resolve differences constructively, and establish conditions for positive peace in 
Liberia.
Specifically, the Connect for Peace (C4P) Project has the following strategic objectives and intermediate 
results:
Strategic Objective 1: Horizontal Social Cohesion Strengthened
o Intermediate Results 1.1: Capacity for reconciliation enhanced 
26
o Intermediate Results 1.2: Ties between Monrovia and Nimba County kinship groups 
strengthened. 
Strategic Objective 2: Vertical Social Cohesion Strengthened
o Intermediate Results 2.1: Mutual trust between citizens and state in Nimba County established 
o Intermediate Results2.2: Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (I-IADRMS) in 
Nimba County strengthened 
Objectives of the Midterm Evaluation
The midterm evaluation will assess service delivery as outlined in the detailed implementation plan and 
the technical narrative and will measure progress against stated goals and objectives, including the 
effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of the CMM-C4P program interventions in achieving targets 
against baseline values. The midterm will review the results framework with all project documents and 
critical assumptions and consider the implementing environment, including enablers and constraints, 
with an aim of making necessary modifications or mid-course corrections to support the project to meet 
its stated goals and objectives and achieve sustainability. Specifically, the evaluation will provide the 
following: 
1. the relevance and appropriateness of the design and strategies used; 
2. Identify key lessons and good practices;
3. assess the effectiveness of strategies and implementation of interventions and provide 
recommendations to further improve the Program;
4. interpret significant trends and highlight differences between planned and actual performance;
In addition, the evaluation aims to establish: 1. The extent of progress on project implementation and 
intervention 2. Implementation experiences, mostly from the study team, implementing partners 
including mentors and trainers 3. Outcome and/or influence of the intervention on the effectiveness of 
formal and informal structures related to conflict mitigation and management and the current interplay 
between IADRMS and the state justice system, 4. Sustainability of the intervention 5. the level of vertical 
and horizontal social cohesion and other contextual factors interface with the outcome of the 
intervention; 6. observe the roles of beneficiary participation and feedback and inter-sectoral 
cooperation in activity implementation. 
Evaluation findings will be used as a learning process to identify strengths, gaps and areas for 
improvement. Evaluation findings will also be used to propose clear and implementable 
recommendations for any required changes or modifications to the study and give proposals for a 
sustainable long-term implementation plan to inform the remaining time and any possible scale up in 
future.
Preliminary key evaluation questions: The midterm evaluation will consider questions specifically 
related to intervention relevance, implementation effectiveness, project efficiency, project 
achievements and sustainability. The midterm evaluation will address (but is not limited to) the 
following questions:
Relevance 
Relevance is defined by the extent to which the project activities are suited to the priorities of the target 
group recipient and donor. Key questions to address are:
27
- Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the overall goals and the attainment 
of its objective?
- Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the intended impacts and effects?
- Does the program meet communities and government priorities?
- Are stakeholders (conflict management committees, communities, local authorities) satisfied 
with their participation in the program? Why or why not?
- Does the project align with government policies and programs (local, national)? Does the project 
align, and compliment other donor, other NGO and/or local organizations managed programs?
- Has anything unexpected come out of the community’s participation in the implementation?
Effectiveness: Effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which project activities attain its objectives. 
Key questions are: 
- To what extent were the objectives of the project and the yearly benchmark indicators 
achieved/ are likely to be achieved?
- Were the implementation strategies relevant and effective enough to strengthen: 1) 
Horizontal Social Cohesion? 2) Vertical Social Cohesion? Are there more effective strategies 
that would have a greater impact? 
- What are the project’s major limitations?
- Has program implementation been effectively monitored? How well did the monitoring and 
evaluation mechanism in place help the implementation of the project?
- What changes are required in the project to achieve project goals and objectives? 
- ? 
Efficiency: Efficiency measures both qualitative and quantitative outputs in relation to inputs. It assesses 
the extent to which project uses available resources to achieve the desired results. Key questions to 
address are: 
- Were activities cost efficient?
- Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
- How efficient was the project in terms of proper resource utilization, delivery and timeliness?
- How as the overall partnership with CRS and its sub recipients? How does this impact 
efficiency?
- How as the project managed to achieve agreed upon results?
Outcome: Impacts are positive and negative changes produced by the intervention directly and 
indirectly intended or unintended. This involves changes impacts and effects on the local social 
economic, environmental and other development indicators. Key questions are:
- What is the overall project outcome to date? To what extent project objectives and the yearly 
benchmark indicators have been achieved? What is facilitating or not, the achievement of results 
and objectives in a timely manner?
- Are the mechanisms used to prevent and manage conflict effective?
- How aware are community members of different DRMs? 
- How satisfied are community members and leaders with their local conflict resolution 
mechanisms? 
- What is the current situation regarding interactions and relationships between identity groups in 
Nimba? 
28
- How close are the ties between the hometown associations in Monrovia and the communities in 
Nimba compared to the beginning? Are there differences between ethnic groups regarding this?
- What is the level of trust between community members and leadership compared to the 
beginning? Are there differences in interaction between traditional leadership and formal 
leadership? 
 
Sustainability: Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely 
to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Key questions are:
- What activities and/or outcomes (both expected and unexpected) of the program are likely to be 
sustained? What evidence is there to suggest this?
- What are the major factors which can influence the achievement or non-achievement of the 
sustainability of the project?
- How do the government’s capacities, policies, procedures, and priorities contribute to 
sustainability?
- What strategies should be used to obtain long lasting support from communities and local/central 
administration that goes beyond the time of the project? 
Additionally, this study will respond to different questions that will assist the project team to correctly 
orient the project in terms of project activities in the community to implement peace related activities. 
This study should identify the needs, resources, knowledge, and availability on an individual and system 
levels (i.e. I-IADRMS use). It will also contribute to the overall knowledge and understanding of the 
county of Nimba. 
Methodology
The MTE will utilize the same methods as the baseline. It will consider qualitative and quantitative 
approaches in the collection of data. A survey will be done with a random sampling of households in all 
36 towns of project communities throughout the 6 statutory districts of Nimba. Enumerators will be 
trained to collect data under the supervision of the CRS MEAL Officers. The main indicators to be tracked
by this study are detailed in Annex 1.
The midterm will apply a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to assess the effectiveness of 
strategies and implementation interventions and provide recommendations to further improve the 
primary areas of Conflict and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Social Cohesion. Employing randomized 
sampling technique, the consultant/we will administer to a total of 345 households across 36 targeted 
towns in Nimba County. To supplement the quantitative data, 10 focus groups discussions (FGDs) and 10 
key informant interviews (KIIs) will be held with various key stakeholder groups including women, youth, 
elders, and members of civil society and community-based groups. 
These interviews will be used to (i) understand the challenges and obstacles the leaders have in resolving 
conflicts that come to them, (ii) ways that the project can assist in overcoming those obstacles, (iii) 
continue incorporating the leaders in the project to enhance buy-in.
Three CRS Liberia technical staff including support staff members will lead the FGDs in the districts in 
which they will be working. The groups will include women, youth, elders, and CBOs, and will be 
undertaken to gain a deeper understanding of the differences in perception and experience between 
groups. This will also allow for an open discussion in which CRS and its partners are able to gain a more 
robust and diverse knowledge of social cohesion and dispute resolution mechanisms in the communities
Results of the evaluation will be presented to the project management team in a reflection meeting at 
CRS Monrovia office with the attendance of Local Partners and CRS Staff. The final report will be shared 
29
by e-mail to partner structures involved in project implementation. Results will be discussed and 
integrated into the project’s monitoring and evaluation system. Targets will be updated in the indicator￾monitoring table and performance measurement will be refined. 
