This document is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United 
States Government.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
PRO FUTURE II 
Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future
MEASURE II FOR USAID 
USAID.GOV PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | ii 
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International 
Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was prepared independently by IMPAQ International 
LLC, under the Monitoring and Evaluation Support Activity (MEASURE II), Contract Number AID￾167-I-17-00004, Task Order Number 72016819F00001. 
Submitted to:
USAID/Bosnia and Herzegovina, March 2022
Contractor: 
IMPAQ International, LLC
iii | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV
ABSTRACT
This midterm performance evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID)-funded PRO Future (II) Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future Activity in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (PRO-Future II) examines the outcomes the activity achieved during the first 
four years of implementation. The report provides insights for USAID/Bosnia and Herzegovina on 
progress to date and informs programmatic decision-making. PRO-Future II is an $8 million, six-year 
activity, implemented by Catholic Relief Services. The evaluation concluded that (1) higher-level 
politicians and politically dependent media are primary obstacles to peacebuilding and reconciliation; 
(2) PRO-Future II made substantial contributions in peace promotion, but these efforts struggled to 
break through a divisive media landscape; (3) the Activity’s regional component achieved outcomes 
such as collaboration, facilitating activism, and reducing prejudices; (4) at the intrapersonal level, 
living libraries and public speaking events were the most effective in producing empathy, whereas
cognitive outcomes include improved knowledge about outgroups, increased openness/readiness for 
change, and outgroup perspective-taking; (5) at the interpersonal level, outcomes include 
strengthened relationships, collaboration, and (peace) activism; (6) under the civic movement
component, there was limited success in terms of policy change; (7) small grants were used as an 
effective peacebuilding tool; (8) small grants were numerous and dispersed both geographically and 
to various recipients and (9) higher-level outcomes require more planning, evaluating, layering and 
sequencing, and follow-ups.
USAID.GOV PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | iv 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The PRO Future (II) Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future Activity (PRO-Future II) 
performance evaluation team included the evaluation lead: Salminka Vizin, MEASURE II Monitoring, 
Evaluation, and Learning Manager; and six evaluation team members: Jadranka Kolenović-Đapo, 
consultant and professor of Personality Psychology and Social Psychology in the Department of 
Psychology Faculty of the University of Sarajevo; Vladimir Turjačanin, consultant and professor of 
Social Psychology in the Department of Psychology, University of Banja Luka; Nermin Đapo, 
consultant and professor of Statistics in Psychology and Cognitive Psychology in the Department of 
Psychology, University of Sarajevo; and MEASURE II analysts Sandina Bosnjak, Erol Barina, and 
Amer Cekic.
At USAID/Bosnia and Herzegovina, Elma Bukvic Jusic, MEASURE II Contracting Officer’s 
Representative, Peter Cronin, Democracy Office Director, and Mirjana Popović Valjevac, PRO￾Future II Agreement Office Representative, were instrumental in designing the evaluation scope of 
work, and Jared O. Bell, Democracy and Governance Advisor, participated in the PRO-Future II
performance evaluation orientation session. At IMPAQ International, LLC, Amy Kracker Selzer, 
Managing Director, and MEASURE II Project Director, provided invaluable insights on the draft 
report. The authors thank these individuals for their contributions. We also thank the Catholic 
Relief Services staff for their assistance and cooperation, particularly Majda Behrem-Stojanov, Amer 
Paripovic, and Renata Kastelic-Dlouhi, for their responsiveness to the evaluation team’s inquiries. 
Finally, we thank the representatives of donor and international organizations for their collaboration 
during the data collection process. Any errors in this report are the sole responsibility of the 
authors. 
v | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV
ACRONYMS VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 5
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 6
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 7
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 8
EVALUATION QUESTION 1: WHAT OUTCOMES HAVE PRO-FUTURE II’S KEY INFLUENCERS 
(POLITICIANS, RELIGIOUS LEADERS, MEDIA) ACHIEVED IN PROMOTING INTER￾ETHNIC RECONCILIATION? 8
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1A. WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED 
THROUGH INTERVENTIONS FOSTERING REGIONAL DIALOGUE? 14
EVALUATION QUESTION 2: WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED IN TERMS 
OF CHANGING INTER-ETHNIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AMONG SUPPORTED 
CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY AMONG YOUTH AND STUDENTS? 18
EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE PRO-FUTURE II SMALL-GRANT 
PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTED TO PEACEBUILDING? 27
RECOMMENDATIONS 33
REFERENCES 35
ANNEXES 36
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK 37
ANNEX 2: REVIEWED DOCUMENTATION 43
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 44
USAID.GOV PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | vi
ACRONYMS
BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina
CDCS Country Development, and Cooperation Strategy
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CSO Civil Society Organization
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DO Development Objective
FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTV Federal Television
FY Fiscal Year
HRT Croatian Radio Television
IRC Inter-Religious Council
KI Key Informant
KII Key Informant Interview
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
MEASURE-BiH Monitoring and Evaluation Support Activity (2014-2019), preceding MEASURE II
MEASURE II Monitoring and Evaluation Support Activity
MoE Ministry of education
MWG Municipal working group
NGO Non-governmental organization 
PRO-Future II PRO Future (II) Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future Activity
RTL Croatian TV station owned by the Radio Television Luxembourg Group
RTS Serbian Radio Television
RTRS Radio Television of Republika Srpska
RYCO Regional Youth Cooperation Office
SFF Sarajevo Film Festival
SPPG Supporting Political Pluralism and Good Governance Processes
TV Television
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID/BiH United States Agency for International Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina
USD U.S. dollars
1 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The United States Agency for International Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina (USAID/BiH) 
commissioned the Monitoring and Evaluation Support Activity (MEASURE II) to conduct a midterm 
performance evaluation of the Mission’s PRO Future (II) Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for 
the Future (PRO-Future II). PRO-Future II, implemented by Catholic Relief Services, is a six-year, 
$8 million activity designed to enhance trust and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and bring 
about positive societal transformation, overcoming inter-ethnic divides, antagonism, and prejudices 
that are still prevalent in BiH society. 
This midterm performance evaluation examines PRO-Future II outcomes achieved during the nearly
four years of implementation. Furthermore, the evaluation provides the Mission with insights to 
make informed programmatic decisions and adaptations for the remainder of the activity. 
METHODOLOGY
This evaluation was conducted between July and October 2021 and used a mixed-methods design 
consisting of a desk review of program documents; 41 key informant interviews, 17 focus group 
discussions; and an online survey of 113 PRO-Future II implementers. The team triangulated data 
across different sources to develop credible findings, from which the team derived conclusions and 
recommendations. Due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to ensure the 
health and safety of the evaluation team as well as evaluation participants, the evaluation team 
conducted all interviews and focus groups remotely.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The following provides a high-level overview of the findings and conclusions garnered from this 
evaluation. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 1: WHAT OUTCOMES HAVE PRO-FUTURE II’S KEY INFLUENCERS 
(POLITICIANS, RELIGIOUS LEADERS, MEDIA) ACHIEVED IN PROMOTING INTER-ETHNIC 
RECONCILIATION?
• While higher-level politicians (state or entity) represent the primary obstacle to peacebuilding
and reconciliation processes in BiH, cantonal and local-level politicians are more responsive and
willing to engage in these processes.
• As a step forward in achieving peacebuilding and reconciliation outcomes, PRO-Future II
introduced action plans and corresponding monitoring mechanisms for the Platform for Peace
implementation. During the first three years of the Activity implementation, 31 government
institutions adopted the action plans and implemented 36 peacebuilding initiatives.
• Politically dependent media promoting negative political messages are an obstacle to peace and
reconciliation. The substantial online media and television (TV) engagement in peace promotion
generated by PRO-Future II is still a small portion of generally divisive media content in BiH.
• Engaging religious leaders in peacebuilding and reconciliation processes proved to be challenging,
primarily due to centralized decision-making of religious communities and their connections to
politics, resulting in some planned interventions not being implemented. However, PRO-Future II
adapted and supported the events identified as feasible under the circumstances, such as a
symposium in Trebinje; improved visibility of the Inter-Religious Council’s (IRC’s) regional
USAID.GOV PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 2 
chapters in local communities and their engagement in the implementation of the COVID-19
Solidarity Fund; and demonstrated excellent learning and collaboration principles in adapting the 
inter-religious master’s program. 
• Although PRO-Future II successfully mobilized war victims to promote peace and reconciliation,
victims’ engagement in advocating for their own rights was minimal.
• PRO-Future II secured considerable support from cantonal ministries for implementation of their
activities, especially for living libraries and peace education in secondary schools.
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1A: WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED THROUGH 
INTERVENTIONS FOSTERING REGIONAL DIALOGUE?
• Despite the challenges of a cross-cutting regional component, due to which some regional
interventions have not been implemented, in several cases, peace camps, organized in
collaboration with the Regional Youth Cooperation Office and activities under the Sarajevo Film
Festival (SFF), resulted in relationship building, collaboration, and activism. They also reduced
prejudices for people coming from neighboring countries and vice versa.
• The annual “Theology in the Public Sphere” symposium in Trebinje, which gathered local and
regional stakeholders and promoted PRO-Future II activities in regional media, was a successful
regional intervention.
• The BiH diaspora represents an important target group for peacebuilding and reconciliation
initiatives, because stakeholders perceived them to have more inter-ethnic prejudices and to be
more involved in hate speech in online media compared to BiH citizens living in the country.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2: WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED IN TERMS 
OF CHANGING INTER-ETHNIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AMONG SUPPORTED 
CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY AMONG YOUTH AND STUDENTS?
• At the intrapersonal level, out of all PRO-Future II’s activities, living libraries and public speaking
events were the most effective among participants in producing empathy for other groups, with
open-door days also proving effective in eliciting positive emotions. Most PRO-Future II activities
contributed to cognitive-level outcomes, including improved knowledge about outgroups and
their experiences; increased openness to or readiness for change; outgroup perspective-taking;
and development of different perspectives on the past, present, and future.
• At the interpersonal level, longer-lasting interventions (peace camps; peace education; and some
small grants, including collaboration) contributed to inter-ethnic friendships and continued
contacts. PRO-Future II was most effective in facilitating collaboration among youth and women
in the interventions facilitated primarily through small grants that brought people together; or
through the Solidarity Fund, which in some cases resulted in lasting collaboration. Several PRO￾Future II interventions, primarily the political academy, public speaking events, peace camps, and
online peacebuilding school, facilitated and encouraged peace activism among the young
beneficiaries, who already were open-minded and tolerant before participation.
• Under the Platform for Peace supporters’ civic movement, PRO-Future II achieved limited
success in terms of policy/institutional and behavioral change. Although some behavioral change
was identified among the local stakeholders, several advocacy actions did not produce policy or
institutional changes to date, due mainly to a deteriorating political situation.
3 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV
• Although infrastructural interventions represent a precondition for implementing peacebuilding 
activities and can improve the overall visibility of the Activity and USAID, they are not a 
guarantee that the facilities will be used for the intended purposes once the Activity ends. 
Furthermore, it is unclear whether such high-cost projects are worthy investments in terms of 
their costs and benefits. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE PRO-FUTURE II SMALL-GRANT 
PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTED TO PEACEBUILDING?
• Even though small grants can serve as an effective peacebuilding tool, they usually include short￾term activities that produce short-term outcomes, whereas longer-term and higher-level
outcomes require considerable monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) resources; planning, 
evaluating, and layering and sequencing of the interventions; and follow-ups. Small grants under 
PRO-Future II include a large number of awards, allocated mainly to geographically dispersed 
organizations, for the interventions aimed at achieving PRO-Future II general objectives. This is
opposed to planning for specific outcomes, evaluating the results, and designing follow-ups to 
strengthen these results. 
• Nearly all implemented PRO-Future II small grants included an inter-ethnic contact component, 
which, according to research, can be a predictor of inter-ethnic attitudes. 
• Small grants that incorporate activities such as public speaking events, peace camps, and activities 
fostering collaboration among youth and women are likely to be effective. 
• Compared to other types of grants, small grants for youth focus to a greater extent on creative 
activities rather than lectures and seminars, and on facilitated youth peace activism.
• Although grants for war victims associations were perceived to improve the psychological state of 
victims, foster collaboration between war victims associations, and evoke empathy among the 
audience, these grants did little to improve war victims’ status in society. 
• Even though the implementation of small grants for inter-religious dialogue proved challenging 
due to political pressures, centralized decision-making in religious communities, and grantees’ low 
capacity for project design and implementation, the implemented small grants improved 
cooperation between religious institutions and youth. However, during data collection, no grants 
were implemented by the IRC’s regional chapters. 
• Although the implementation of grants for municipalities has been challenging due to low interest 
among municipal working groups (MWGs) and the COVID-19 pandemic, the principal strength of 
these grants lies in fostering connections and collaboration between municipalities and different 
actors within municipalities. 
• The largest portion of financial resources planned for small initiatives was reallocated to PRO￾Future II’s COVID-19 pandemic emergency fund, thus mobilizing MWGs, IRC regional chapters, 
and official crisis teams to distribute the assistance to people in need in their communities.
• Although small grants awarded to civil society organizations (CSOs) strengthened connections 
between organizations across ethnic lines and CSO–government collaboration, little has been 
achieved in terms of policy/institutional changes due to low interest and the limited capacity of 
grantees to engage in such activities.
USAID.GOV PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT | 4 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. Focus on cantonal and local governments for the Platform for Peace promotion and 
implementation. In future programming, focus political academies on establishing cross-ethnic 
political working groups that address common issues. 
2. Continue working with religious leaders, ensuring their inclusion in intervention planning as early 
as possible. Continue exploring ways to include the highest-level religious leaders in peace 
promotion. Continue supporting open-door days.
3. Advocate with media partners for greater responsibility for peacebuilding among higher levels of 
government. In collaboration with media partners, respond to negative media stories with 
counter-stories that present a more objective and realistic outlook on the situation and that call 
for peace. Continue facilitating peace promotion through mainstream online media and TV 
stations. Coordinate with USAID’s media activities and those of other donors. 
4. Continue engaging war victims in peace promotion and building their capacity to design and 
implement advocacy interventions and negotiate with governments. Consider connecting them 
with recognized human rights CSOs as their mentors and providing regular psychological 
support to speakers. 
5. To the extent possible, advocate for expanding the peace education program to more locations 
and schools. 
6. Continue supporting living libraries and public speaking events as part of interventions. Consider
using their video recordings in other activities. 
7. Facilitate the practice of including all students in peace education classes, not only those who 
already are open to these concepts. Also ensure that students complete the whole program 
rather than selected classes. For future interventions, consider adapting the program for 
younger generations.
8. Continue supporting peace camps. To save resources, organize these at campsites rather than 
using hotel accommodations. 
9. Continue focusing on civic movements under a new peacebuilding activity, using the stakeholder 
network built under the PRO-Future/PRO-Future II Activities. 
10. Continue using the small grants mechanism. Consider investing more effort in defining clear 
theories of change, expected outcomes, and MEL practices and in expanding grant duration to 
prolong intergroup contacts. Consider offering follow-up grants for activities that produce
desired outcomes, and consider creating a training for grantees on designing projects with a 
clearly defined chain of results. 
11. Monitor the use of infrastructure built during the first round of these projects and make 
informed decisions about investing in these projects for the remainder of the Activity.
12. Continue supporting regional peace camps and SFF. Consider establishing a separate grant line 
for regional cooperation. Under future peacebuilding interventions, consider designing activities 
targeting the diaspora. 
5 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND THEORY OF CHANGE
PRO Future (II) Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future Activity (PRO-Future II) is a 
six-year Activity that was initiated in September 2017 by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 
partnership with Caritas; Forum of Citizens Tuzla; Helsinki Citizens Assembly; Nansen Dialogue 
Center; and Mostar, Kult, and Infohouse. The Activity is envisioned to contribute to the Country 
Development and Cooperation Strategy’s (CDCS’s) Development Objective 2 (DO2), "Socio￾Economic Conditions Improved."
PRO-Future II aims to enhance trust and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and bring 
about positive societal transformation, overcoming inter-ethnic divides, antagonism, and prejudices 
that are still prevalent in BiH society (IMPAQ International, 2020). Politicians in BiH use divisive 
rhetoric and hate speech to exacerbate these divisions, attempting to manipulate different ethnic and 
religious congregations by exacerbating this fear of “others,” for the purpose of scoring political 
points and maintaining power through the politics of division. The political instrumentalization of the 
mainstream media aggravates these processes by disseminating and amplifying divisive messages and 
hate speech (USAID, 2020). The media in BiH often lack a sense of social responsibility (Brunwasser, 
Turčilo, & Marko, 2016) and are motivated by sensationalism. As the most trusted public figures in 
BiH (IMPAQ International, LLC, 2020), religious leaders have considerable power and potential to 
support reconciliation initiatives and peacebuilding processes. Still, they frequently either remain 
silent or promote disruptive discourse closely tied to the incumbent political elites in BiH. 
