Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation
Final	
  Report
James	
  Scambary
March	
  2012
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
2
List	
  of	
  Contents
Executive	
  Summary................................................................................................ 3
Introduction........................................................................................................... 6
Key	
  Findings........................................................................................................... 8
1. Appropriateness/Relevance......................................................................... 8
2. Effectiveness................................................................................................ 9
3. Efficiency ................................................................................................... 10
4. Impact ....................................................................................................... 12
4.1	
  Personal	
  Dimension ...................................................................................... 15
4.2	
  Relational	
  Dimension.................................................................................... 15
4.3	
  Structural	
  Dimension .................................................................................... 16
4.4	
  Cultural	
  Dimension ....................................................................................... 17
5. Sustainability ............................................................................................. 17
6. Challenges ................................................................................................. 19
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 22
Recommendations............................................................................................... 23
Annexures............................................................................................................ 24
Annex	
  1:	
  Methodology ....................................................................................... 24
Annex	
  2:	
  Sources	
  Interviewed ............................................................................ 26
Annex	
  3:	
  Survey	
  Tool .......................................................................................... 27
Annex	
  4:	
  Documents	
  Reviewed.......................................................................... 40
Annex	
  5:	
  Scope	
  of	
  Work ..................................................................................... 41
Cover	
   photo:	
   Participant	
   from Comoro	
   Metin	
   04	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
   Project,	
   a	
  
community	
  centre (Photo	
  by	
  James	
  Scambary)
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
3
Executive	
  Summary
The	
   Laletek	
   Project	
   has	
   continued	
  its	
   success	
   since	
   the	
  last	
  evaluation.	
  In	
   terms	
   of	
  
impact,	
  five	
  out	
  of	
  six	
  communities	
  surveyed	
  for	
  this	
  evaluation	
  said	
  that	
  Laletek had	
  
helped	
   bring	
   peaceful	
   change	
   to	
   their	
   communities.	
   Of	
   those	
   five communities	
  
surveyed,	
  there	
  were	
  no	
  reports of anything	
  other	
  than	
  minor	
  disputes,	
  mostly	
  of	
  a	
  
domestic	
   nature, in	
   their	
   community	
   in	
   the	
   last	
   six	
   months.	
   Only	
   one	
   of	
   the	
  
communities	
   surveyed,	
   Fatuhada 02, has	
   continued	
   to	
   experience	
   conflict.	
  
Nevertheless,	
  they	
  also	
  said	
  that	
  there	
  has been	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  progress	
  towards	
  peace	
  in	
  
their	
  community	
  after	
  years	
  of	
  conflict.
Overall,	
   107 people	
   out	
   of	
   115	
  (93%)	
  focus	
  group	
   participants	
  and	
   nine	
  out	
   of	
   ten	
  
key	
   informant	
   interviews	
   with	
   community	
   leaders	
   agreed	
   that	
   there	
   are	
   more	
  
positive	
  relations	
  between	
  opposing	
  groups	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project. When	
  asked	
  if	
  
they	
   had	
   experienced	
   conflict	
   in	
   the	
   last	
   six	
   months,	
   while	
   8	
   out	
   of	
   11	
   people	
   in	
  
Fatuhada	
  02	
   reported	
   that	
  there	
  had	
  been	
  conflict,	
  of	
   the	
  remaining	
  107	
  people	
  in	
  
the	
  other	
  five	
  communities	
  surveyed,	
  98	
  per cent	
  stated	
  that	
  they	
  had	
  been	
  conflict	
  
free.	
  
Two	
  communities	
  thought	
  that	
  peaceful	
  change	
  in	
  their	
  community	
  was	
  exclusively	
  a	
  
result	
   of	
   Laletek’s	
   programs,	
   while	
   the	
   others	
   said	
   that	
   it	
   was	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
  
Laletek	
   and	
   Church,	
   Government	
   or	
   other	
   NGO	
   supported	
   projects	
   or	
   the	
  
community’s	
  own	
  initiatives.	
  The	
  fact	
  that	
  some	
  communities	
  claimed	
  the	
  credit	
  for	
  
peacebuilding	
  in	
  their	
  aldeias,	
  even	
  though	
  they	
  had	
  not	
  shown	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  resolve	
  
conflict	
  until	
  Laletek’s	
  intervention,	
  is	
  also	
  positive	
  as	
  it	
  indicates	
  ownership of	
   the	
  
process.	
   All communities	
   surveyed	
   in	
   this	
   evaluation,	
   however,	
   acknowledged	
   the	
  
crucial	
  role	
  of	
  Laletek.	
  As one	
  community	
  leader	
  described	
  it,	
  “They	
  showed	
  us	
  the	
  
path”.
According	
   to	
   staff	
  assessments, when	
  compared	
   to	
   the	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation,	
  when	
  