IV. Evaluation Key Audience: 
The midterm evaluation’s primary anticipated audiences are:
- USAID: overall report on program performance to date
- National government actors: overall report on program performance and share program 
findings on peace building interventions with any initial recommendations
- Program implementation team: overall report on program performance and key 
recommendations, including mid-course corrections, to ensure attainment of program goals and 
objectives and support program sustainability
- Targeted communities: feedback on program performance
V. Midterm evaluation dissemination plan 
Following the evaluation, CRS will invite stakeholders including implementing partners, government 
representatives, local authorities, conflict committee representatives and other organizations 
implementing similar interventions to a workshop to discuss and validate findings and recommendations. 
The final report will be shared with USAID. CRS will also prepare a summary report highlighting findings, 
lessons learned and recommendations to share with relevant stakeholders, including the Minister of 
Justice and peace, local government officials and other actors working peace and justice sector of Liberia. 
CRS will ensure that results are shared widely in appropriate formats and at various venues. Field agents 
will facilitate a meeting in each target community to share key findings and lessons learned. The meetings 
will serve as an opportunity to reflect on actions that communities can take to reinforce achievement and 
work toward project sustainability.
VI. Period of the midterm evaluation
The study will take place from01-15 September 2018 in 36 communities targeted by the project. August 
29th & 30th will be used to train and field test the enumerators, travel to the field (Nimba County) on the 
1
st September 2018. Data collection in the field will take place between the September 2-14, 2018. For 
data cleaning, analysis and report writing, that will be done from 20th September – 25th October 2018
VII. ORGANIZATION OF THE MIDTERM EVALUATION
VII.1 Management and supervision of the study
The evaluation will be coordinated by CRS MEAL Officers in collaboration with the CMM Peacebuilding 
Program team with support from MEAL Regional Technical Advisor. 
VII.2 Composition, roles and responsibilities of the team
The evaluation will be led by the CRS MEAL Officers with support from the Peacebuilding Program 
Manager, Program Officer, and a team of enumerators. Each group will be responsible for facilitating the 
study and for ensuring compliance with quality, time and cost requirements.
30
As the lead for the midterm evaluation, the CRS MEAL Officers are in charge of:
• Developing an Inception Report for the Midterm Evaluation;
• Planning a detailed survey schedule with support from the Program Manager;
• Supervising the data collection exercise on the field
• Drafting the midterm evaluation report along with conclusions and recommendations
• Finalizing the midterm evaluation report after comments from the Program Manager and Head 
of Programs and consultation with the project team and partners
VIII. Presentation of the report and documentation of conclusions and recommendations 
The CRS MEAL Officers will jointly validate main conclusions and recommendations of the midterm 
evaluation with support from the Peacebuilding team. A final report will be published following the 
reflection meeting to capitalize on the lessons learned and best practices of the experience.
The report will be structures as follows:
• A table of contents
• A list of acronyms
• Executive summary
• Introduction (or Project Background)
• Objectives of the Midterm Evaluation
• Methodology
• Key Findings
• Summary and Conclusions
• Recommendations
• Annexes which include raw data, the terms of reference, a summary table (s) showing the current 
level of project indicators, the tools used, the list of people met, the documents consulted and 
the survey schedule
IX Use of evaluation findings and recommendations: CRS will work with implementing partners and other 
stakeholders to develop a response to evaluation findings and recommendations. Project management 
will elaborate activities for each recommendation, identify responsible party for each action, the timeline 
and the responsible party to verify completion. The response plan and results will be reviewed at quarterly 
program coordination meetings.
31
ANNEX 2: MAIN INDICATOR TO BE TRACKED DURING THE MIDTERM EVALUATION
INDICATORS Informers Triangulation Collection tools
SO-Indicator 1.1 Percentage of 
people who report improved 
reconciliation and restoration of 
healthy relationships between and 
among groups, and connecting 
groups separated by distance and 
environment. 
Households Leaders Household questionnaires (Leaders) 
SO-Indicator 1.1.1. Percentage of 
people who report improved 
functioning of the IADRMS, including 
its recognition by state actors as a 
credible alternative to the formal 
justice system
Leaders of 
community 
organization 
Households Household questionnaires (Leaders) 
SO-Indicator 2.1: % of people who 
perceive having increased 
opportunities to engage with local 
leaders to discuss issues related to 
peace and security in their 
communities
?? Household Household questionnaires 
32
ANNEX B. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
ANNEX B1 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
MIDTERM EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES 
Hello, my name is ________________________, and I work for CRS, a Non-Governmental Organization. 