PRO-Future II incorporates interventions designed to achieve two purposes. Under Purpose 1, the 
Activity envisions that key influencers—politicians and government representatives, representatives 
of religious communities, and media—work together and institutionalize a shared vision for a stable 
future. This objective incorporates three sub-purposes: 
EXHIBIT 1. BASIC INFORMATION ON THE TRUST, UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONSIBILITY 
FOR THE FUTURE (PRO-FUTURE II) ACTIVITY
ACTIVITY NAME TRUST, UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE (PRO￾FUTURE II)
USAID OFFICE United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/ Bosnia and 
Herzegovina (BiH) Democracy Office
IMPLEMENTER Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT # Cooperative Agreement No. AID-168-A-17-00005
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $8,000,000 ($5,000,000 initial, $8,000,000 with extension)
LIFE OF ACTIVITY September 17, 2017, to September 16, 2023 (five years initial plus one- year extension)
ACTIVE GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS Across Bosnia and Herzegovina; particular focus on 75 municipalities
MISSION DEVELOPMENT 
OBJECTIVE (DO) 
DO2: Socio-Economic Conditions Improved
6 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• Sub-purpose 1.1: Targeted key influencers in the political and government spheres take tangible 
actions that focus on political responsibility and promote inter-ethnic reconciliation. 
• Sub-purpose 1.2: Targeted religious key influencers lead national- and community-level 
reconciliation initiatives. 
• Sub-purpose 1.3: Targeted media outlets promote reconciliation and increase respectful and 
empathetic coverage of inter-ethnic reconciliation initiatives.
Under Purpose II, the Activity envisions citizens building a civic movement to strengthen 
reconciliation and reduce inter-ethnic and inter-religious divisions. This purpose will be achieved 
through four sub-purposes. 
• Sub-purpose 2.1: Education institutions incorporate reconciliation topics and approaches into 
their students’ classes to increase acceptance and reconciliation. 
• Sub-purpose 2.2: Citizens from 70 municipalities have increased opportunities to face the past 
and to promote reconciliation and inclusiveness. 
• Sub-purpose 2.3: Citizens from 70 municipalities advocate for institutional changes and demand 
political responsibility
• Sub-purpose 2.4: Municipal working groups lead implementation of infrastructure projects that 
contribute to overall community life and reconciliation processes.
The PRO-FUTURE II theory of change states that if BiH citizens and key influencers in the political, 
government, media, and religious spheres are empowered to stand up for peace, demand political 
responsibility, and advocate for institutional change, and the media cover and promote their efforts, 
then BiH society as a whole will enjoy increased stability and economic prosperity.
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The primary purpose of this performance evaluation is to investigate outcomes achieved by PRO￾Future II during the first four years of implementation. The evaluation will provide the Mission with 
credible and valuable insights to make informed programmatic decisions and potential adaptations 
for the remainder of the Activity, maximizing the likelihood of achieving the desired results. The 
Mission and the implementing partner will use the evaluation results to take midterm corrective 
actions (if necessary) in the Activity design and/or implementation. Knowledge generated by the
evaluation will support evidence-based decision-making by USAID/BiH. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation team will answer the following evaluation questions:
1. What outcomes have PRO-Future II’s key influencers (politicians, religious leaders, media) 
achieved in promoting inter-ethnic reconciliation?
1.1. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved through interventions fostering regional 
dialogue? 
7 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
2. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved in terms of changing inter-ethnic attitudes and
behaviors among supported citizens, particularly among youth and students?
3. To what extent have the PRO-Future II small-grant programs contributed to peacebuilding?
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
METHODOLOGY
To examine the effectiveness of PRO-Future II interventions and their outcomes, the evaluation 
team employed a mixed-methods data collection approach that included data triangulation. This 
evaluation examined more than three years of PRO-Future II implementation for which reporting 
data were available: from the end of September 2017 through March 2021. Fieldwork occurred from 
the end of June 2021 until the middle of September 2021. 
The methodology employed by the evaluation team ensured that data were collected systematically 
and efficiently from the following sources: 
ACTIVITY DOCUMENTS, including the program description; Monitoring, Evaluation, and 
Learning (MEL) plan; work plans; quarterly progress reports; lists of beneficiaries, experts, 
and other stakeholders involved in Activity implementation; small-grant implementation 
reports; media reports; and other documents produced by the Activity and its 
beneficiaries. The evaluation team reviewed the most recent quarterly progress report 
from fiscal year (FY) 2021, quarter 2 (January through March 2021). Refer to Annex 3 for 
the full list of documents reviewed.
SECONDARY DOCUMENTATION relevant to the sector, including MEASURE￾BiH/MEASURE II research reports and reports and analyses from international 
organizations and CSOs. 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (KIIS) with USAID/BiH, PRO-Future II implementing 
partners and partner organizations, relevant international and donor organizations,
cantonal- and municipal-government level representatives, event facilitators, Activity 
beneficiaries (e.g., activists, journalists), and other stakeholders. A total of 31 individual and 
group interviews were conducted, including 41 key informants (KIs). 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS) with PRO-Future II grantees and facilitators, 
municipal working groups, and Activity beneficiaries (e.g., small-grant implementors, public 
speakers, Our Talks forum implementers, peace education teachers and students, political 
academy participants, peace activists, peace camp participants, online school for 
peacebuilding participants, municipal working group members). A total of 17 FGDs were 
conducted with 73 individuals. 
AN ONLINE SURVEY of PRO-Future II Activity implementers.1
In early September 2021, the evaluation team analyzed the data, triangulating among various data 
sources to generate robust findings and draw conclusions about the evaluation questions. The team 
1The evaluation team planned to carry out a survey of PRO-Future II event participants. However, the low response rate 
prevented the team from using the survey results to inform the evaluation findings.
8 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
presented its preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations to USAID/BiH during a remote 
presentation held on September 20, 2021.
LIMITATIONS
PERIOD OF DATA COLLECTION
Because the evaluation began in late July 2021 and most KIIs and FGDs were planned for August
(during vacation season), the evaluation team faced challenges in reaching and arranging virtual 
meetings with stakeholders. The evaluation team addressed this issue by extending data collection 
into the first half of September 2021.
RECALL BIAS
Given that the Activity is nearly four years into implementation, many individuals who were 
contacted to participate in KIIs and FGDs had difficulty remembering the interventions. The 
evaluation team addressed this issue by reminding the KIs about the topics, time, and date of the 
events in which they participated.
RESPONSE BIAS
The majority of beneficiaries who participated in the evaluation were those who had been active and 
engaged in the Activity implementation, and their views may have been different from those who 
were not as actively engaged. The evaluation team addressed this issue by asking beneficiaries for 
specific examples about the Activity outcomes and achievements and then combining their responses 
with those from implementers and donors. Low response rates prevented the evaluation team from 
using the surveys with beneficiaries to inform the evaluation findings. Instead, the team used PRO￾Future II’s post-event evaluation forms.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
EVALUATION QUESTION 1: WHAT OUTCOMES HAVE PRO-FUTURE II’S KEY 
INFLUENCERS (POLITICIANS, RELIGIOUS LEADERS, MEDIA) ACHIEVED IN PROMOTING 
INTER-ETHNIC RECONCILIATION?
FINDINGS
Finding 1: Engaging higher-level politicians in peace promotion proved challenging; 
PRO-Future II was more successful in mobilizing support from lower-level politicians 
and government representatives. According to the PRO-Future II progress reports, during the 
first year of implementation, the Activity invested significant effort in mobilizing the BiH 
Parliamentary Assembly to commit to the Platform for Peace (hereafter, the Platform). PRO￾Future II invested considerable resources in lobbying for Platform adoption among the members of 
the parliament, securing public support from mayors, media, and opposition parties. Both the House 
of Representatives and the House of Peoples of the BiH Parliamentary Assembly signed the Platform 
in July 2018. However, these institutions were unwilling to continue action plan implementation 
because of issues with government constitution and a focus on upcoming elections. To date, entity￾level governments have not shown a willingness to adopt the Platform. 
9 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
A lack of dedication to the promotion 
of peace and reconciliation among 
political and government stakeholders is 
not surprising. A vast majority of KIs
agreed that politicians, especially those 
at higher government levels, are the 
primary obstacle to reconciliation 
processes in BiH. Additionally, the 
Political Economy Assessment in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina (a USAID internal 
document) completed by MEASURE II in 
early 2020 found that the politicians 
manipulate ethnic identities and incite 
fear to maintain the status quo and 
maintain positions of power.
“That’s how it is in Republika Srpska and in Federation BiH, Brčko District, and everywhere. Whenever 
political points are needed or something, nationalism is brought up, and that is the way the people are 
getting crazy over and the way that new political points are gained.” 
– A political academy participant
Even though several stakeholders noted that lower-level politicians cannot make decisions without 
consulting their party leadership, PRO-Future II has been more successful in catalyzing lower levels 
of government to sign the Platform and take actions to promote peace. According to the 
implementing partner and Activity progress reports, four cantonals (Posavina, West Herzegovina, 
Canton 10, and Zenica-Doboj) and 15 local governments signed the Platform under PRO-Future II,2
and 31 government institutions adopted the action plans for its implementation and implemented 36 
peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives during the first three years of Activity implementation. 
Although the number of implemented activities is well below the target (50), the Activity made a 
significant step forward in activating government support for peace and reconciliation processes, 
which likely would have not had happened without PRO-Future II’s contribution to building strong 
connections with local governments, lobbying, and advocacy. 
Finding 2: PRO-Future II political academies successfully facilitated activism among 
some young politicians. Implementers, beneficiaries, and progress reports identified several civic 
actions among young politicians trained through the PRO-Future II political academies. PRO￾Future II organized two political academies: one in FY 2019 and one in FY 2021. These educational 
events combined lectures (e.g., peacebuilding, social cohesion, human rights) with PRO-Future II’s 
traditional peacebuilding activities (e.g., online peacebuilding school, public speaking event, peace 
caravan) and policy development and action planning. The participants voiced satisfaction with the 
academy, stating it provided them with the opportunity to hear and consider perspectives different 
from their own. The academy motivated several participants to engage in activism. For instance, two 
trainees organized a peace caravan, mobilizing about 20 young politicians across party lines to visit 
2 Under the former PRO-Future Activity, the BiH Council of Ministers and 60 local governments signed the Platform for 
Peace. Also, under PRO-Future II, a number of religious institutions, media outlets, and cultural institutions signed the 
Platform, as did the Regional Youth Cooperation Office.
PRO-Future II’s design envisioned exploring the economic 
development components of reconciliation by conducting a 
study on reconciliation and the business environment. The 
study examining the effects of social cohesion on the 
business environment and investments conducted in four 
BiH municipalities indicated that social cohesion is an 
important precondition for economic development. 
According to the model, municipalities should adopt a so￾called “openness philosophy” to foster economic growth. 
This philosophy implies opening the communities toward 
investors, removing obstacles to investments, increasing 
public confidence in institutions, improving inter-ethnic 
relations, and enhancing collaboration with other 
municipalities that disregard their ethnic composition. PRO￾Future II is the pioneer in connecting social cohesion with 
economic development in BiH.
10 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
10 locations across BiH, listen to different experiences and perspectives, visit different monuments 
and religious institutions, and discuss critical issues with mayors. A trainee reported that he left his 
political party and has engaged in civic activism instead. He realized that due to the political academy, 
that his voice has not been heard by the party leadership. Several participants reported building 
relationships and maintaining contact with other attendees. 
“The Peace Academy affected me in a way to really care about every human being, to not care about what 
someone’s name is, which religion they are affiliated with, and to distinguish people only as good or bad.” 
– A political academy participant
“[On reducing inter-ethnic prejudice in local communities]) That is very hard to implement. We need to 
adapt to our local community, to some of our needs and, unfortunately, to some opinions of our people 
and our fellow citizens that we cannot change, but they would like to keep those and pass them from 
generation to generation.” 
– A political academy participant
Finding 3: PRO-Future II’s effort to engage religious leaders in promoting peace and 
reconciliation processes was challenging, but it is perceived as vital. Most KIs agreed that 
religious communities play a key role in peacebuilding and reconciliation processes. This is consistent 
with findings from MEASURE II’s 2019 and 2020 National Survey of Citizens Perceptions, which
show that when rating their level of trust in different institutions and organizations, BiH citizens trust 
religious institutions the most. However, implementers and progress reports suggest that most 
activities with religious communities and leaders have not been implemented as planned. PRO￾Future II envisioned facilitating and supporting annual events, such as joint visits to places of suffering, 
to engage the highest-ranked religious leaders to promote peace. However, PRO-Future II’s efforts 
have been stalled due to the proximity of elections and disagreements about the sites to be visited. 
Further, religious education teachers’ involvement in peacebuilding processes was limited to only a 
few activities and discontinued by the highest-level religious leaders, apparently due to a 
communication issue they had with another international project. Collaboration with the Inter￾religious Council (IRC) was also challenging because of the organization’s complex internal structure 
and decision-making processes. This resulted in the IRC’s temporary disengagement from PRO￾Future II during FY 2019 before rejoining in 2020. Due to problems in cooperation from the IRC, 
CRS initiated direct collaboration with churches and religious institutions. A donor noted that 
establishing collaborative partnerships with religious leaders requires including them in activity 
planning as early as possible, preferably at the design stage.
Looking for ways to foster religious leaders’ engagement, PRO-Future II supported the “Theology in 
the Public Sphere” symposium in Trebinje. The symposium has been organized annually by the 
Center for Philosophy and Theology in Trebinje, bringing together lecturers and students of 
theological faculties and other key influencers from across the region. In addition to lectures and 
workshops, the symposium involved three higher-ranked religious leaders, representing the three 
most prevalent religions in BiH (Islam, Catholic, and Orthodox), discussing topics such as forgiveness 
and war crimes and responding to sensitive questions posed by the ethnically mixed audience. The 
2018 symposium resulted in the Zahumlje-Herzegovina and Primorje Eparchy Bishop signing the 
Platform on behalf of the Eparchy and IRC and delivering a public speech about peace and 
reconciliation. The Platform subsequently was signed by the Mostar mufti, the cardinal of the 
Dabrobosanska Archdiocese and Jakob Finci on behalf of the Jewish community. 
11 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
According to implementers, the BiH IRC representatives and progress reports, PRO-Future II has 
supported the IRC regional chapters by connecting them with one another, providing financial 
support for the work of their secretaries, and promoting positive local stories. The implementing 
partner explained that the chapters have become more recognized in local communities as 
promoters of peace and inter-religious dialogue. PRO-Future II established a small-grant program for 
the chapters, but no grants have been implemented so far. The chapters have been the most 
committed in responding to vulnerable groups’ needs during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) 
pandemic, delivering aid packages through the PRO-Future II Solidarity Fund. 
“They [the IRC] must have a consensus between all four religious communities for a decision to be made, 
and time in religious communities does not run in the same way as time in the civil sector, so sessions are 
very often prolonged or there is a long period of time between sessions until a decision is made. All the 
while and they are practically blocked, that is, they cannot do anything.” 
– A PRO-Future II implementer
Finding 4: PRO-FUTURE II employed excellent learning and collaboration principles in 
implementing the university master’s program “Inter-religious Studies and 
Peacebuilding,” resulting in the graduation of seven students during FY 2021. The 
program was facilitated under a former CRS project and supported by PRO-Future II through
scholarships for students and assistance in improving the program management and curriculum. 
Through their monitoring activities, PRO-Future II learned that the program was too demanding for 
students, mostly due to the number of subjects and exams. PRO-Future II funded an external 
evaluation of the program and modified the program based on the evaluation findings, resulting in 
the graduation of seven students during Year 4 of implementation. Students of the master’s program 
were also engaged in other activities that PRO-Future II organized (e.g., online peacebuilding school), 
especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students have regularly participated in the program’s 
promotion activities. One of the students of the master’s program was promoted into the IRC as a 
member of the council’s secretariat. 
Finding 5: PRO-Future II generated substantial online media engagement and some TV 
coverage, which contributed to promotion of peace and reconciliation in the public 
sphere. However, these positive stories are still a small part of a generally divisive
media landscape in BiH. According to implementers, PRO-Future II progress reports, and a 
media database, PRO-Future II events generated substantial media engagement. According to the 
Activity’s monitoring efforts, this engagement resulted in 1,314 media products during the first three 
years of implementation. Most media products were online articles (69 percent), accompanied by 
videos and live TV show appearances. 
The evaluation team’s analysis of media articles indicates that a large portion of articles were 
produced by the mainstream national (25 percent), regional (7 percent), entity (16 percent), cantonal 
(15 percent), and international media (2 percent), whereas the local media produced 35 percent of 
articles. Of the 1,314 articles, 414 (32 percent) were event or grant opportunity announcements, 
and others highlighted PRO-Future II events. The events that drew considerable media attention 
included, among others, the Zahumlje-Herzegovina and Primorje Eparchy Bishop signing the 
Platform; adoption of the Platform action plans by Orthodox priests in Zahumlje-Herzegovina 
Eparchy; disagreements about the Platform among the members of the BiH parliament; the Srdjan 
Aleksic Journalist Award; activities related to the COVID-19 emergency response; and 
reconstruction of a kindergarten building in Trebinje. 