Laletek staff	
   estimated	
   that	
   there	
   were	
   only	
   four	
   communities	
   out	
   of	
   22	
  
communities	
   that	
   they	
   deemed	
   as	
   successful, with	
   the	
   remainder	
   either	
   showing	
  
some	
  progress	
  and	
  about	
  seven	
  showing	
  no	
  progress,	
  there	
  are	
  now	
  18	
  communities	
  
deemed	
   as	
   successful,	
   with	
  two	
   in progress and	
   only	
   two	
   communities	
   viewed	
   as	
  
unsuccessful.
The	
  main	
  activities	
  cited	
  as	
  having	
  been	
  the	
  most	
  effective	
  in	
  facilitating	
  this	
  change	
  
were	
   the	
   ANV	
   training,	
   the	
   Dahur competition and	
   in	
   particular,	
   the	
   Small	
  
Infrastructure	
  Projects.	
  While	
  both	
  the	
  ANV	
  training	
  and	
  the	
  Dahur	
  competition	
  have
had	
   demonstrated	
   impact,	
   the	
   Small	
   Infrastructure Projects,	
   in	
   the	
   places	
   where	
  
they	
   have	
  been	
   implemented,	
   had	
  the	
  strongest impact	
   through	
  their dual	
   role	
   in	
  
bringing	
  opposing	
  groups	
   together	
   for	
  a	
  common	
  goal and	
  in	
   resolving a	
   source	
  of	
  
community	
   friction	
   such	
   as	
   access	
   to	
   water. One	
   staff	
   member	
   observed	
   that	
   the
resulting structures	
  also	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  permanent	
  reminder	
  of	
  what	
  the	
  community	
  has	
  
built	
   together.	
   The	
   resolution	
   of	
   the	
   Metin	
   04	
   conflict	
   in particular, possibly Dili’s	
  
longest	
   running	
   and	
   most	
   bitter	
   conflict,	
   must	
   be	
   seen	
   as	
   an	
   outstanding	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
4
achievement.	
   The	
   construction	
   of	
   a	
   community	
   centre	
   there	
   through	
   the	
   Small	
  
Infrastructure Project	
   has	
   played	
   an	
   integral	
   part by	
   bringing	
   opposing	
   groups	
  
together,	
  providing	
  a	
  neutral	
  communal	
  meeting	
  place,	
  and	
  encouraging	
   the	
  Chefe	
  
De	
  Aldeia	
  to	
  become	
  more	
  consultative and	
  inclusive in	
  his	
  approach. As	
  confirmed	
  
by	
   focus	
  groups	
  in	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  areas,	
   the	
  successes	
  in	
   these	
  communities	
  have
had	
  a	
  flow	
  on	
  effect	
  to	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  other	
  communities both	
  by	
  providing	
  access	
  to	
  
much	
  needed	
  amenities	
  such	
  as	
  clean	
  water	
  and	
  through	
  an	
  end	
  to	
  conflict.
A	
  key	
   reason	
   for	
   the	
  project’s	
  success	
  and a	
   factor	
  in its	
   future	
  sustainability	
  is	
   the	
  
Laletek	
  process	
  which	
  has	
  carefully	
  researched	
  and	
  identified	
  community	
  issues	
  and	
  
dynamics	
   and	
   targeted	
   them	
   through	
   a	
   patient,	
   long	
   term,	
   multidimensional	
   and	
  
multistage	
  approach, which	
  has	
  been	
  both	
  innovative	
  and	
  flexible	
  in	
  its	
  application.	
  