I am here to ask you a few questions about your town and your experiences for a new project that we 
are doing. Your opinion is very important to us and we value any information you can share with me. 
Before we begin, do you have any questions? Are you willing to continue with the assessment? 
Yes  No  
A. General Information 
A1. Date of interview:
A3. Name of District
A2. Name of Town:
A3. Name/s of person conducting interview:
B. Background
B1. What age group is the person
B2. Sex: Female  Male: 
B3. Are you a part of any community group or CSO? Which one?
Youth 
Women 
Elder 
CSO Name __________________________
33
B4. What tribe are you from? 
QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONS FOR ENUMERATORS 
A. S.O.1 Percentage of people reporting improved relationships between groups. 
The following questions gather general information about the relationships that exist among different 
groups of citizens of Nimba County. This is confidential, so please be honest. If the answer is ‘other’ 
please ask them to say who the other is. 
No. Questions Options Result
1. Which ethnic groups do you socialize with? 1) Gio
2) Mano
3) Mandingo
4) All of them
5) Other (Please specify)
2. How common is it for people from all ethnic 
groups to work together on town issues?
1) Rare
2) Sometimes
3) Frequent
4) I do not know
3. Is there any ethnic group you would not work 
with? 
If the answer is no, continue to question 5.
1) Yes
2) No
4. Which of the following ethnic groups would you 
not work with?
1) Gio
2) Mano
3) Mandingo
4) Other (Please specify)
5. How common is it for youth and elders to work 
together on town issues?
1) Rare
2) Sometimes
3) Frequent
4) I do not know
6. How comfortable do you feel bringing up issues 
to the traditional council?
1) Not at all
2) A little
3) Comfortable
4) I do not know
7. Do you feel as though government funds and 
structures help with your community? 
1) Not at all
2) A little
3) Usually
4) Always
34
B. S.O.2 Indicator: Percentage of people who report improved functioning of the IADRMS
The following questions are about how conflicts are resolved in your community. 
No. Questions Options Results
12. Who do you usually turn to first for help in 
solving disputes? 
1) Household elder
2) Friends
3) Chief
4) Other (Please specify)
13. How comfortable do you feel going to the local 
leaders if you have a conflict?
1) Not at all
2) Somewhat
3) Comfortable
4) Very comfortable
14. How capable are the local leaders in solving 
disputes?
1) Not at all
2) A little
3) Capable
4) Very
15. Do you use other mechanisms for resolving 
conflicts?
1) Never
2) Sometimes
3) Often
4) Always
16. Do you feel as though the leaders are fair in their 
decisions?
1) Never
2) Sometimes
3) Often
4) Always
8. How safe do you feel living in your town? 1) Not at all
2) A little
3) Mostly safe
5) Very safe
9. How frequently do you have contact with 
hometown associations in Monrovia?
1) Not at all
2) Once a year
3) Once a month
4) Once a week or more
10. How often do you do projects with or because of 
your hometown associations in Monrovia?
1) Not at all
2) Rarely
3) Sometimes
1) Often
11. How proud do you feel to be from Nimba 
County?
1) Not at all
2) A little
3) Very
4) I do not know
35
17. How often are you satisfied with the resolution? 1) Never
2) Sometimes
3) Often
4) Always
18. How often is the resolution legally binding? 1) Never
2) Sometimes
3) Often
4) Always
19. How often do you use the formal judicial 
system? 
1) Never
2) Sometimes
3) Often
4) Always
20. How comfortable do you feel using the formal 
judicial system? 
1) Not at all
2) Somewhat
3) Comfortable
4) Very comfortable
21. How easy is it to access the formal judicial 
system?
1) Not at all
2) Some obstacles
3) Easy access
4) Never tried
22. Would you like to have more access to the 
formal judicial system?