12 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
MEASURE II’s analysis indicates that most articles (92 percent) emphasized reconciliation, 
understanding, and peace as the objectives of PRO-Future II’s events, and nearly three-quarters of 
the articles (74 percent) explicitly discuss reconciliation, peacebuilding, and promotion of peace. In 
its social media efforts, PRO-Future II used Facebook as its main channel for disseminating 
information about the Activity, followed by Instagram and LinkedIn. According to progress reports, 
at the time of the evaluation, PRO-Future II’s Facebook page had 9,000 “likes” and 9,471 followers, 
and their Instagram profile had 938 followers. 
PRO-Future II engaged several TV stations in promoting peacebuilding and reconciliation by 
producing and broadcasting Peace Talks. PRO-Future II envisioned Peace Talks as public debates 
between key influencers from social, political, and civic areas on important topics and collaboration 
between two public entity-level broadcasters (Federal Television [FTV] and Radio Television of 
Republika Srpska [RTRS]) in producing the debates. The first Peace Talks show was produced by 
CRS and broadcast only by Naša TV from Mostar.3 Afterward, with support from PRO-Future II, 
FTV produced seven Peace Talks and broadcast them during prime time. Establishing collaboration 
with RTRS was not successful due to their resistance; however, PRO-Future II continues its efforts 
to include them in joint production of Peace Talks with FTV. The FTV partner noted that the Peace 
Talks viewership was similar to that of other similar TV shows, and the debates were usually well 
received by the TV audience.4 
Most KIs (implementers, beneficiaries, donors) consider the media to be the biggest obstacle to 
peacebuilding processes, after politicians. This is particularly the case with the so-called “nationalist 
media.” According to KIs, most of BiH’s media outlets are politically dependent. Even though PRO￾Future II, its beneficiaries, and its media partners have worked extensively to promote positive peace 
stories, these stories are still under-represented among media reports5 and do not resonate with 
the population, who are more likely to react to negative stories. Most KIs have not noticed any 
changes in the last four years regarding the promotion of peace by key influencers—politicians, 
religious leaders, or the media—which aligns with PRO-Future II’s internal evaluation findings. 
“I don’t think anything has changed. If you read and follow these portals, … I did not notice anything in 
the media that the situation is better, that there is peace, that there is a different approach, a more 
normal one.” 
– A peace education teacher
“The media have the role assigned to them by their donor, the one who finances them, so I think that in 
Bosnia we do not have completely free media, at least in my opinion. I might have a wrong perception, but 
I don’t think we have independent media.” 
– A small-grants implementer
Finding 6: PRO-FUTURE II trainings for journalists generated interest and made some 
journalists more aware of and sensitive to peace and reconciliation reporting. 
According to training descriptions and trainees, there are indications that PRO-Future II trainings for 
3 FTV refused to broadcast the product because they had not produced it and because an individual was participating who 
had previously spoken critically of FTV.
4 The importance of partnering with TV stations in peacebuilding and reconciliation promotion is reflected in the fact that 
TV is still the most followed media type in BiH, particularly for reaching an older audience. The 2020 NSCP-BiH survey 
showed that 81 percent of respondents consume media content through TV and that TV remains the most trusted source 
of news for 51 percent of BiH citizens. 5 According to several journalists, this under-representation is due to a lack of stories, journalists’ awareness of stories, 
lack of time, or low media interest in these kinds of stories.
13 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
journalists had limited results in terms of increased reporting on peace topics among trained 
journalists. The first training delivered to 14 journalists did not focus on peace and reconciliation 
but, rather, on general reporting skills (e.g., interviewing). This training was more useful to 
journalists who were relatively new in their profession. According to trainees, the second training
facilitated a dialogue among the participants (four journalists), focusing on how the media can 
contribute to peacebuilding promotion and stay independent. It was also noted that the training
sensitized journalists to the topics of peace and reconciliation in reporting more than skill building, 
given that most of the journalists who attended the trainings were professionals with many years of 
experience. 
“I think in the sense when we talk about improving skills and reporting and so on, that much can’t be said 
about that, but if we’re talking about sensitizing to reporting on peace topics, on peace issues, then I think 
it definitely reminds you of what the focus really is. In this sense, the training did contribute to better 
reporting and understanding of the importance regarding peace as a topic for all of us.” 
– A journalist, PRO-Future II training participant
Finding 7: PRO-FUTURE II’s efforts were more effective in mobilizing war victims to
engage in promotion of peace and reconciliation than in advocacy. PRO-Future II
envisioned mobilizing war victims to promote peace. It was planned that war victims would do this
through public speaking events and advocacy interventions. With support from PRO-Future II, war 
victims associations organized 18 public speaking events by the end of the data collection period, 
thus conveying to the public a joint message of peace among victims of different ethnicities. As one 
of the KIs noted, the advocacy work was limited and localized to two communities with minimal 
support from municipalities. In one instance, the municipality provided space for meetings, 
psychological support for members and some educational events for war victims organizations, and 
provided support to the association in the local Platform action plan. 
In another municipality, two war victims associations, Bosniaks and Croats, expressed interest in 
organizing a joint visit to places of suffering and demanded access to them from the local 
government. This initiative has not been implemented yet, but PRO-Future II plans to support it in 
Year 5 of implementation. Advocacy directed at the higher levels of government, such as that 
focused on better rights for war victims or monetary reparations, have proved to be challenging due 
to the lack of government support and dedicated government funding for these matters. Given these 
challenges, PRO-Future II redirected its focus on connecting war victims associations at the local and 
cantonal levels with each other, with the aim of strengthening them in acquiring a better status.
“We are aware that, at the moment, we cannot advocate for some higher rights, such as for victims of 
torture, detainees, and their reparation in cash and so on, because the state simply does not have the 
finances for that. Whenever we talk to someone who has knowledge from that area, they say that it is 
almost impossible at the moment to do so. As ugly as it sounds, this has ended in a draw, and these things 
are hard to change. So, we did not want to direct our capacities and finances towards this, knowing that it 
was a lost fight in advance, at least for now. But what we can do is, at the local level—and, let’s say, at the 
cantonal level—to try to link institutions—in this case municipalities, cities, and those associations—and in 
some way to strengthen that connection and to somehow help those associations.” 
– A PRO-Future II partner
PRO-Future II expanded the group of public speakers by including former juvenile fighters. The 
juvenile fighters were recognized as having the ability to appeal to younger audiences because they 
themselves were at a young age at the time the war took place, and the youth could more easily 
14 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
identify with them than with war veterans. Within the Platform implementation, PRO-Future II and 
war victims associations implemented joint visits to places of suffering, during which speeches and 
honors were given to all war victims regardless of their ethnic belonging. Inclusion of war victims 
from all warring parties was mandatory. Because these events were closely tied to certain dates and 
anniversaries, they received considerable media attention. 
Finding 8: PRO-FUTURE II successfully secured support from most cantonal ministries 
to implement living libraries. Four education ministries supported implementation of 
peace education. However, the Republika Srpska education authorities have not 
supported any education activities. Based on the Activity’s progress reports, four cantonal 
ministries of education (MoEs)—Canton Sarajevo, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Central Bosnia 
Canton, and Una-Sana Canton—signed the Platform and developed their action plans as a 
mechanism for reconciliation interventions. The Republika Srpska MoE has not responded to PRO￾Future II’s efforts to join its peacebuilding interventions. Implementation of the MoEs’ action plans 
started at the beginning of the 2020–2021 school year. 
Of the four MoEs that signed the Platform, three have implemented peace education programs in a 
total of 51 high schools in 20 municipalities/cities in BiH, engaging 91 high school teachers and more 
than 420 students. The MoE of Una-Sana Canton was still in the preparation phase, equipping 
teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary for peace program implementation in their classes.
The KIs, teachers who participated in implementation of the PRO-Future II peace education 
program, view the program as a well-designed approach to tackling peacebuilding and reconciliation 
issues with students. They also found that the program had positive effects on students. However, 
teachers recognized that longer-term work with students is necessary. Moreover, teachers 
suggested that this kind of education should be included in the regular education curriculum. 
“Regarding positive changes, what happened is that they got more open. Students are more willing to 
advocate for positive peace, to spread universal values. (…) They were talking more about the project, 
and I noticed from speaking to them that they talked to their housemates about what they were doing 
within some the program activities and so on.” 
– A peace education teacher
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1A. WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED 
THROUGH INTERVENTIONS FOSTERING REGIONAL DIALOGUE?
FINDINGS
Finding 9: The collaboration between PRO-Future II and the Regional Youth 
Cooperation Office (RYCO) in implementing peace camps and the Sarajevo Film 
Festival’s (SFF’s) Dealing with the Past program resulted in friendships and connections
that changed youths’ perceptions about the openness of the people from the region.
PRO-Future II and RYCO organized a regional peace camp that proved effective in changing 
participants’ views about outgroups. The camps are biennial events that last seven days and include
different types of interventions, such as workshops on different topics (e.g., identity concepts, 
stereotypes, discrimination, social cohesion); public speaking events; discussions about local 
problems and ways to address them; and informal activities, such as city and museum visits. Several 
youth who participated in the PRO-Future II peace education classes were invited to join peace 
camps and were given the opportunity to continue broadening their inter-ethnic views. 
15 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Implementers and beneficiaries believe that peace camps result in new intra- and inter-ethnic 
friendships and positive changes in inter-ethnic attitudes. One KI mentioned that it is important for 
youth in BiH to gain an outsider’s perspective on BiH issues, learn about relationships between 
regional countries (e.g., Serbia and Kosovo), and break certain stereotypes about peoples from the 
Western Balkans. 
PRO-Future II also collaborates with RYCO in bringing youth from the region to the SFF, where 
they spend seven days watching and discussing the movies as part of the SFF’s “Dealing with the 
Past” program. According to implementers, the SFF participants are typically active in civil society
and know the basics about peace and reconciliation. Several participants emphasized the importance 
of such events for people coming from smaller communities, because they have the opportunity to 
come to the capital, learn about different perspectives, and share them with the youth in their 
communities. Young people learn that diversity is not an obstacle to collaboration with other 
individuals. One participant explained that regional cultural events are also important for youth from 
the region because many believe that Bosnian people are divided across ethnic lines, and they learn 
that people socialize and collaborate with each other. Some beneficiaries stay in contact with their 
peers from neighboring countries after such events. An implementer noted that these kinds of 
activities establish a platform for youth to engage in dialogue about the past, which is usually not a 
topic they prefer to tackle. The online format used in 2020 due to the pandemic may have disrupted 
some of these processes; there were no opportunities for informal socialization, which 
implementers and participants consider important.
“It was really interesting to hear different opinions, especially from colleagues coming from North 
Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania because I did not have a chance to talk with youth from these countries, 
and they are also part of our region, and it is essential to have contacts with them to achieve anything on this 
peace trajectory of the region.” 
– A peace camp participant
Finding 10: Several grantees included a regional component in their activities, which 
improved cross-regional relationships, connections, and collaboration and was 
perceived as breaking down prejudices about inter-ethnic relations in BiH. These regional 
grants included, for example, activities for scouts, firefighters, and folklore groups. In one instance, a 
small grant connected scouts from a small, ethnically mixed BiH local community with youth from 
Serbia, Macedonia, and Croatia, who came to BiH and stayed with their peers in their homes. A 
representative of the grantee organization noted that this interaction resulted in collaboration and 
friendships among participants, who remained in touch in the following years. 
Likewise, a firefighter association from a Bosniak majority municipality invited the firefighters from 
Serbia and Croatia to their events, which included firefighter competitions, visits to places of worship, 
and historical sights. For most participants from Serbia and Croatia, this was their first time in BiH and 
their first visit to places of worship from other religious denominations. Afterward, one of the 
participating organizations from Croatia invited the Bosnian firefighter organization to their event. 
In another example, a small Serb majority municipality organized a folklore festival that brought 
together folklore organizations from BiH, Serbia, and Croatia. The folklore groups promoted the 
cultural heritage of different countries, and all folklore ensembles (eight) signed the Platform as part 
of the grant. Most grantees noticed that the participants from the region overcame their prejudices 
about inter-ethnic relations in BiH. They expected tensions between participants from different 
16 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ethnicities and were positively surprised that the reality was different. However, a grantee noted 
that bringing participants from the region to her community was expensive and complex; one of the 
reasons was that USAID could not pay for out-of-country participants’ expenses. As a result, the 
grantee expressed high motivation to implement local rather than regional grants in the future.
“Participants thought that the situation here is like during 1992–1995, without cooperation, looking at 
each other disdainfully…. Now they cannot wait to come again and be our guests.” 
– A representative of a grantee organization
Finding 11: PRO-Future II supported the annual “Theology in the Public Sphere” 
symposium organized in Trebinje, which included a regional audience. As mentioned 
under Evaluation Question 1, one of these events resulted in the Zahumlje-Herzegovina and 
Primorje Eparchy Bishop signing the Platform and in its public promotion among guests from 
neighboring countries. Subsequently, several other religious communities in BiH signed the Platform. 
Finding 12: Some PRO-Future II regional activities could not be implemented as 
envisioned due to a lack of engagement among key stakeholders. Implementation of 
regional activities originally envisioned under the PRO-Future II design proved challenging in several 
cases, due mainly to a lack of engagement among key stakeholders. For instance, before an event to 
foster cross-border cooperation among Dubrovnik, Trebinje, and Herceg Novi, the mayor of 
Dubrovnik refused to engage unless the Mayor of Trebinje apologized for actions that occurred
during the 1990s war. Furthermore, regional collaboration between theological faculties was 
hampered by a lack of engagement among the deans in Serbia and Croatia. They explained that, due 
to a reduced number of students in general, they wanted to keep the students engaged in in-country 
programs. However, the deans were considering initiating subsequent collaboration through summer 
schools. PRO-Future II also intends to organize the exhibition “Personal” (an exhibition of war 
victims photos followed by a speaking-out event) in Belgrade and Zagreb. The regional exhibition 
was postponed in FY 2022 due to the rising number of COVID-19 cases. The speakers said they are 
willing to participate in these exhibitions in the neighboring countries.
Finding 13: Several KIs stated that it is important to include the BiH diaspora in peace 
and reconciliation processes. One grantee suggested that the hate speech on social media is 
predominantly spread by diaspora, usually by young individuals who were not involved in the war. 
Another KI peace activist mentioned participating in an activity, organized by another donor, that 
focused on reconciliation among diaspora citizens. The KI suggested that other donors regard the 
diaspora as an important target group. Other KIs said they engaged the diaspora in peacebuilding 
through diaspora events (Diaspora Days, Diaspora Congress) and by broadcasting a peacebuilding 
documentary on a TV station popular among the diaspora.
“Well, everyone is referring to those events of the 1990s, that unfortunate war that happened, referring 
to the victims who were again on both sides. The diaspora is leading. The biggest problem are the 
comments that come from those people, when you look at the profile, who weren’t even born during the 
war. They picked up that incomplete information through the media or from someone else who told 
them just their own side of the story.” 
– A municipal working group member
Finding 14: The online school for peacebuilding engaged participants from the region 
but offered no opportunities for interaction because of the school’s online format. The 
17 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
online school for peacebuilding has a flexible format, enabling access to video materials by any 
interested party, allowing them to watch lectures any time and anywhere they want. However, this
approach limits interaction among participants and opportunities for discussion. 
Finding 15: PRO-Future II promoted the Activity through collaboration with several 
regional media outlets. According to the implementer, Al Jazeera and N1 are PRO-Future II’s main 
regional partners. In addition to covering PRO-Future II events on their online platforms, these TV 
stations promote their events in their programs, such as during the evening news. Further, PRO￾Future II staff were invited on multiple occasions to talk about the Activity in the TV shows. PRO￾Future II also worked with Al Jazeera on a documentary movie. The implementer explained that the 
Activity plans to try to engage Croatian Radio Television (HRT), RTL (a Croatian TV station owned by 
the Radio Television Luxembourg Group), and Serbian Radio Television (RTS) in the following period. 
CONCLUSIONS 
PRO-Future II invested a substantial effort in mobilizing the most resistant stakeholder groups in 
promoting peacebuilding and reconciliation processes: politicians, religious leaders, media, war 
victims, and education stakeholders. The Activity faced a number of challenges in implementation but 
produced considerable results in peace promotion despite the difficulty of the task.
Higher-level politicians are a primary obstacle to peacebuilding and reconciliation in BiH, and political 
incentives limit political will for these processes at the state or entity levels. Cantonal- and local-level 
politicians are more open to this work, but their engagement is conditional on the external 
facilitation and support. By introducing the municipal action plans and monitoring mechanisms to 
ensure their implementation, PRO-Future II made a significant step forward from the predecessor 
PRO-Future Activity, which envisioned the Platform signing as the final step in institutions’ 
commitment to peace. As a result, 31 government institutions adopted the action plans and 
implemented 36 peacebuilding initiatives during the first three years of implementation. Additionally, 
the Activity’s political academies resulted in peace activism among several young politicians and 
improved connections between politicians across ethnic lines. 
Politically dependent media that promote negative political messages represent an additional obstacle 
to peace and reconciliation. PRO-Future II generated substantial online media engagement and some 
TV engagement (particularly by FTV) in peace promotion. PRO-Future II articles were produced by 
national, regional, and local media, and in a few cases, they raised the attention of international media 
outlets. However, these positive stories are still a small part of rather divisive media content in 
general, and there were no changes in the media’s behavior in peace promotion, although a few 
journalists reported that PRO-Future II trainings made them more sensitive to peace and 
reconciliation reporting.