1) Yes
2) No
3) I do not think about it
23. How much influence do you feel you have on 
local government decision-making?
1) None
2) Very little influence
3) Some influence 
4) A lot of influence
24. Is there a peace committee that currently works 
with your town? 
Only ask question 25 if the answer is yes.
1) Yes
2) No
3) I do not know
25. Who started this peace committee? 4) JPC
5) CJPS
6) The UN
7) Other (Please specify)
8) I do not know
36
C. Causes of conflict questionnaire. If they have not experienced the dispute, stop after ‘B’ and continue to the next dispute. 
Type of 
problem
(A) How many 
times?
(B) If you could not resolve the problem 
yourselves, who did you take it to first? (If you 
were to experience this dispute whom would 
you take it to first?) [do not prompt]
(C)Was the 
issue 
resolved to 
your 
satisfaction
(D)If the issue was not satisfactorily 
resolved where do you take it next? (If the 
issues had not been satisfactorily resolved, 
who would you have taken it to next?) [do 
not prompt]
(E) Was the 
issue resolved 
to your 
satisfaction?
Ask them 
“Have you 
had a 
problem with 
… in the last 
12 months?”
[Write “0” if they say 
no to the first 
question. If more 
than one dispute, ask 
about the most 
recent when moving 
on to section B.]
Friend
Family member
Traditional council
Town Chief
Magistrates court
Police
Church
Clan chief
Friend
Family member
Traditional council
Town Chief
Magistrates court
Police
Church
Clan chief
Farmland
disputes
Conflict with 
someone from 
a different age 
group
Burglaries and 
theft
Disagreement 
over land 
inheritance
Domestic 
violence
Adultery
37
Other
Marriage 
disputes
Debt 
collection
Rape
Physical harm 
Water pump 
use disputes
Property 
destruction
ANNEX B.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
Form completed by: 
1) Focus Group Type: 2) District: 
3) Total # of Focus Group: M: F: 4) Community:
4) County: 6) Date: 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engage with the Focus Group based on the following questions and follow up questions provided below. 
Record key points and notable quotes in space provided
1) What are the most common causes of conflict in your community?
2) Can you tell us about the process for managing disputes in the town? Who do you normally go to 
first for help? If you are not satisfied is there someone else, you can go to? Who is it? Etc. 
(Make note of how the process might differ depending on the type of conflict)
b. What are the benefits and problems of the system?
3) What other routes or processes exist for resolving disputes in your community? 
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; 
must represent both the most common comments from participants and any 
significant differences that emerged. Please quantify responses using number 
or % of focus group participants to capture agreement or division by other 
group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must 
represent both the most common comments from participants and any significant 
differences that emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group 
participants to capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the 
answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any important 
differences of perspective 
and opinion that were 
voiced and by whom.
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must represent 
both the most common comments from participants and any significant differences that 
emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group participants to 
capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
2
4) Do you think most, some, or none of the resolutions of disputes given by the Town Chief are fair? 
b. Why do you think this is?
a. Are there any groups in the community that are especially dissatisfied with the traditional 
justice system?
c. Do the decisions benefit some groups more than others?
5) When do community members engage with formal judicial/legal services to resolve conflict?
a. What is the process for this? 
b. Do people wish they could engage more with it? 
c. (If yes) What obstacles keep people from using the formal system more?
6) Does anyone have a story of a major conflict that was resolved in the community? (If a lot of responses, 
take 2-3) 
a. How was it resolved? (Make special note of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms used, and 
creative/innovative approaches) 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must represent 
both the most common comments from participants and any significant differences that 
emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group participants to 
capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must represent 
both the most common comments from participants and any significant differences that 
emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group participants to 
capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must represent 
both the most common comments from participants and any significant differences that 
emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group participants to 
capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
3
7) What changes would help in creating a peaceful community?
a. What ways can your group work with other groups to make those changes? What would you need 
to do this? 