Engaging religious leaders in peacebuilding processes is vital but also challenging, primarily due to 
slow and centralized decision-making systems in religious communities and their connections to 
politics. Although PRO-Future II was unable to implement some interventions with religious leaders, 
they adapted and supported the events where they had opportunities to act. Collaboration with the 
IRC was also challenging and irregular, and PRO-Future II started working directly with religious 
institutions to compensate for the lack of results. Supporting the IRC’s regional chapters resulted in 
improved visibility in local communities and engagement in implementation of the COVID-19 
Solidarity Fund. The Activity employed excellent learning and collaboration principles in 
18 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
implementing the inter-religious master’s program, resulting in the graduation of seven students 
during FY 2021. 
PRO-Future II successfully mobilized war victims to promote peace and reconciliation, but their 
engagement in advocating for their own rights was minimal, due in part to the sensitivities related to 
working with war victims. PRO-Future II expanded the group of public speakers trained under the 
predecessor peacebuilding activity by including former juvenile fighters, and there are indications that 
their stories leave a considerable impression on young people. 
Finally, PRO-Future II secured considerable support from cantonal education ministries for 
implementation of activities, especially for living libraries, and to the extent planned for peace 
education. Teachers who implemented the peace education program thought it was well designed, 
interesting, and effective. Some teachers noted that longer-term work with students is necessary and 
that this type of program should be included in the curriculum. 
Implementation of the PRO-Future II cross-cutting regional component proved challenging in several 
cases, mainly due to the unwillingness of key stakeholders, such as politicians and religious leaders, 
to engage. However, collaboration with RYCO in organizing a peace camp and activities under the 
SFF were successful and produced positive outcomes. Beyond the results in building relationships, 
collaboration, and facilitating activism, the added value of regional activities includes reducing 
prejudices against people coming from neighboring countries. Several small grants included regional 
activities in their design, but implementers may be discouraged from using these approaches due to 
expenses and complexities of organization. Other successful examples of regional interventions 
included the annual symposium, “Theology in the Public Sphere,” in Trebinje. There are indications
that BiH citizens among the diaspora may be one of the key target groups for peacebuilding and 
reconciliation initiatives.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2: WHAT OUTCOMES HAS PRO-FUTURE II ACHIEVED IN 
TERMS OF CHANGING INTER-ETHNIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AMONG 
SUPPORTED CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY AMONG YOUTH AND STUDENTS?
FINDINGS
Finding 16: Most PRO-Future II activities that aim to change citizens’ inter-ethnic 
attitudes and behaviors focus on youth and students, while adults are involved as 
implementers and key influencers. Adults were perceived as obstacles to youth’s 
engagement in peacebuilding activities. The only PRO-Future II interventions intended for the 
general population of adults are public speaking events and occasional small grants. All other events 
are intended primarily for youth. Adults are, however, involved as event implementers and key 
influencers. 
Several KIs believe that youth are more often open to inter-ethnic cooperation and do not need 
reconciliation because they did not participate in the conflict in the first place. This mindset is visible, 
for instance, in living libraries, where youth are more likely to react to and remember the stories 
unrelated to the war (e.g., a story of a drug user or a visually impaired victim of family abuse) rather 
than war stories. Adults are generally more engaged than youth in discussions following the public 
speaking events. 
19 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“And now, when we are talking about audience youth versus adults, it seems to me that young people are 
not as open in terms of readiness to discuss this topic, to ask us or delve deeper, unlike adults, who seem 
to be more open and ready to share some of their own experiences, that is, war experiences.”
– A living library speaker
However, according to KIs, not all youth are tolerant or open-minded, and the intolerance seen 
among youth is perceived to be a result of their upbringing. Parents are not always ready to allow 
children to interact with their peers of a different ethnic background and often prevent youth from 
participating in peacebuilding interventions because of their own beliefs and attitudes. The same 
problem exists in schools, especially in communities where “two schools under one roof,” exist and 
the politically established school principals present another obstacle. For instance, a KI noted that in 
one such school, the principal often forbade students from participating in extracurricular activities 
with youth from a neighboring community school, even though the two schools engage in other 
types of cooperation. 
“Parents present an obstacle for children’s participation in activities aimed at peacebuilding.” 
– A peace education teacher
“Young people want to connect among themselves, while older ones try to separate us.” 
– A small-grant event participant
Finding 17: Among participants, several PRO-Future II interventions regularly evoke 
emotional reactions toward members of other ethnic groups.6 Living libraries and public 
speaking events bring victims of tragic and difficult life events to share with an audience their stories 
and lessons learned, illustrating universal human values and messages. Whereas public speaking 
events focus solely on war stories, living libraries include different types of speakers (e.g., a victim of 
sexual violence, a former drug abuser). Among the living library and public speaking event 
participants and implementers whom we interviewed, all reported strong emotions when listening to 
the speakers’ negative life events. The participants specifically mentioned feeling compassion, 
catharsis, and connectedness to speakers but also sorrow because the speakers had endure such 
experiences. Implementers and participants noticed similar reactions among the audience, including
crying during the events.
“What I do remember, what remained in my memory, is that it was a very emotional encounter. We all 
cried when we heard those stories.” 
– A living library participant
“Living libraries elicit compassion for the victims. When children hear what these people have been 
through, they feel sorrow. At the end, while speaking with some of the students, I heard a sentence which 
really thrilled me: ‘We are all human beings after all.’ ” 
– A living library participant
PRO-Future II open-door days are implemented through visits to places of worship—churches, 
synagogues, and mosques—during which visitors learn about different religions from imams and 
priests. During Year 1, PRO-Future II implemented these events in cooperation with the IRC and 
continued their facilitation through small grants from Year 2 to the present. Nearly all implementers 
and participants reported positive impressions of such events, accompanied by positive emotions 
6 Emotional reactions are important outcomes because emotions are one component of attitudes, in addition to cognitive 
and behavioral components (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
20 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
described as warm and pleasant feelings. The only negative experience occurred when a participant 
with Islamic religious affiliation demonstrated visible anxiety when entering an Orthodox church. 
“We visited three places of worship belonging to the three ethnic groups.... So, there were many 
unexpectedly high-quality information, and, of course, the entire group was thrilled.” 
– A small-grant event participant
“We have very young members, children, mostly under the age of 18, and they never visited a mosque, 
for example, and now they had a chance to see what it looks like (...) Now that they had a chance, they 
were literally surprised with the presentations and everything else inside; they were impressed.” 
– A peace activist
Participants in living libraries, public speaking events, and open-door days remember these events 
years after their participation, suggesting that the events elicit strong emotions. However, these are 
short, one-off events. Several KIs believe that some people resume their inflexible thinking and 
behavior patterns after returning to their closed and prejudicial, local communities.
Occasionally, implementers and beneficiaries reported emotional reactions as a result of their 
experiences in political academies and peace camps. PRO-Future II’s internal post-event evaluation 
forms, which assess specific outcomes of different Activity interventions,7 are consistent with this 
finding. The results indicate that peace camps and political academies substantially contribute to the 
development of empathy, followed by living libraries.8 In addition to thematic lectures and 
workshops, these interventions included public speaking events. According to participants, peace 
camps help build emotional connections between youth, as exemplified in the case of a participant 
who shared that the group started to feel like another family.
“Concretely, the first thing I’ve done after visiting Stupni Do [a place of Bosniak suffering], was visiting the 
Borovica municipality [a place of Croat suffering]. Would I do it without the political academy? I am not 
sure if I would be so brave. I do not think I would. And today, I am really proud I was the first who has 
done it.” 
– A political academy participant
7 Post-event evaluations were conducted by CRS. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of several 
statements. The Evaluation Team analyzed the data on four statements: (1) This event helps me to be more willing to hear 
the attitudes of others, although they are different than mine; (2) This event helps me to have empathy to the others, 
although they do not belong to my ethnic group; (3) This event helps me to be more able to look at things from multiple 
angles before I take my stand and make a decision; and (4) After this event, I want to participate in building trust between 
members of different ethnic and religious groups. Respondents were asked to estimate the extent to which they agree or 
disagree with the statements, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 8 Out of the 20 respondents who participated in a peace camp, 70 percent reported that this activity had a positive impact8
on the development of their empathy toward other ethnicities. Sixty-five percent of political academy attendees (48 
respondents), and 64 percent of living library participants (1,001 respondents) reported the same positive results. PRO￾Future II implementers who responded to the MEASURE II online survey (113 respondents) gave open-door days and 
peace camps the highest ratings in terms of building empathy among the participants.
21 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Finding 18: Implementers and beneficiaries perceived that different PRO-Future II
interventions facilitated changes in participants’ attitudes toward and perceptions of
other ethnicities, including improved knowledge about outgroups; understanding of their 
perspectives; greater acceptance; and different perspectives on the past, present, and 
future. As reported by implementers and beneficiaries, PRO-Future II interventions facilitated a 
variety of changes among event participants at the cognitive level. Different PRO-Future II
interventions—living libraries, public speaking events, open-door days, peace camps, online 
peacebuilding school, and documentaries—were perceived to contribute to participants’ knowledge 
about other ethnic groups and their experiences and to increase their openness or readiness for 
change. Living libraries, public speaking 
events, open-door days, and peace camps 
have been particularly effective in fostering 
the outgroup perspective-taking, compared 
to other interventions. Additionally, open￾door days and peace camps have 
contributed to the development of positive 
attitudes about and greater acceptance 
toward others. Living libraries and public 
speaking events have sometimes led to 
adopting a different perspective on the past, 
present, and future (e.g., all groups suffered 
in the war; those who suffered do not have 
to hate others; peace is the only way 
forward). The value of documentaries (such 
as those screened during the Sarajevo Film 
Festival) is that they highlight difficult topics 
and provide a platform for dialogue among 
individuals who are otherwise unwilling to 
discuss the past. 
Peace camp implementers and participants 
described these interventions as particularly effective in developing skills that helped dispel
stereotypes about other groups and encourage them to work to improve conditions in their local 
communities. According to several attendees, the online peacebuilding school also helps students 
build their communication skills in interacting with people of other ethnicities and breaking some of 
their outgroup stereotypes. In addition, the peacebuilding school contributes to strengthening 
already existing positive attitudes towards other groups and nurturing pluralistic thinking.9 
“My local community is heavily monoethnic; therefore, I have not had any opportunity to hear the 
experience of the two other sides before. It has left a strong impression on me, and I think it is very 
important to hear those stories so that we start working on reconciliation and building better relations.” 
– An online peacebuilding school participant
“What fascinated me was how people who lived through all those agonies truly had not had a single word 
of hatred. That is what instilled hope in me.” 
9 According to Novis-Deutsch, pluralistic thinking is an activity of positively embracing multiplicity and complexity (Novis￾Deutsch, 2018). People with pluralistic thinking seek out others and find inspiration in multiple perspectives; they interpret 
the world through a “both/and” lens.
PRO-Future II faced obstacles in implementing the
university reconciliation forum. According to the
implementors, BiH universities are reluctant to combine
nonformal education opportunities with their formal
programs. Because PRO-Future II was unable to 
organize thematic discussions at universities, as
envisioned by the Activity’s design, it adapted and signed
memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with three
universities (University of Sarajevo, Mostar’s University 
Dzemal Bijedic, and University of Banja Luka; University 
of East Sarajevo committed to cooperation but did not 
sign the MoU). As a result, a university peace pedagogy
program has been established in collaboration with the
University of Sarajevo and the University of East
Sarajevo. PRO-Future II expects to establish another
peace education program at the Faculty of Law in 
Mostar. Although the evaluation team was unable to
organize any KIs or FGDs with the forum participants,
the PRO-Future II post-event evaluation forms indicate
that 64 percent of participants believe the forums 
improved their critical thinking. 
22 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
– A living library participant
The PRO-Future II post-event evaluation surveys support our finding that all PRO-Future II activities 
contribute in some way to changes in participants’ perceptions of and attitudes toward outgroups. The 
survey results suggest that the Activity’s interventions improve the participants’ willingness to hear 
different perspectives and look at situations from multiple angles.10 Additionally, a MEASURE II survey 
conducted to inform this evaluation assessed the extent to which different PRO-Future II interventions 
improve participants’ active, open-minded thinking.11 According to implementers’ assessments, peace 
camps had the strongest effect in this regard. This is exemplified by observations from a participant of 
the peace and advocacy camp who said that the work in the group allowed for the other side of the 
story to be heard, thus broadening their thinking. Youth had an opportunity to actively engage in a 
peace negotiation process and to learn more about peacebuilding, inter-religious dialogue, media, and 
youth networking methods. Through the peace camp, participants had an opportunity to listen to 
several university professors as well as peacebuilding practitioners and youth leaders who covered 
topics including media, conflict management and transitional justice, and religion.
Finding 19: PRO-Future II implementers and beneficiaries believe that longer activities, 
such as bringing youth and women’s groups together and fostering their collaboration
(peace camps, peace education, some small grants) contributed to building inter-ethnic 
relationships and promoting collaboration among youth and women. KIs described a 
number of cases in which PRO-Future II activities contributed to building inter-ethnic friendships. This 
was particularly the case with longer activities developed for youth, such as peace camps, peace 
education, and some small-grant activities intended to foster collaboration among youth (e.g., 
performing together in a play or concert or participating in sports competitions). In such cases, youth 
stay in touch and occasionally communicate via social media and, when there are future encounters, 
their relationships are friendly and cordial. Among adults, representatives of war victims associations 
who spoke at public speaking events established strong friendships. There are indications that one-off 
events such as open-door days also can contribute to establishing relationships.
“I find it interesting that many of those young people who meet while participating in our activities 
maintain their friendships. And, then, their encounters at the activities that follow; when they see each 
other again. One should see the energy between them; it really needs to be seen what it looks like.” 
– A representative of a PRO-Future II partner organization
10 Seventy-one percent of the political academy attendees who responded to the survey reported that the academy 
affected their willingness to listen to the opinions of individuals from other ethnic groups. Similar results were obtained for 
living libraries (71 percent) and peace camps (70 percent), with somewhat lower results for online peacebuilding school 
(63 percent) and public speaking events (56 percent). Finally, 54 percent of Our Talks forum attendees reported that this 
activity had a positive effect on their willingness to listen to the opinions of individuals from other ethnic groups. 
Approximately 90 percent of peace camp participants, as well as most participants in political academies (83 percent), living 
libraries (79 percent), peacebuilding school (70 percent), Our Talks (64 percent), and public speaking events (62 percent), 
reported that, as a result of their participation, they viewed situations from multiple angles before forming an opinion. 11 Actively open-minded thinking is a thinking style described in the literature as the disposition to be fair toward different 
conclusions even if they go against one’s initially favored conclusion. According to Baron (1985, 1995, 2019), actively open￾minded thinking represents a general set of dispositions that reduces “myside bias,” i.e., tendencies to evaluate evidence, 
generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward one’s own opinions and attitudes. MEASURE II surveys 
include the Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale, which was designed based on the original 10-item Open-Minded Scale
(i.e., willingness to change one’s own thinking; willingness to change one’s own beliefs on the basis of firm argument, which 
is contrary to one’s own opinion; Baron, 2019). Participants were asked to estimate the extent to which certain items 
describe participants as a result of their involvement in a PRO-Future II intervention. 
23 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“They were wearing hijab, during our excursions, our visits to those locations, they made friendships from 
young people from Croatia and youth of Serb ethnicity. Then, I noticed on the bus, on our way to those 
locations, they are sitting together. They found joint topics, for example painting, photography, art.” 
– A small-grant implementer
PRO-Future II small grants that envision longer-term cultural and sports events bringing together youth 
from different ethnic groups have produced lasting cooperation. For instance, after being brought 
together in a sports competition, three basketball coaches from a Serb majority municipality have 
regularly gone to a Bosniak majority municipality to coach children’s basketball. Furthermore, five 
accordion students from a Bosniak majority municipality go to a neighboring Serb majority municipality 
to attend accordion classes. After a grant that brought together children from two municipalities across 
entity lines to spend three days together, two schools continued cooperating and applied for other 
projects together. In addition to small-grant interventions, teachers from different municipalities across 
ethnic lines who were implementing peace education started collaborating and exchanging their 
opinions and experiences. 
Several KIs cited the importance of women’s role in peacebuilding processes, offering examples of 
improved collaboration between women due to PRO-Future II assistance.12 For instance, 
cooperation was established between two women’s associations at the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic, when women from an association from a Serb majority area made and sent face masks to 
a women’s association in a Bosniak-Croat mixed municipality. Afterward, the two associations 
connected and continued cooperating. A similar activity brought together women from two other 
associations, who collaborated across ethnic lines in teaching children to create face masks. Another 
activity resulted in economic collaboration between two women-led agricultural associations in 
Herzegovina. Representatives of these associations met at a small-grant event and participated in a 
lecture, public speaking event, and open-door days. The collaboration has not yet materialized due 
to the pandemic, but the women stayed in touch and look forward to future encounters. 
Additionally, two female war victims of different ethnicities connected and implement public speaking 
events and other projects together. 
“Well, continuation of cooperation, we have developed such a good relationship with (name) Association 
from (municipality name) that we communicate on a daily basis…. We rent out kayaks and rented sport 
equipment at (name) lake, while they do the same at (name) lake. So, if they happen to have a larger group 
of clients that they cannot cater to, we help them out by lending them our kayaks; we either rent them or 
help each other in a different way.”
– A small-grant implementer
“When it comes to these projects that I personally initiated and worked on, we cooperated with a high 
school in Tuzla, where we joined students. Students from Tuzla had an opportunity to visit Eastern 
Sarajevo, and the other way around. We visited them and stayed with them for three days, and they 
stayed with us for three days as well. That project, which was implemented three years ago, I believe, in 
my opinion represents the greatest success. Those children are still in touch. It is through PRO￾FUTURE II that we got connected with that school and, thanks to a favorable juncture of circumstances, 
included that very school into another project conducted by RYCO, Skopje. So, thanks to PRO￾FUTURE II, we met people from the high school from Tuzla; they were participants of that project as 
well, and children had an opportunity to socialize again. “
– A municipal working group member
12 An analysis of PRO-Future II’s database of beneficiaries indicates that there are twice as many female beneficiaries as 
males. Also, about 60 percent of small-grant participants are female. However, there is no difference by sex among the 
implementers, and most PRO-Future II peace activists are men (42 of 60 activists), per the internal PRO-Future II database.
24 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Finding 20: PRO-Future II exposed a number of individuals to their first intergroup 
contacts. For instance, a living library was organized in a small municipality in Herzegovina and 
attended by 50 high school students, Croats, and Bosniaks. According to a PRO-Future II progress 
report, this represents a highly atypical event for this community in which young people from 
different ethnicities rarely have an opportunity to meet each other and jointly participate in any 
activity. Furthermore, a public speaking event was organized in a Serb majority municipality in which 
a number of Bosniaks were killed or banished during the war. Additionally, youth from a small 
Bosniak majority community visited Banja Luka for the first time. There are multiple examples
among the PRO-Future II events when people, usually youth, visited others’ places of worship for 
the first time. A donor noted that the local community context must be considered and carefully 
analyzed when planning any peacebuilding interventions. Organizing even a one-off event with local 
government support, such as those described above, would be a success in some homogeneous and 
divided communities. PRO-Future II considers local context when planning their activities by 
categorizing municipalities based on their readiness for reconciliation and tailoring their assistance 
approach based on that information.
Finding 21: According to KIs, most PRO-Future II event participants already were open￾minded and/or active in their communities before joining the Activity. There are 
examples of such individuals becoming peace activists after the PRO-Future II initial 
push. All PRO-Future II beneficiaries who participated in this evaluation as KIs said they already 
were open-minded when they joined the Activity and that the Activity has not changed them much
in that regard. Several implementers noted this as well. For instance, teachers who implemented 
peace education said they selected the students who participate in CIVITAS13 extracurricular 
activities and debate clubs, class presidents, or those who volunteered or applied to public calls. 
Peace camps were, by their design, envisioned to include active participants and graduates from 
peace education. Online peacebuilding school is open to all interested individuals. However, 
according to the PRO-Future II post-event evaluation data, a considerable percentage of individuals 
who participated in the peacebuilding school (44 percent), public speaking events (38 percent), Our 
Talks fora (38 percent), and living libraries (33 percent) already had developed empathy toward 
other groups before participating in these events. Furthermore, a considerable number of 
participants already had developed skills in listening to and considering other groups’ attitudes, 
mostly those who participated in public speaking events (41 percent), Our Talks fora (38 percent), 
and peacebuilding school (33 percent). 
The Activity representatives noted that including active individuals in peacebuilding activities is 
important because it allows people to see that people who want peace exist among all ethnicities. 
Also, there are indications that PRO-Future II interventions have facilitated peace activism among
open-minded, young people in BiH. According to PRO-Future II MEL data, 56 young individuals have 
engaged in peace activism after participating in a PRO-Future II Activity. For instance, a young 
politician decided to organize a peace caravan after participating in the PRO-Future II political 
academy. Several young war veterans decided to join the Activity as speakers after attending such a 
public speaking event. A participant in peace education decided to continue being active and later 
participated in the peace camp. An online peacebuilding school participant continued participating in 
peacebuilding interventions and activism in general. 
13 CIVITAS refers to extracurricular activities in the democracy and human rights domain. The activities aim to develop 
research and public advocacy among the interested students. Students plan projects and present them in an annual 
competition. 
25 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The activists themselves noted that after positive experiences facilitated by PRO-Future II, young 
people want to stay in touch and seek other opportunities to work together. A desire to help their 
local communities is another motive for young people to engage.14 The results of the PRO-Future II
post-event evaluation identified the peace camps as the most effective intervention concerning the 
development of a willingness to engage in building trust between members of different ethnic and 
religious groups, with 80 percent of participants voicing this willingness. A similar percentage of the 
peace academy attendees (79 percent) expressed this sentiment. Further, 75 percent of living library 
participants reported a positive outcome in this regard, along with 74 percent of the peacebuilding 
school students and 65 percent of the public speaking event participants.
Finding 22: Although PRO-Future II has achieved planned results in ensuring local 
ownership and Activity accountability toward local stakeholders by facilitating the 
identification of priority local issues as a part of the Platform for Peace supporters’ civic 
movement, it has achieved limited success in making progress toward policy/institutional 
changes. The civic movement component, as designed under PRO-Future II, represents a set of 
synergetic activities conducted through cooperation/networking of different stakeholders, who advocate 
for institutional change. According to progress reports, as part of producing the Platform for Peace civic 
movement methodology, PRO-Future II conducted a series of KIIs/FGDs (18) with individuals and local 
influencers, aimed at ensuring adequate identification of local ideas for action and forming a joint vision 
for reconciliation, thus contributing to local ownership. To facilitate the civic movement component, one 
of the two planned workshops for Platform civic movement supporters was held (gathering 26 local 
activists from 16 municipalities) to define areas of activist work under the PRO-Future II umbrella in local 
communities and to introduce participants to the concept of social cohesion. The other workshop has 
not been held due to pandemic restrictions. 
PRO-Future II initiated several advocacy actions on topics such as Mostar’s civic efforts to change 
the names of streets named after Nazi collaborators and organizing intermunicipal support for the 
town of Bihać in addressing the migrant crisis. As part of this effort, mayors and representatives 
from 12 cities and municipalities from different parts of BiH, including both entities, joined the Let's 
Help Bihać campaign and signed a joint statement that called upon all relevant institutions to 
contribute to solving the migrant crisis and the consequences it produces for the institutions and 
citizens of Bihać. Such joint advocacy actions are highly atypical for BiH government representatives
and thus represent a positive change. Thus far, however, these PRO-Future II interventions have not 
yielded any policy/institutional changes. As the Activity implementers noted, policy and institutional 
changes are hard to achieve due to a lack of political will, and they require a substantial amount of 
time, hard work, and patience. 
In addition, PRO-Future II worked with five local communities across the entity line, recognizing the 
opportunity in connecting those municipalities around a joint benefit: tourism in the Majevica region. 
In addition, preparation activities regarding nuclear waste at Trgovska Gora were initiated by 
establishing cooperation with the Sarajevo Institute for Politics in developing an influencing plan for 
advocacy activities. As a part of the Platform supporters’ civic movement, PRO-Future II
14 However, according to KIs, most young people do not participate nor are they interested in activism. They do not see 
any benefits from activism, and motivating them is not easy. Even in large communities with many people and opportunities, 
the same people attend all workshops, lectures, and events. Several KIs noted how traditional CSO activities such as 
lectures are not appealing to youth and that raising their interest requires more innovative approaches. One of the issues 
that KIs mentioned is that youth are given insufficient space in the media and that their positive stories, which could 
motivate others to engage, are not visible. Youth emigration aggravates the problem, because those who are most active 
often leave as soon as they learn enough and are independent.
26 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
interventions included supporting youth engagement and empowering youth to raise their voice and 
act together as a group, regardless of their political affiliation. These interventions included the 
“Peace Caravan” in Vareš and the multichannel campaign Where are the Young People?, which 
consisted of a series of events, a social media campaign, and media promotion. Furthermore, a large 
portion of civic movement building efforts focused on advocacy aimed at resolving local issues 
through small grants awarded to CSOs. The results of awarding small grants are presented under 
Evaluation Question 3.
Finding 23: Infrastructural interventions are perceived as a precondition for 
implementing peacebuilding activities. However, there are no guarantees that these 
facilities will be used for peacebuilding and reconciliation initiatives. Implementers and 
beneficiaries believe that quality infrastructure is a precondition for the implementation of 
peacebuilding interventions. According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Breuer & Elson, 
2017), these infrastructure investments may improve the general living and social conditions and 
reduce frustrations related to poor socio-economic circumstances. By the end of the data collection 
period, PRO-Future II supported nine infrastructural projects. These projects included
reconstructing or repairing a playground, city stadium, kindergarten, school, community center, 
sports halls, fortress, sacral objects, and street lighting. Implementers and municipal representatives 
believe that the infrastructure will be used for peacebuilding and reconciliation activities. However, 
no outcomes have been achieved yet, and there are no guarantees that these investments will be 
used for this purpose or that they would not have been used for such activities without PRO￾Future II assistance, once the municipalities fulfill their contractual obligations. However, such 
projects are naturally more visible than the traditional PRO-Future II activities and may contribute to 
the Activity’s/USAID’s general visibility. Data collection yielded no sufficient data to enable the 
evaluation team to conclude whether the investment costs would justify the benefits.
CONCLUSIONS
PRO-Future II activities aimed at the general population and improving their inter-ethnic attitudes 
and behaviors have, in most cases, engaged the people who already were open-minded and 
tolerant—more often, youth rather than adults. At the intrapersonal level, multiple outcomes have 
been observed related to changes in participants’ emotions and cognition. Living libraries and public
speaking events were the most effective in producing empathy among the audience members. If 
implemented in isolation from other activities, the results of these short-term, one-off activities are 
unlikely to be sustainable. Visits to places of worship were also effective in eliciting positive
emotions. Interventions eliciting positive emotions toward outgroups are important because 
prejudices are based on negative emotions. At the cognitive level, visits to places of worship seem to 
be effective in changing attitudes toward other religions and their followers and fostering greater 
acceptance of outgroups. There are indications that all PRO-Future II interventions had some effects 
on cognitive-level changes, including improved knowledge about outgroups and their experiences;
increased openness or readiness for change; outgroup perspective-taking; and developing different 
perspectives on the past, present, and future. Because stereotypes are based on automatic 
information processing, interventions that improve knowledge about or awareness of outgroups and 
their experiences can be useful for breaking stereotypes.
27 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
At the interpersonal level, PRO-Future II activities have the potential to build relationships, lasting 
collaboration, and peace activism among the participants. There are examples showing that PRO￾Future II improved cooperation between adults, and others indicating improved relationships and 
activism among youth. Longer PRO-Future II interventions that bring youth together (peace camps; 
peace education; some small grants, including collaboration) contributed to inter-ethnic friendships 
and continuing contact. Friendships have also been established between war victims collaborating on 
the implementation of public speaking events and political academy attendees. With respect to 
collaboration, PRO-Future II was most effective in facilitating such behavior among youth and 
women; activities that bring together youth and women to collaborate have, in some cases, resulted 
in lasting cooperation. Several PRO-Future II events facilitated peace activism among young 
beneficiaries, most notably the political academy, public speaking events, peace camps, online and 
peacebuilding schools, and adults have been perceived as obstacles to youth’s engagement in such 
activities. 
PRO-Future II achieved the intended results in ensuring local ownership and the Activity’s 
accountability toward local stakeholders by facilitating the prioritization of local issues as part of the 
Platform supporters’ civic movement. The Activity has, however, achieved limited progress toward 
policy/institutional and behavioral change. The Activity facilitated several advocacy actions, but no 
policy or institutional changes have been achieved to date.
PRO-Future II infrastructural interventions are perceived to be a precondition for implementing 
peacebuilding activities. However, they do not guarantee positive outcomes in peacebuilding and 
reconciliation efforts. It remains to be seen whether the costs justify the benefits.
EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE PRO-FUTURE II SMALL￾GRANT PROGRAMS CONTRIBUTED TO PEACEBUILDING? 
FINDINGS
Finding 24: Small grants are perceived as an important and effective peacebuilding 
mechanism if resources are invested in MEL, layering, and sequencing. All donors agree 
that small grants can play an important role in the peacebuilding processes. Grant opportunities 
generally are rare, and they can provide people who have good ideas with opportunities to 
implement them. However, to be effective, they need to focus on intervention outcomes rather than 
outputs. Several KIs noted that although the grant size is important, it is more important to see if 
that money makes a difference in a specific community at a given time. 
A donor implementing a large number of small grants emphasized that using this mechanism requires 
constant communication with and monitoring of grantees. Weekly monitoring is essential for 
ensuring that the activities are moving in the right direction and taking corrective actions when 
necessary, rather than waiting to receive implementation reports to learn how grants have been 
implemented. Although this approach is expensive, it is, in the opinions of the KIs, essential for 
achieving the results, especially when engaging informal groups or small organizations without 
experience with donor projects. MEL information collected should be used to inform new grant 
designs and implementation. The KI believes that an individual grant cannot accomplish much. 
Therefore, it is crucial to recognize which grants have the potential to produce the desired results if 
they continue, support the follow-ups, and pay attention to grant layering and sequencing toward the 
28 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
expected result, rather than giving multiple grants and implementing a variety of different 
interventions that focus on different beneficiaries. 
“Small grants, if that’s what your program is doing, don’t really necessarily accomplish a whole lot 
individually on their own. The impact, the outcome has to be cumulative. They have to build up to 
something, and it’s very easy to monitor an individual grant. It’s very hard to analyze the outcomes of 
accumulative bunch of grants, but one of the ways that you can sort of ensure that you’re getting 
accumulative value is have a plan to how you layer and how you sequence these things (…) Have a vision 
at the beginning: Where do you want to go?” 
– A donor representative
PRO-Future II has implemented 87 grants during over four years. Due to the large number of grants 
and limited human resources, most implementers’ time is dedicated to grant administration, with 
little time left for monitoring, planning, and careful activity layering and sequencing, even though 
PRO-Future II gives an advantage to formerly successful grantees. PRO-Future II small-grants reports 
require the grantees to report on their outcomes, and these reports reveal that many grantees have 
difficulty distinguishing outcomes from outputs. The same difficulty was identified in KIIs with 
grantees and with most other KIs. Also, the PRO-Future II small-grants manual or public calls 
require the grantees to produce outputs rather than outcomes.
Several KIs (donors and grantees) noted that small grants usually include short-term activities that 
produce short-term effects, and that youth revert to their former cognitive and behavioral patterns 
when they return to their communities. The PRO-Future impact and performance evaluation 
completed by MEASURE-BiH in 2017 affirmed that peacebuilding is a long-term process. From the 
grantees’ point of view, it often turns out that the grant duration is too short to achieve its 
objectives, or the funds are insufficient to achieve the desired scope of activities. From the donors’ 
perspective, implementing a large number of smaller activities often requires engaging more 
significant MEL resources. Grant fragmentation leads to diverse outcomes that are sometimes not 
clearly related to the Activity theory of change and expected results, thus requiring follow-up 
activities to achieve higher-level outcomes. 
“I think small grants are great; they have a great target group. It’s just that they’re short-term, so to say. 
Maybe we should think about upgrading it to a slightly more serious level, more comprehensive, and it will 
have a larger and longer-lasting effect.” 
– An Our Talks implementer
“You can’t do a small-grants program unless you design it in such a way that you have a lot, [that] you’re 
willing to pay for a lot of staff to do this properly, because for these things to be done well, you really, 
really have to work hand in glove with the local grantees. Especially in most small-grant programs, you’re 
looking for smaller and less experienced groups, and those ones need a lot of help.” 
– A donor representative
Finding 25: Small grants incorporating public speaking events, visits to places of worship, 
peace camps, and youth and women’s collaboration have positive outcomes on 
beneficiaries’ inter-ethnic attitudes, emotions, relationships, collaboration, and activism.
PRO-Future II grantees completed 87 small grants by the end of the data collection period. As pointed 
out under Evaluation Question 2, interventions such as speaking-out events and joint visits to places of 
worship elicit empathy for other ethnic and religious groups. Furthermore, interventions such as peace 
camps and sports and cultural events that bring youth together often result in lasting cooperation. 
Grants that facilitate cooperation between women’s associations have, in several cases, produced 
continued collaboration. Some specific behavioral outcomes shared by implementers and beneficiaries 
involved an individual crossing the Mostar Bridge for the first time, an inter-ethnic relationship and 
29 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
marriage, multiple friendships, and continued cooperation. In addition, there are cases of young people 
becoming more active in their communities, including a young person who established a youth center 
and another who founded a non-governmental organization (NGO). 
Nearly all small grants implemented to date under PRO-Future II include contacts between different 
ethnicities, which can be a predictor of inter-ethnic attitude improvement (Allport, 1954; Hewstone
et al., 2016). Another key predictor is empathy (Hewstone et al., 2016).