Reflections on the FGD, which questions or activities need to be changed or tweaked for the next 
discussion? What did I do well as a facilitator? What could I do better next time? Other insights, lessons 
learned, thoughts on moving forward. 
ANNEX B.3 TOWN CHIEF INTERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE
TOWN CHIEF
MIDTERM ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES 
Hello, my name is ________________________, and I work for CRS, a Non-Governmental Organization. I am 
here to ask you a few questions about your role as town chief and learn more about your community. Your 
opinion is very important to us and we value any information you can share with me. 
Before we begin, do you have any questions? Are you willing to continue with the assessment? Yes  No  
C. General Information 
A1. Date of interview:
A2. Name of Town:
A3. Name/s of person conducting interview:
D. Background
B1. Name of Chief:
B2. Sex: Female  Male: 
B3. Is this your permanent position, or are you acting on behalf of someone else? Permanent  Acting 
 
Key Points - covering the full range of opinions expressed in the discussion; must represent 
both the most common comments from participants and any significant differences that 
emerged. Please quantify responses using number or % of focus group participants to 
capture agreement or division by other group members in response to the answers. 
Notable 
Quotes/Examples -
comments which best 
illustrated the key points, 
memorable individual 
comments, any 
important differences of 
perspective and opinion 
that were voiced and by 
whom.
4
B4. How long have you held your position: 0-5 years  6-10 years  11-15 years  16-20 years  21+ 
years  
B5. Did you inherit the position or were you selected another way: Inherited  Elected by community  
Other  ________________________________________
 
B.6 What other positions in the community have you held? 
 
E. Dispute Resolution 
C1. What are your key responsibilities in addressing conflict in your town/community?
C2. What are the main challenges that prevent you from carrying out your role in dispute resolution 
effectively?
C3a. Have you ever previously received training on your role in resolving disputes? Yes  No  
C3b. If so, who provided the training? Ministry of Justice  Local Government  NGOs  Other 
____________________________________________
C4. Would you like to receive training on your role in resolving disputes? Yes  No  
C5a. Are there any NGOs or other organizations currently working in this town/community on 
peacebuilding activities? Yes  No  
C5b. If yes, which ones:
Name:
Name:
Name:
Dispute resolution in the community
Type of 
problem 
A) How 
many 
times 
has this 
problem 
occurred 
in this 
town in 
the past 
twelve 
months?
(B) How 
many of 
these 
disputes 
were 
originally 
brought 
to you? 
(C) How 
many of 
the 
disputes 
brought 
to you 
did you 
send to 
the 
police? 
(D) How 
many of 
the 
disputes 
brought 
to you 
did you 
send to 
the clan 
or 
general 
town 
chief? 
(E) How 
many of the 
disputes 
brought to 
you did you 
send to the 
magistrate’s 
court? 
(F) How 
many of 
the 
disputes 
brought 
to you 
did you 
arbitrate? 
(G) How 
many of 
the cases 
that you 
arbitrated 
were 
successfully 
resolved? 
C6. 
Farmland
disputes 
C7. Inter￾generational 
conflict 
5
C8. 
Burglaries 
and theft 
C9. Private 
land 
inheritance 
dispute
C10. 
Domestic 
violence 
C11. 
Adultery 
C12. 
Marriage 
disputes 
C13. Debt 
collection
C14. Rape
C15.
Physically 
harmed by 
others 
C16. Water 
pump use
C.17 What institutions exist in the town/community to help you with carrying out your role?
Traditional Council  Women’s groups  Youth Groups  Other 
___________________________________ 
C.18 In the past 12 months, have you organized any community meetings? Yes  No  
C.19 What issues were discussed during these meetings? 
C.20 In the town/community are there other places people can take their disputes aside from 
bringing them to you? Yes  No  
C.21 If so, where? (do not prompt) 
Additional Comments, including any feedback from the chief 
Reflections on the Interview, which questions need to be changed or tweaked for the next 
interview? What did I do well as an interviewer? What could I do better next time? Other insights, 
lessons learned, thoughts on moving forward.