“I met a guy; his name is Dejan. He is a Catholic and he met his girlfriend, an Orthodox, in Ferhadija 
Mosque in Banja Luka. She is now going to Italy; she has got a scholarship to study, while he is now 
looking for work to be there together with her. So, well, a Catholic and an Orthodox woman met in a 
mosque, and they are together in a relationship now.” 
– An IRC representative
“In fact, in the same year when the Small School for Peacebuilding finished, I wrote my own project, 
“Sport and Culture Days in Busovaca,” with the aim to get Croat and Bosniak young people closer to 
each other, because we are constantly in a quarrel, in conflict. “ 
– An online peacebuilding school participant
Finding 26: All grantees have positive attitudes about PRO-Future II partners’ support 
with grant implementation, but some described issues with implementation. In 2020, 
grant implementation was often disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, some 
activities had to be canceled, modified (to reduce the scope of activities and number of 
beneficiaries), or moved to an online setting. Several grantees identified other issues related to 
financial and technical problems, such as tax returns, disrupted implementation because the last 
money transfer happened after the implementation, inability to execute advanced payments within 
grants for informal groups, and lack of feedback given to unsuccessful grant applicants.15
“There is a very small number of activities that are currently implemented for young people, a very small 
number. This is due to the appearance of this COVID-19 virus.” 
– A municipal working group member
“In that project, the previous practice was for the first payment to be, it seems to me, some 70, 
80 percent, and then only in the end, the remaining funds were paid ... and then last year, 50 percent of 
the funds were transferred, and 50 percent of the funds practically had to be covered by the organization 
in some way.” 
– A grantee (local government representative)
Finding 27: Small grants for youth elicited interest among young people to become 
active in peacebuilding processes. Youth organizations and informal groups have shown great 
enthusiasm in applying and implementing the PRO-Future II small grants; 70 out of 90 grants 
intended for youth already have been awarded. The grantees implemented a variety of activities, 
including creative activities (producing plays, promotional videos, and documentaries; organizing 
festivals) and joint inter-ethnic activities (peace camps, sports competitions, visits to cultural and 
historical sites, and joint actions). Youth-designed interventions included lectures, seminars, 
workshops, and—to a lesser extent—trainings. Sometimes, these interventions were combined with 
creative and joint activities. There are indications that these grants can improve peacebuilding 
activism among youth. For instance, after participating in small grants for youth, a grantee registered 
15 According to PRO-Future II implementors, due to the high number of applicants, the Activity’s practice is to publish the 
list of successful applicants on its website and send feedback only to the applicants who explicitly request it by phone or 
email. In addition, the Activity carefully reviews all complaints and provides feedback to applicants. 
30 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
her own NGO, engaged in community work, participated in other PRO-Future II activities, and 
initiated collaboration with religious institutions. Another grantee who initially applied for a grant for 
informal groups became a local council member and, afterward, applied for three PRO-Future II
grants. The implementer noted grants for youth and informal groups are particularly important 
because few grant opportunities are available for these target groups.
“It is similar, for example, with projects from Prozor, Rama, and Mostar. There we have Prozor-Rama 
Rowing Club and the “Zelena Dolina” Association, who regularly carry out sports activities, but neatly 
within those sports activities they nicely fit a lecture related to reconciliation. For inter-ethnic relations, 
that is not so transparent and does not tell these people: "You came here because we want to connect 
you, because you are Croats and Bosniaks. Now you need to socialize….” But it has some peace activism 
in it.” 
– A PRO-Future II partner organization representative
Finding 28: Grants for war victims associations were intended for advocacy initiatives 
aiming to improve victims’ legal status and promote reconciliation. These grants seem 
to improve the psychological state of victims, collaboration between war victims 
associations, and evoke empathy and perspective-taking among the audience. However, 
war victims achieved little in improving their own human rights status to date. According 
to the PRO-Future II award, grants for war victims associations were intended for advocacy 
initiatives of entity ministries and higher-level institutions to improve the status of victims’ human 
rights. However, due to political obstacles, most grants implemented by war victims focused on 
public speaking, improving connections between war victims associations across ethnic lines, and 
providing psychological assistance to their members. The associations have not made any progress in 
terms of policy changes, and few advocacy initiatives have been taken to date, one of which was
successful in securing local government support for a war victims association. 
However, as mentioned before, public speaking events evoke empathy among the audience. They 
facilitate perspective-taking among audience members, enabling them to see the past from the position 
of the “other.” These events facilitate friendships and collaboration between war victims. Preparing for 
these events is also therapeutic for victims, who work through their personal trauma while preparing 
themselves for public speaking. Further, these events are usually well covered by local media. 
According to implementers, war victims associations are small organizations with insufficient human 
and financial resources, requiring extensive donor support and assistance in small-grant
implementation. Thus, implementing these grants has represented a challenge for the implementer; one
half of 15 grants planned for war victims associations have been implemented to date.
“Today we are great friends primarily thanks to this program. The program itself took us through an 
education. In the beginning, it was dealing with trauma, going through trauma and all sorts of things that I 
had already forgotten.” 
– A war victim, public speaker
“So one Bosniak, one Serb, and one Croat. Who all talk, who had very, very similar experiences in 
essence and who all three talk about their experiences. It is like any living library that has made a huge 
impression on me and everyone else. It was done live, so I could see the reaction of my colleagues around 
me, I think we all cried in the end, at the end of that day because we got some information and heard 
some experiences that we absolutely didn’t have a chance to hear before, because we are all from our 
local communities which are mono-ethnic, monoreligious, although Sarajevo as a whole maybe is not.” 
– A living library participant
31 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Finding 29: Implementing grants for inter-religious dialogue is challenging due to 
political pressures and low interest and capacity of the IRC’s regional chapters. Grants 
for inter-religious dialogue typically targeted youth and included visits to places of worship, spiritual 
music concerts, and art competitions accompanied by educational activities (lectures, roundtables, 
seminars, and workshops) on topics such as reducing prejudice, hate speech, and fostering 
coexistence. Implementers find these grants to be better at focusing on peacebuilding and 
reconciliation than on other types of grants. Even though the PRO-Future II design envisioned these 
grants to be for the IRC regional chapters, religious institutions, and organizations promoting inter￾religious dialogue, the regional chapters had not implemented any grants by the end of the data 
collection period. Most of these grants were implemented by religious institutions and only a few by 
CSOs. The implementers noted that small grants for inter-religious dialogue resulted in ongoing 
cooperation between religious institutions and youth. However, their implementation is challenging 
due to political pressures, the strict hierarchy and slow processes in religious institutions, and their 
low capacity for grant implementation.
Finding 30: Implementation of grants for municipalities has been challenging due to low 
interest and capacity among municipal working groups (MWGs) and the COVID-19
pandemic. According to the implementers, less than one third of grants planned for municipalities’ 
activities had been completed by the end of the data collection period. There is low interest among 
MWGs to implement these activities due to a lack of motivation and low grant amounts for these 
institutions’ activities. In addition, municipalities were closed at the beginning of the pandemic, so they 
were unable to organize any activities. PRO-Future II worked to address this issue by strengthening the 
MWGs with civil society members and other activists. Local communities implemented various 
activities: lectures, workshops, and conferences, as well as creative and joint inter-ethnic activities such 
as documentary production, open-door days, sports competitions, cultural activities, visits to historical 
and cultural sites, and conferences. Most of their activities target youth and children in local 
communities. In most cases, these grants are implemented jointly by two or more municipalities. 
Implementers and MWG representatives stated that beyond the outcomes for youth and other 
beneficiaries, these grants strengthen connections and collaboration between municipalities. 
“In the same manner, we have collaboration with East New Sarajevo and East Sarajevo, and many 
other[s], Domoljevac and Samac, which maybe used to exist as one municipality, but now are two. We 
have an example of Foca in the RS [Republika Srpska] and Foca in the FBiH, for which most people do not 
understand that those are two Focas. When we say that they implemented a grant together, people 
understand nothing from it. In the part where we have Teocak, Lopare, and Celic, each year they apply 
for grants, either a municipality on their own or together working on mutual activities.” 
– A municipal working group representative
Municipalities and organizations were eligible to apply for small grants of up to USD 500 for local 
initiatives, supporting events such as art, music, cultural, sports, or others. According to PRO-Future II
progress reports, these grants are often used as introductory activities for municipalities when they first 
join the Activity. These initiatives usually include activities similar to those of other grants: educational 
activities (e.g., conferences, workshops, roundtables) or contact-based activities (e.g., cultural and sports 
events, joint visits to places of worship). During 2020, a large portion of the small-initiative funds (USD 
68,000 out of a total of 75,000) were reallocated to the COVID-19 pandemic emergency fund
(Solidarity Fund). The emergency fund provided communities with groceries, face masks, hand sanitizers, 
and bedding. PRO-Future II distributed the items to people in need through official crisis teams, MWGs, 
or IRC regional chapters. The implementers noted that the Solidarity Fund strengthened the 
connections between the NGOs and MWGs responsible for delivering the assistance.
32 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Finding 31: Small grants for CSOs strengthened connections between organizations 
across ethnic lines and CSO–local government collaboration, but little has been done in 
terms of institutional change. Grants for CSOs elicited considerable interest among 
organizations. All resources intended for CSOs already had been awarded by the end of the data 
collection period. These grants were implemented mainly by small organizations with poor human, 
financial, and technical capacity. The CSOs implemented activities similar to those of other grantees, 
such as educational interventions (workshops, lectures, trainings) and contact-based activities (peace 
camps, sports competitions, cultural events, open-door days, environmental actions). Women’s
organizations implemented several grants for CSOs, and according to the implementer, their 
capacities were improved in the process. In addition, an implementer noted that these activities 
usually produce improved knowledge, relationships, collaboration, and activism among beneficiaries, 
and that the added value of these grants lies in improved connections and cooperation between 
CSOs from different parts of BiH and CSO–municipality connections. Although the Activity by 
design intended these grants to be awarded primarily for advocacy interventions, the implementers
stated that CSOs were neither interested in, nor did they have the capacity for, designing or 
implementing these types of initiatives due to their low capacity. 
“So, in essence, as much as we tried to have it be some kind of advocacy, they find these kinds of grants 
are more suitable for them, therefore, in essence we are happy if anything gets implemented in the field. 
Especially in cases of such organizations, which neither have financial influence or funds with which they 
can implement all that.” 
– A PRO-Future II partner organization representative
CONCLUSIONS
Small grants can be an effective peacebuilding tool. However, they often include short-term activities 
that produce short-term effects. Longer-term effects and higher-level outcomes require considerable 
MEL resources, layering, and sequencing. In most cases, PRO-Future II small grants included a large 
number of awards allocated to different organizations for activities with objectives falling under PRO￾Future II’s general results, rather than planning for specific outcomes, evaluating the results, and 
designing follow-ups to strengthen the obtained results. Limited human and financial resources, 
combined with a large number of geographically dispersed grants, had limited focus on careful 
monitoring, evaluating, planning, layering, and sequencing. On a positive note, nearly all PRO-Future II
small grants included inter-ethnic contacts, which can be a predictor of inter-ethnic attitude 
improvement. Small grants that include public speaking events, peace camps, and activities to promote 
collaboration among youth and women are likely to produce these results.
PRO-Future II allocated six types of small grants for youth CSOs and informal groups, PRO-Future II 
municipalities, war victims associations, CSOs, inter-religious dialogue, and small initiatives. Small grants 
for youth and CSOs elicited the most interest and engagement, followed by grants for municipalities. 
There was considerably less interest among war victim associations and organizations and institutions 
engaging in inter-religious dialogue. Compared to other grants, small grants for youth seem to focus 
more on creative activities rather than lectures, workshops, and seminars. These grants have facilitated 
youth activism and, in some cases, peace activism. Grants for war victims associations improve the 
psychological state of victims and collaboration between war victims associations, and they evoke 
empathy among the public speaking event audience. However, little was done to improve war victims’ 
status in society. Small grants for inter-religious dialogue improved cooperation between religious 
institutions and youth but did not foster interest among the IRC’s regional chapters. The 
33 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
implementation of these grants is challenging due to political pressures, centralized decision-making in 
religious communities, and grantees’ low capacity for project design and implementation. 
Implementation of grants for municipalities has been challenging due to the COVID-19 pandemic and 
low interest among MWGs. The principal strength of these grants is that they foster connections and 
collaboration between municipalities across entity and ethnic lines. The largest portion of financial 
resources envisioned for small initiatives were reallocated to PRO-Future’s II COVID-19 pandemic 
emergency fund. This intervention mobilized MWGs, IRC regional chapters, and official crisis teams to 
deliver assistance to people in need in their communities. Small grants for CSOs strengthened 
connections between organizations across ethnic lines and, in some cases, CSO–government 
collaboration, but little has been done in terms of policy/institutional changes due to low interest and 
low capacity of grantees to engage in these activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the evaluation findings and conclusions, the evaluation team prepared the following 
recommendations, which are organized under two broad topics and according to stakeholder 
(promotion of peace) or intervention type (changing inter-ethnic attitudes and behaviors). USAID and 
the implementing partner should consider the following recommendations for the remainder of the 
PRO-Future II Activity implementation and for future peacebuilding and reconciliation interventions. 
PROMOTION OF PEACE
1. POLITICIANS/GOVERNMENT: For the remainder of the Activity, focus on cantonal and local
government levels for Platform promotion and implementation. In future programming,
encourage political academies to focus on cross-ethnic working groups that address common
issues, rather than on lectures. Explore ways to coordinate and collaborate with and learn from
USAID Supporting Political Pluralism and Good Governance Processes (SPPG) in BiH’s Advanced
Leadership in Politics Institute (ALPI) program (for more information on ALPI and its successful
elements, see the MEASURE II 2021 SPPG midterm performance evaluation report).
2. RELIGIOUS LEADERS: When planning to work with religious leaders, make sure they are
included in activity planning as early as possible. Continue exploring ways to include the highest￾level religious leaders in peace promotion (e.g., by reorienting to apolitical topics, future rather
than past; asking them about the kind of peace promotion work in which they want to engage).
Continue supporting open-door days.
3. MEDIA: Continue engaging in public advocacy with media partners (including those supported
through USAID media activities), calling for engagement and responsibility of higher levels of
government for maintaining and engaging in peacebuilding. In collaboration with media partners
and other USAID Activities, particularly in the media sector, respond to negative stories in the
media, e.g., by analyzing the political motivation behind the stories and sending messages of peace.
Continue promoting peace through mainstream online media (at all levels) and TV stations.
Coordinate with other donor peacebuilding projects to strengthen peacebuilding messages.
4. WAR VICTIMS: Continue engaging war victims in peace promotion and building their capacity to
design and implement advocacy interventions and negotiate with governments. Consider
34 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
connecting low-capacity organizations with human rights CSOs with stronger capacity to serve as 
their mentors. Consider providing regular psychological support to speakers. 
5. EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS: To the extent possible, advocate for expanding peace
education programs to more locations and schools to reach more students.
CHANGING INTER-ETHNIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS
6. LIVING LIBRARIES AND PUBLIC SPEAKING EVENTS: Continue supporting living libraries
and public speaking events as part of longer, more complex activities. Consider including these
activities as part of all other Activity interventions. In addition, consider making videos of these
activities to be used when live events are unavailable, such as in peace education or peace camps.
After dealing with difficult topics, ensure a debriefing for participants that is facilitated by a trained
professional and provide the participants with information on where they can get psychological
support if necessary.
7. PEACE EDUCATION: Facilitate practices in which all students, not only those who are open￾minded and motivated, participate in the program, and ensure that students complete the whole
program rather than selected classes. For future interventions, consider adapting the program to
younger generations (teenagers or even younger).
8. PEACE CAMPS: Continue supporting peace camps. To save resources, organize these camps
through actual campsites rather than using hotel accommodations.
9. CIVIC MOVEMENT: Continue focusing on this objective under a new peacebuilding activity by
leveraging the stakeholder network built under the PRO-Future/PRO-Future II Activities.
10. SMALL GRANTS: Continue using a small-grants mechanism as a peacebuilding tool. Consider
awarding fewer grants but investing more effort into defining clear theories of change, expected
and desired outcomes, M&E practices (e.g., by introducing a complexity aware M&E approach),
and expanded duration of grant activities to prolong intergroup contact. Consider awarding
follow-up grants for activities that produce desired outcomes or that are likely to produce such
outcomes if followed up, and that replicate successful activities in other geographic areas. Train
grantees to think about their activities in in terms of outcomes rather than outputs.
11. INFRASTRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS: Closely monitor use of infrastructure built during
the first round of these types of projects and make informed decisions about future investment in
such projects.
12. REGIONAL APPROACH: Continue supporting regional peace camps and SFF. Consider
establishing a separate grant line for regional cooperation. Under future peacebuilding
interventions, consider designing activities specifically tailored for the diaspora. For instance,
consider establishing an online platform that connects young professionals from the diaspora and
peace camps for youth from the diaspora.
35 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
REFERENCES 
Allport. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 1, 221–235.
Baron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18.
Breuer, J., & Elson, M. (2017). Frustration-aggression theory. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook 
of violence and aggression. Wiley. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321776001_Frustration-aggression_theory
Brunwasser, B., Turčilo, L., & Marko, D. (2016). Monitoring and evaluation support activity 
(MEASURE-BiH): Assessment of the media sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Final report. USAID. 
https://www.measurebih.com/uimages/Assessment%20of%20the%20Media%20Sector%20in%
20B&H.pdf 
Eagly & Chaiken. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Hewstone, Stroebe, & Jonas. (2016). An Introduction to Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
IMPAQ International, LLC. (2020). Monitoring and evaluation support activity II (MEASURE II):
National survey of citizens’ perceptions in Bosnia and Herzegovina 2019. Final report. 
https://measurebih.com/uimages/measureII_nscp2019_final_report.pdf 
Karuna Center. (2020). Priručnik Društvena transformacija i pomirenje u Bosni i Hercegovini. 
https://www.karunacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BiH-STaR-Manual-BOS-Final￾rev.pdf 
Novis-Deutsch, N. S. (2018). The one and the many: Both/and reasoning and the embracement of 
pluralism. Theory & Psychology, 28(4), 429–450. 
USAID. (2020). MEASURE II: Political economy assessment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Internal USAID 
document. 
36 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEXES 
Annex 1: Statement of Work
Annex 2: Reviewed Documentation
Annex 3: Data Collection Instruments
37 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 
The United States Agency for International Development Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(USAID/BiH) has requested its Monitoring and Evaluation Support Activity (MEASURE II) to conduct 
a midterm performance evaluation of the Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future II
(PRO-Future II) Activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This performance evaluation will investigate 
PRO-Future II outcomes achieved during the first four years of implementation in mobilizing key 
influencers to promote inter-ethnic reconciliation and changing inter-ethnic attitudes and behaviors 
among its key target groups. The purpose of this performance evaluation is to provide the Mission 
with credible and useful insights to make informed programmatic decisions and potential adaptations 
for the remainder of the Activity, maximizing the likelihood of achieving the desired results. The
Mission and the implementing partner will use the evaluation results to take midterm corrective 
actions (if needed) in the Activity design and/or implementation. 
SUMMARY INFORMATION
The Pro Future II Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future (PRO-Future II) is a 
$8 million USAID/BiH-funded Activity implemented by Catholic relief Services (CRS). This Activity 
contributes to Development Objective 2: “Socio-Economic Conditions Improved.” The performance 
evaluation will focus on analyzing the Activity’s design and progress toward expected results. The 
evaluation intends to utilize rigorous methods and design to obtain high-quality data and produce 
credible findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Activity details are presented in Exhibit I.
Exhibit 1. Basic Information on the PRO-Future II Activity
Activity Name Trust, Understanding and Responsibility for the Future – 
PRO-Future II
USAID Office USAID/BiH Democracy Office
Implementer Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
Cooperative Agreement # AID-168-A-17-00005
Total Estimated Cost $8,000,000 ($5,000,000 initial, $8,000,000 with extension)
Life of Activity September 17, 2017 to September 16, 2023 (5 years initial + 1 
year extension)
Active Geographic Region Across Bosnia and Herzegovina
Target Groups
Politicians and government representatives (all levels); 
religious leaders, teachers and institutions; media
representatives (editors-in-chief, owners, journalists); citizens
(active, non-active); CSOs; women; youth (including pupils and 
students); war victims; business leaders. 
CDCS Intermediate Result DO2: Socio-Economic Conditions Improved
IR 2.1: Social Cohesion Strengthened
Sub-IR: Community Trust Strengthened
Required evaluation No
External or internal evaluation External
38 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
BACKGROUND
COUNTRY CONTEXT
Since the end of the war in the 1990s, the United States has assisted BiH’s development toward a 
more tolerant multi-ethnic society. Even though the country has been stable since signing the 
Dayton Peace Accord in 1995, and even if most citizens engage in some form of inter-ethnic 
contacts, inter-ethnic divisions, tensions, and prejudice are still omnipresent in society (IMPAQ 
International, 2020). Politicians reinforce these divisions through divisive rhetoric and hate speech, 
manipulating citizens and keeping their positions of power by inciting a fear of “others.” Highly 
politicized mainstream media play an important role in such dynamics by spreading and amplifying 
divisive messages (USAID, 2020). Religious leaders, the most trusted public figures (IMPAQ 
International, 2020), have potential to strengthen reconciliation efforts. Youth, especially if raised in 
ethnically homogeneous or divided communities and attending mono-ethnic schools, are particularly 
vulnerable to adopting the ethno-nationalist narratives primarily due to the instrumentalized 
education system (Karuna Center, 2020) and lack of inter-ethnic contacts. 
Inter-ethnic reconciliation in BiH is among the key prerequisites for democratization, socio￾economic development, political stability and Euro-Atlantic integration. However, USAID/BiH’s 
National Survey of Citizen Perceptions (NSCP) suggests that inter-ethnic relationships in BiH are still 
unsettled. For instance, 40 percent of citizens reported anxiety when engaging in or anticipating 
contacts with individuals of other ethnicities. The level of inter-ethnic trust in 2020 fell under 
40 percent for the first time in the last three years. Less than half of the citizens, 41 percent, say 
they are ready to forgive other ethnic groups for what happened during the war. This indicates that 
25 years after the war, peacebuilding and reconciliation interventions are still relevant.
PRO- FUTURE II DESCRIPTION AND THEORY OF CHANGE
Given this context, PRO-Future II aims to improve trust and reconciliation and facilitate societal 
change across BiH by empowering citizens and key influencers (politicians, government 
representatives, religious leaders) to advocate for peace, political responsibility, and institutional 
changes. PRO-Future II envisages that, if media promote citizens’ and key actors’ peacebuilding 
efforts, stability, and economic prosperity in the country will improve. PRO-Future II aims to achieve 
the following results:
Activity Goal: Improved trust and reconciliation leads to positive societal change across BiH
Purpose 1: Key influencers across political, religious and media spheres work to institutionalize a 
collective vision for a stable future
• Sub-purpose 1.1: Targeted key influencers in the political and government spheres take tangible
actions which focus on political responsibility and promote inter-ethnic reconciliation.
• Sub-purpose 1.2: Targeted religious key influencers lead national- and community-level
reconciliation initiatives.
• Sub-purpose 1.3: Targeted media outlets promote reconciliation and increase respectful and
empathetic coverage of inter-ethnic reconciliation initiatives.
Purpose 2: Citizens build civic movement to foster reconciliation across ethnic and religious 
divides. 
39 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• Sub-purpose 2.1: Education institutions incorporate reconciliation topics and approaches into
their students’ classes to increase acceptance and reconciliation.
• Sub-purpose 2.2: Citizens from 70 municipalities have increased opportunities to face the past
and promote reconciliation, and inclusiveness.
• Sub-purpose 2.3: Citizens from 70 municipalities advocate for institutional changes and demand
political responsibility.
• Sub-purpose 2.4: Municipal working groups lead implementation of infrastructure projects that
contribute to overall community life and reconciliation processes.
PRO-Future II’s cross-cutting focus is to expand the peacebuilding dialogue to countries in the 
region. The Activity design emphasizes the importance of active engagement of women and youth in 
peacebuilding. 
PRO- FUTURE II MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING PLAN
PRO-Future (II) is tracking 16 indicators to measure progress in meeting Life of Activity targets (see 
Exhibit 2). 
Exhibit 2. Activity Indicators, with Targets and Actuals for FYs 2018, 2019, 2020,
and Life-of-Activity Targets
Level of Result Narrative 
Summary Indicators
Targets (actuals)
FY 
2018
FY 
2019
FY 
2020
LOA 
Targets
Activity 
Purpose 1
Improved trust and 
reconciliation leads 
to positive societal 
change across BiH.
Percentage of adult BiH citizens 
expressing highest level of out￾group trust (trust towards other 
ethnic groups)
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Percentage of youth among BiH 
citizens expressing highest level 
of out-group trust (trust towards 
other ethnic groups)
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Number of PRO-Future (II)-
assisted municipalities that are in 
category three (highest level or 
reconciliation)
12 (6) 16 (17) 21 (22) 32
Activity Sub￾purpose 1
Key influencers 
across political, 
religious and media 
spheres work to 
institutionalize a 
collective vision for 
a stable future.
Number of reconciliation 
initiatives implemented by 
government institutions at all 
levels resulting from adopted 
Action Plans for Implementation 
of Platform for Peace
10 (1) 20 (11) 20 (24) 95
Number of implemented 
reconciliation initiatives led by 
religious key influencers
9 (1) 33 (15) 40 (44) 182
Number of media stories 
disseminated with PRO-Future 
(II) support that facilitate the
advancement of reconciliation or 
peace process
150 (254) 350 (279) 400
(539) 1,900
Activity 
Outcome/
Output 1.1
Targeted key 
influencers in the 
political and 
government spheres 
take tangible actions 
which focus on 
political 
responsibility and 
Number of government 
institutions at all levels that 
adopted Action Plans for 
Implementation of Platform for 
Peace
10 (4) 20 (11) 20 (16) 75
Number of reconciliation 
initiatives planned by government 30 (15) 60 (62) 50 (78) 225
40 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
promote inter￾ethnic 
reconciliation.
institutions at all levels and 
included in adopted Action Plans 
for Implementation of Platform 
for Peace
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 1.2
Targeted religious 
key influencers lead 
national and 
community level 
reconciliation 
initiatives.
Number of religious leaders 
engaged in PRO-Future (II)’s 
inter-religious and reconciliation 
initiatives 
16 (40) 21 (22) 40 (41) 177
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 1.3
Targeted media 
outlets promote 
reconciliation and 
increase respectful 
and empathetic 
coverage of inter￾ethnic reconciliation 
initiatives.
Number of training days provided 
to journalists with PRO-Future 
(II) assistance, measured by
person-days of training (SFAI
Indicator)
25 (14) 25 (0) 0 (0) 50
Activity Sub￾purpose 2
Citizens build civic 
movement to foster 
reconciliation 
across ethic and 
religious divides.
Number of people participating in 
PRO-Future (II) events, trainings, 
or activities designed to build 
mass support for peace and 
reconciliation (SFAI Indicator)
3,500
(6,468)
6,300
(5,654)
7,000
(14,934) 35,300
Number of youth participating in 
PRO-Future (II) activities who 
become peace activists
15 (19) 30 (8) 40 (29) 190
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 2.1
Education 
institutions 
incorporate 
reconciliation topics 
and approaches into 
their students’ 
classes to increase 
acceptance of 
others and 
reconciliation.
Number of education institutions 
that incorporated reconciliation 
topics and approaches into 
students’ classes
0 (0) 0 (8) 3 (4) 10
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 2.2
Citizens from 70 
municipalities have 
increased 
opportunities to 
face the past and 
promote 
reconciliation and 
inclusiveness
Number of PRO-Future (II) -
supported events, trainings, or 
activities designed to build 
support for peace or 
reconciliation among key actors 
to the conflict (SFAI Indicator)
40 (110) 90 (115) 140
(239) 590
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 2.3
Civil society 
organizations from 
70 municipalities 
advocate for 
institutional changes 
and demand political 
responsibility
Number of implemented 
reconciliation advocacy campaigns 
or developed influence plans, by 
CSOs or informal groups of 
citizens supported by PRO￾Future (II) with the goal to 
achieve institutional changes and 
political responsibility
1 (2) 3 (8) 7 (1) 26
Activity 
Outcome/ 
Output 2.4
Municipal working 
groups lead 
infrastructure 
projects that 
contribute to 
overall community 
life and 
reconciliation 
processes.
Number of infrastructures 
repaired or constructed 0 (n/a) 0 (n/a) 4 (0) 25
41 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation team will assess the Activity’s work to-date along the following evaluation questions:
1. What outcomes have PRO-Future II’s key influencers (politicians, religious leaders, media)
achieved in promoting inter-ethnic reconciliation?
1.1. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved through interventions fostering regional
dialogue? 
2. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved in terms of changing inter-ethnic attitudes and
behaviors among supported citizens, particularly among youth and students?
3. To what extent have the PRO-Future II small-grant programs contributed to peacebuilding?
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team will employ a mixed-methods data collection approach and triangulate data to 
assess the efficiency of PRO-Future (II) interventions and activities, utilizing the following data sources: 
1. Activity documents (including but not limited to the Activity Award; Monitoring,
Evaluation, and Learning Plan; work plans; annual and quarterly progress reports; lists of
beneficiaries, experts, and other stakeholders involved in Activity implementation; Activity
internal evaluation report; documents produced by the Activity and its beneficiaries)
2. Secondary documentation relevant to trust and reconciliation topics (e.g.,
MEASURE-BiH/MEASURE II National Survey of Citizens’ Perceptions [NSCP]; evaluation
reports of former USAID’s peacebuilding interventions [Choosing Peace Together, PRO￾Future impact evaluation report]; documents developed by government institutions;
international organizations and CSOs).
3. Key informant interviews (KIIs) with USAID/BiH and PRO-Future II implementing
partner and subcontractors, relevant international and donor organizations, government
institutions, religious institutions and media representatives, PRO-Future II grantees, relevant
local organizations, and reconciliation experts. The full list of key informants (without
identifying information) will be presented in the Evaluation Work Plan and subject to
USAID/BiH comments.
4. Focus group discussions (FGDs) with PRO-Future II beneficiaries, which may include
samples of roundtable participants; Platform for Peace signatories; trained journalists and
editors; municipal working group members; students attending inter-ethnic classes; young
politicians; audiences in speaking-out events and living libraries; participants in open-door
days, peace camps, and fora; small-grant beneficiaries; and other beneficiaries. Draft FGD
guide(s) will be presented in the evaluation work plan and subject to USAID/BiH comments.
5. Online survey(s) of PRO-Future II beneficiaries (e.g., roundtable participants; Platform for
Peace signatories; trained journalists and editors; municipal working group members;
students attending inter-ethnic classes; young politicians; audiences in speaking-out events
and living Libraries; participants in open-door days, peace camps, and fora; small-grant
beneficiaries; and other beneficiaries), to be conducted to capture experiences of wider
groups of beneficiaries than covered by KIIs and FGs.
42 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 3 presents the evaluation matrix outlining the methodology to be employed to address each 
evaluation question and sub-question. The evaluation team will start the analysis by reviewing 
secondary data on peacebuilding and transitional justice in general. The team will then review Activity 
documents to learn about the outcomes of different interventions. Subsequently, the team will conduct 
KIIs and FGDs with donors, implementers, and beneficiaries to further explore these outcomes and 
investigate other outcomes achieved by the Activity. Finally, based on lessons learned through the desk 
review, KIIs and FGDs, the evaluation team will design and conduct the online surveys to learn about 
the outcomes and interventions contributing to these outcomes from a wider range of beneficiaries. 
The evaluation team will conduct a desk review of the Activity and secondary documents, transcribe 
and code KII and FGD transcripts, and conduct (at least) descriptive analysis of the survey data. The 
team will compare data from all sources and further explore any discrepancies to ensure the that the 
evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations are high-quality, valid, credible, and reliable.
SCHEDULE
The overview of the tentative evaluation timeline is provided in Exhibit 5.
EXHIBIT 5. TENTATIVE EVALUATION TIMELINE
TENTATIVE DATES TASKS AND DELIVERABLES
July 20, 2021 Finalize the Evaluation work plan
July 22–August 23, 2021 Data collection
September 10, 2021 Preliminary data analysis
Week of September 13, 2021 Briefing for the Mission
October 8, 2021 Submission of the draft evaluation report
October 29, 2021 Submission of the final evaluation report
First week of November, 2021 Evaluation follow-up workshop
EXHIBIT 3. EVALUATION MATRIX
EVALUATION QUESTION (EQ) DATA SOURCES/DATA COLLECTION 
METHODS
DATA ANALYSIS 
APPROACH 
1. What outcomes have the PRO-Future II key
influencers (politicians, religious leaders, media)
achieved in promoting inter-ethnic
reconciliation?
1a. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved 
through interventions fostering regional 
dialogue?
Activity and secondary documents on the 
role of politicians, religious leaders and 
media in reconciliation; KIIs and FGDs with 
implementors and beneficiaries of 
interventions with key influencers; mini 
surveys of beneficiaries of interventions 
targeting key influencers
Desk review; KII/FG 
transcript coding; 
descriptive survey 
analysis
2. What outcomes has PRO-Future II achieved
in terms of changing inter-ethnic attitudes and
behaviors among supported citizens, particularly
among youth and students?
Activity and secondary documents dealing 
with improving inter-ethnic attitudes and 
behaviors among citizens; KIIs and FGDs 
with implementors and beneficiaries of 
interventions targeting citizens; mini 
surveys of beneficiaries of interventions 
targeting citizens
Desk review; KII/FG 
transcript coding; 
descriptive survey 
analysis
3. To what extent have the PRO-Future II small￾grant programs contributed to peacebuilding?
Activity and secondary documents on small￾grant programs and their results in terms of 
facilitating reconciliation; KIIs and FGDs with 
small-grant implementors and beneficiaries; 
mini surveys of small-grant beneficiaries
Desk review; KII/FG 
transcript coding; 
descriptive survey 
analysis
43 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX 2: REVIEWED DOCUMENTATION
1. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Activity Award
2. USAID PRO-FUTURE Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
3. USAID PRO-FUTURE II 2018 Annual Report
4. USAID PRO-FUTURE II 2019 Annual Report
5. USAID PRO-FUTURE II 2020 Annual Report
6. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year 1-IV Work Plans
7. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year I First Quarterly Report
8. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year I Fourth Quarterly Report
9. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year I Second Quarterly Report
10. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year I Third Quarterly Report
11. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year II First Quarterly Report
12. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year II Fourth Quarterly Report
13. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year II Second Quarterly Report
14. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year II Third Quarterly Report
15. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year III First Quarterly Report
16. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year III Fourth Quarterly Report
17. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year III Second Quarterly Report
18. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year III Third Quarterly Report
19. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year IV First Quarterly Report
20. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Year IV Second Quarterly Report
21. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Small-Grants Manual
22. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Small-Grants Implementation Reports
23. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Lists of Beneficiaries
24. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Infrastructure Projects Tracking Document
25. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Attendance Lists for Small Grants
26. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Attendance Lists for Our Talks Fora
27. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Attendance Lists for Peace Talks
28. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Attendance Lists for Peace and Advocacy Camps
29. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Peace Education Program Participants
30. PRO-FUTURE II list of published media content
31. PRO-FUTURE II database of small grants
32. PRO-FUTURE II database of grantees and beneficiaries
33. USAID PRO-FUTURE II Training/Event Agendas (training sessions for war victims, local
coordinators, political academies, juvenile war veterans, peace education, peace camps, journalists,
municipal working groups, peace activists, university reconciliation fora participants, public
speaking events)
34. External Evaluation of Interreligious Studies and Peacebuilding Master programme, 2020
35. INFOHOUSE Internal Assessment of 14 PRO-FUTURE II Communities Capacity, Category 1, (2018)
36. Overview of Reconciliation Conceptual Framework in International Literature and Research on
Reconciliation in BiH, MEASURE-BiH, 2017
37. Reconciliation in Practice, United States Institute of Peace, 2015
38. Role of Social Cohesion in Creation of Successful Economic Development Within Local
Communities, CRS, 2020
39. Societal Transformation and Reconciliation Activity (STAR), Final Narrative Report (draft)—
Reporting Period 10/15/2018–10/14/2020
40. Study of the Impact of Social Cohesion on the Creation of a Favorable Environment for Economic
Development and Attracting Investments in Municipalities and Cities, PROMENTE and Economic
Institute Banja Luka
41. National Survey of Citizens’ Perceptions (NSCP-BiH) 2019
42. National Survey of Citizens’ Perceptions (NSCP-BiH) 2020
44 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDES
MISSION, IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS, AND PARTNERS
Please describe the PRO-Future II theory of change and, in your experience, how it works in 
practice? 
For IP: what were the responsibilities of each PRO-Future II partner?
Ask the following questions for each group of interventions below:
1. What were the expected outcomes of these interventions?
2. Of all interventions targeting …, which proved to be the most effective?
3. Which outcomes (positive, negative, unintended) have been achieved based on these
interventions?
4. Which interventions failed to produce any outcomes?
5. What have you learned based on the implementation of these interventions?
6. What interventions would you like to learn more about in terms of their outcomes on
beneficiaries’ attitudes and behaviors?
Sub-purpose 1.1 Interventions targeting key influencers in political and government spheres to 
institutionalize collective vision for a stable future 
• Commitment to the Platform for Peace at a national level
• Advocacy by war victims
• Political Academy
• Our Talks Fora
• Cultural Events
• Study of reconciliation and business environment
Sub-purpose 1.2: Interventions targeting key religious influencers to lead national and community 
level reconciliation initiatives
• Joint visits to places of suffering
• Engaging religious education teachers
• Open-door Days`
• National events led by top religious leaders
• IRC regional chapters
• Small grants for inter-religious dialogue
• Direct cooperation with churches and religious institutions
• Joint master’s degree in inter-religious studies and peacebuilding
• Religious freedoms*
Sub-purpose 1.3: Interventions targeting media outlets to promote reconciliation and increase 
respectful and empathetic coverage of inter-ethnic reconciliation initiatives
• Documenting and publicizing reconciliation initiatives
• Training of journalists and editors on peacebuilding lenses
• Production of documentary
• Peace talks
45 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Sub-purpose 2.1: Interventions targeting education institutions to incorporate reconciliation topics 
and approaches into their students’ classes to increase acceptance and reconciliation
• Integrated and Inter-ethnic classes
• Living libraries
• University reconciliation fora
• Online school for peacebuilding
• Implementation of the platform for peace by ministries of education
Sub-purpose 2.2: Interventions targeting citizens from 70 municipalities to have increased 
opportunities to face the past and promote reconciliation and inclusiveness
• Active engagement of 70 municipalities (inter-community trust*)
• Small grants for municipalities
• Small grants for local initiatives
• Advanced peace advocacy camps
• Small grants to support youth
Sub-purpose 2.3: Interventions targeting citizens from 70 municipalities to advocate for institutional 
changes and demand political responsibility,
• Platform for Peace supporters’ civic movement
• Small grants for civil society
Sub-purpose 2.4: Interventions targeting municipal working groups to lead implementation of 
infrastructure projects that contribute to overall community life and reconciliation processes
• Construction or reconstruction of infrastructure
Cross-cutting: Interventions targeting regional actors and facilitating regional dialogue to increase 
opportunities to face the past and promote reconciliation and inclusiveness 
General questions:
a. What are the greatest opportunities and threats to peace in BiH today?
b. To what extent can young politicians push forward their own ideas in political parties?
c. To what extent can local religious leaders push forward their ideas?
d. What are the issues in which citizens are willing to engage and advocate for change?
e. How can young people be encouraged and supported to engage in peace activism?
f. What changes in curricula (high school or college) are required to raise open, tolerant, and
active children?
DONORS
1. Please describe your ongoing and upcoming peacebuilding projects.
a. Project name
b. Targeted audience
c. Intervention type
d. Geographic coverage
e. Expected and achieved outcomes (positive, negative, unintended)
f. Lessons learned
2. Have you ever heard of PRO-Future II? If yes, what are your general impressions of the
project?
46 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
3. To what extent would you say that peacebuilding interventions are still relevant for the BiH
society?
4. What are the primary impediments to peacebuilding and reconciliation?
5. Who are the most important key influencers who can affect the general population’s
attitudes and behaviors when it comes to peace and reconciliation?
6. Who are the most important key influencers who can affect youth attitudes on peace and
reconciliation?
7. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in BiH?
8. Have you noticed that any of the following are more active in promoting reconciliation than
they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
9. Who are other donors working on peacebuilding and reconciliation in BiH, and how
effective have they been in coordinating their projects?
General questions:
a. What are the greatest opportunities and threats to peace in BiH today?
b. To what extent can young politicians push forward their own ideas in political parties?
c. To what extent can local religious leaders push forward their ideas?
d. What are the issues in which citizens are willing to engage and advocate for change?
e. How can young people be encouraged and supported to engage in peace activism?
f. What changes in curricula (high school or college) are required to raise open, tolerant, and
active children?
KEY INFLUENCERS
1. Please describe the PRO-Future II activity in which you participated, and your overall
impression of the activity. What did you like, and what do you think can be improved?
a. Project name
b. Targeted audience
c. Intervention type
d. Geographic coverage
e. Expected and achieved outcomes (positive, negative, unintended)
f. Lessons learned
2. Do you know how this activity has affected the audience/beneficiaries in terms of their inter￾ethnic attitudes? If yes, please share the examples.
3. If yes, what specific activity components affected their opinions and behaviors?
4. What are the primary impediments to peacebuilding and reconciliation in BiH?
47 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. Who are the most important key influencers who can affect the general population’s
attitudes when it comes to peace and reconciliation?
6. Who are the most important key influencers who can affect youth attitudes on peace and
reconciliation?
7. Have you noticed that any of the following have become more active in promoting peace
and reconciliation than they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
8. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in your local community or in general?
General questions:
a. What are the greatest opportunities and threats to peace in BiH today?
b. To what extent can young politicians push forward their own ideas in political parties?
c. To what extent can local religious leaders push forward their ideas?
d. What are the issues in which citizens are willing to engage and advocate for change?
e. How can young people be encouraged and supported to engage in peace activism?
f. What changes in curricula (high school or college) are required to raise open, tolerant, and
active children?
FOCUS GROUP GUIDES 
PRO-FUTURE II EVENT PARTICIPANTS
(to include the participants of: speaking out events, cultural events, living libraries, open-door days, 
Peace Talks audience, peace camps, small-grant beneficiaries)
1. Please describe the PRO-Future II activity in which you participated, and your overall
impression of the activity.
2. What did you like, and what do you think can be improved?
3. Has your opinion toward other ethnicities changed due to participation in this activity? If yes,
how? PROBE:
a. What attitudes did you have before? What do you think about them now? Specifically,
have your attitudes about the 1990s war and experiences of other ethnicities changed?
b. Have you learned more about the war and the historical perspectives of people
belonging to other ethnic groups? If yes, what have you learned?
c. Has your anxiety when encountering people belonging to other ethnicities changed?
d. Would you say you are more able to understand and share the feelings of people from
other ethnicities and their war experiences, or would you say that this has not changed?
e. Has anything changed in terms of your willingness to forgive others for what happened
during the war?
48 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Has anything changed in your life regarding your contacts and relationships with people from
other ethnic groups due to participation in this activity? If yes, how? PROBE:
a. Do you engage in contact with other ethnicities more often than before?
b. Have you developed any relationships with people from other ethnicities?
c. Have you done something together with people from other ethnicities?
d. Have you become more active in your community?
5. Has your experience had any effect on people around you (family, friends, colleagues) to
change their attitude and/or behavior toward other ethnicities?
6. What specific activity component affected your opinions and behaviors?
7. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in your local community or in general?
8. Have you noticed that any of the following have been more active in promoting peace and
reconciliation than they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
BENEFICIARIES OF EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS
(to include the beneficiaries of: political academy, trainings for journalists, integrated and inter-ethnic 
classes, university reconciliation fora, small school of peacebuilding, inter-religious master’s program) 
1. Please describe the PRO-Future II activity in which you participated, and your overall
impression of the activity.
2. What did you like, and what do you think can be improved?
3. How long were you engaged in the activity?
4. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the training:
a. Have would you rate the training in general?
b. How would you rate the curriculum?
c. How would you rate the quality of teachers?
d. What kind of skills would you say you adopted due to the training?
5. Has your opinion toward other ethnicities changed due to participation in this activity? If yes,
how? PROBE:
a. What attitudes did you have before? What do you think about them now?
b. Have your attitudes about the 1990s war and experiences of other ethnicities changed?
c. Have you learned more about war and the historical perspectives of people belonging to
other ethnic groups? If yes, what have you learned?
d. Has your anxiety when encountering people belonging to other ethnicities changed?
e. Would you say you are more able to understand and share the feelings of people from
other ethnicities and their war experiences, or would you say that this has not changed?
f. Has anything changed in terms of your willingness to forgive others for what happened
during the war?
49 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
6. Has anything changed in your life regarding your contacts and relationships with people from
other ethnic groups due to participation in this activity? If yes, how? PROBE:
a. Do you engage in contact with other ethnicities more often than before?
b. Have you developed any relationships with people from other ethnicities?
c. Have you done something together with people from other ethnicities?
d. Have you become more active in your community?
7. Has your experience had any effect on people around you (family, friends, colleagues) to
change their attitude and/or behavior toward other ethnicities?
8. What specific activity component affected your opinions and behaviors?
9. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in your local community or in general?
10. Have you noticed that any of the following have been more active in promoting peace and
reconciliation than they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
SMALL-GRANT RECIPIENTS
1. Please describe the PRO-Future II activity in which you participated, and your overall
impression of the activity. What did you like, and what do you think can be improved?
a. Project name
b. Targeted audience
c. Intervention type
d. Duration
e. Geographic coverage
f. Expected and achieved outcomes (positive, negative, unintended)
g. Lessons learned
2. Have the participants’ opinions toward other ethnicities changed due to participation in this
activity? If yes, how?
3. Have you noticed any changes in their lives regarding contacts or relationships with people
from other ethnic groups due to participation in this activity? If yes, how?
4. Has their level of engagement in the community changed? If yes, how?
5. Which specific activity component was crucial for changing their opinions and behaviors?
6. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in your local community or in general?
7. Have you noticed that any of the following have been more active in promoting peace and
reconciliation than they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
50 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND CIVIC MOVEMENT FACILITATORS
1. Please describe your relationship with PRO-Future II and your overall impression of the
activity.
2. What types of interventions have you done with PRO-Future II?
a. Project/intervention name
b. Intervention type
c. Duration
d. Targeted audience
e. Expected and achieved outcomes (positive, negative, unintended)
f. Lessons learned
3. What did you like and what do you think can be improved?
4. To what extent are you satisfied with the structures and activity of your working group?
8. To what extent have the PRO-Future II interventions in your municipality improved citizens
attitude about other ethnicities, and how?
9. Have you noticed any changes in inter-ethnic relationships and collaboration in your
community? What changes occurred? To what extend would you say that PRO-Future II
contributed to these changes?
10. Have you noticed any improvements in civic activism and increased demands for political
responsibility in your local community or in general?
11. Have you noticed that any of the following have been more active in promoting peace and
reconciliation than they were three or four years ago?
a. Government representatives at state-level and lower levels
b. Religious leaders at a higher level and local level
c. Mainstream and local media
General questions:
a. What are the greatest opportunities and threats to peace in BiH today?
b. To what extent can young politicians push forward their own ideas in political parties?
c. To what extent can local religious leaders push forward their ideas?
d. What are the issues in which citizens are willing to engage and advocate for change?
e. How can young people be encouraged and supported to engage in peace activism?
f. What changes in curricula (high school or college) are required to raise open, tolerant, and
active children?
ONLINE SURVEY
1. Sex
2. Age
3. Municipality
4. Entity
51 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. Ethnicity
6. In which of the following PRO-Future II interventions did you participate in:
7. When did you participate in the PRO-Future II interventions? (year)
8. How long did the event last? (hours)
9. What did you particularly like about the intervention(s)?
10. What do you think should be improved?
11. For education interventions: Please rate your satisfaction with the training on the scale from
1 to 5, with 5 being the best rating.
a. Curriculum
b. Teachers’ work
c. Practical work
12. To what extent do the following statements apply to you? (1. Do not apply at all,
2. Somewhat apply, 3. Apply to a great extent)
a. My opinions of other ethnicities improved due to participation in the PRO-Future II
activity.
b. I learned new things about war and the historical perspectives of people belonging to
other ethnic groups through participation in the PRO-Future II activity.
c. I feel less anxious when encountering people from other ethnic groups due to
participation in the PRO-Future II activity.
d. I better understand and share the feelings of people from other ethnicities and their war
experiences due to participation in the PRO-Future II activity.
e. I am now more ready to forgive others for what happened during the war due to
participation in the PRO-Future II activity.
f. I have more contact with people from other ethnic groups due to participation in the
PRO-Future II activity.
g. I have more friends with people from other ethnic groups due to participation in the
PRO-Future II activity.
h. I am collaborating more with people from other ethnic groups due to participation in
the PRO-Future II activity.
i. I became more active in my community due to participation in the PRO-Future II
activity.
j. My experience had effect on people around me (e.g.. family, friends, colleagues) to
change their attitude and/or behavior toward other ethnicities
13. Have any other things in your life changed due to your participation in the PRO-Future II
Activity? If yes, please describe.
14. Have you noticed any attempts of the following key actors in terms of promoting peace and
reconciliation values?
a. High-profile politicians and government representatives
b. Representatives of local government in your community
c. Highest-level religious leaders
d. Local religious leaders
e. Mainstream media
f. Local media in your community
52 | PRO FUTURE II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
On a scale from 1 to 7, indicate the extent to which the intervention contributed to the 
below-mentioned way of thinking, feeling, or behaving. 
1. My willingness to change my own beliefs is based on solid arguments, which are contrary to
my opinion.
2. Considering the evidence that goes against conclusions I favor.
3. Revising my conclusions in response to relevant new information.
4. Changing my own opinion.
5. Searching actively for reasons why I might be wrong.
6. Ignoring evidence against my own established beliefs.
7. Being loyal to my own beliefs even when evidence is brought to bear against them.
8. Giving the first answer I come up with, without much thinking.
9. Considering more than one possible answer before reaching a conclusion when facing a new
question or problem.
10. My concern for less fortunate people.
11. Seeing things from the “other person’s” point of view.
12. Pity other people when they find themselves in trouble.
13. Experiencing other people’s feelings.
14. Considering everybody’s side of a disagreement before making a decision.
15. My need to protect someone being taken advantage of by others.
16. Better understanding of my friends by imagining how things look from their perspective.
17. My disturbance because of other people’s misfortunes.
18. Ignoring other people’s arguments If I’m sure I’m right about something.
19. Understanding and empathizing with the person being treated unfairly by others.
20. Own belief that every problem has two sides and endeavor to look at them both.
21. Perceiving other person’s position, even when I have negative feelings towards him/her.
22. Perceiving other person’s position, even when I want to criticize him/her.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT ACTIVITY (MEASURE II)
Fra Anđela Zvizdovića 1
UNITIC Tower B, Floor 21
71000 Sarajevo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Phone: +(387) 033 941 676
www.measurebih.com