This	
  approach	
  has	
  ensured	
  that	
  the	
  project	
  is	
  both	
  highly	
  relevant	
  and	
  appropriate	
  to	
  
the	
  communities	
  in	
  which	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  implemented.
Encouraging	
  local	
  groups to	
  monitor	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  local	
  conflicts	
  and	
  mobilize their	
  
communities has	
   been	
  a	
   significant	
  element	
  of	
   this	
  approach,	
  as	
  with	
  empowering	
  
local	
   leaders	
   to	
   address	
   community	
   needs,	
   linking	
   with	
   the	
   right	
   entities	
   and
mentoring	
   and	
   supporting	
   them	
   through	
   the	
   process. Resisting	
   communities’	
  
appeals	
  for	
  reimbursement	
  and	
  encouraging	
  them	
  to	
  talk	
  about	
  their	
  problems	
  and	
  
resolve	
   them	
   themselves,	
   while	
   it	
   is	
   hard	
   work,	
   has	
   ensured	
   the	
   future	
   long-­‐term	
  
success	
  of	
  this	
  project	
  where	
  others	
  have	
  failed.	
  As	
  a	
  consequence,	
  a	
  major	
  outcome	
  
of	
   this	
   approach	
  has	
   been community	
   ownership,	
   both	
   of	
   the	
   problem	
   and	
   of	
   the	
  
solution and	
  this	
  will	
  be	
  the	
  key	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  sustainability	
  of	
  gains	
  so	
  far	
  beyond	
  the	
  
life	
  of	
  the	
  project.
There	
   is	
   good	
   reason	
   to	
   believe	
   that	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   the	
   Dili	
   Diocesan	
   Justice	
   and	
  
Peace	
  Commission’s	
   (DJPC) integration	
  of	
   some	
  of	
   Laletek	
   project	
  activities into	
  its	
  
ongoing	
  programs, such	
  as	
  the	
  ANV	
  training, and	
  the	
  adoption	
  of	
  the	
  annual	
  Dahur	
  
competitions	
  by	
  the	
  Secretary	
  of	
  State	
  for	
  Culture,	
  the	
  impact of	
  the	
  project will	
  be	
  
sustained	
   by	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   other	
   activities	
   and	
   groups,	
   from	
   the	
   community,	
   the	
  
government	
   and	
   other	
  NGOs	
   such	
   as	
   BELUN,	
  for	
  example,	
  which	
   will	
   continue	
   the	
  
collection	
  of	
  incident	
  reports.
A	
   number	
   of	
   problems	
   remain	
   with	
   community	
   leadership.	
   In	
   one	
   case	
   this	
   has	
  
perpetuated	
   conflict; in	
   others	
   it	
   has	
   merely	
   impeded	
   project	
   progress.	
   In	
   some	
  
cases	
   there	
   is	
   lack	
   of	
   communication	
   between	
   community	
   leaders,	
   or	
   between	
  
community	
   leaders	
   and	
   their	
   communities,	
   or	
   community	
   leaders	
   have	
   become	
  
politicised	
   and	
   seek	
   to	
   claim	
   project	
   activities	
   as	
   their	
   own	
   party’s	
   achievements.	
  
While	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  have	
  shown	
  great	
  patience	
  and	
  ingenuity	
  in	
  resolving	
  these	
  issues	
  
in	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  seemingly	
  intractable	
  situations,	
  in	
  the	
  end	
  these	
  issues	
  will	
  only	
  be	
  
resolved	
  through	
  community	
  initiative.
In	
   terms	
   of	
   efficiency,	
   there	
   were	
   few	
   complaints	
   about	
   communication	
   and	
  
coordination,	
   and	
   some	
   of	
   these	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   community’s	
   own	
   internal	
  
communication	
   issues.	
   While	
   some	
   sources	
   acknowledged	
   that	
   there	
   had	
   been	
  
problems	
  in	
   the	
   first	
  phase	
  of	
   the	
  project,	
  even	
   the	
  most	
  vehement	
  critic	
   from	
   the	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
5
mid-­‐term	
  evaluation	
  agreed	
  that	
  project	
  implementation	
  had	
  vastly	
  improved.	
  Early	
  
problems	
   over	
   implementation	
   roles	
   between	
   CRS	
   and	
   DJPC also	
   appear	
   to	
   have	
  
been	
   resolved.	
   Budget expenditure	
   also	
   appears	
   to	
   have	
   largely	
   conformed	
   to	
  
planning,	
   with	
   funds	
   transfers	
   and	
   financial	
   reporting	
   by	
   both	
   partners	
   running	
  
smoothly.	
   With	
   regards	
   to	
   the	
   small	
   grants	
   for	
   the	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
   Projects,	
  
while	
   there	
   was	
   some	
   jealousy	
   within	
   communities	
   over	
   who	
   should	
   handle	
   the	
  
funds,	
  with	
  a	
   standoff	
   between	
   two	
   community leaders	
  in	
   one	
   target	
  aldeia,	
   there	
  
were	
   no	
   complaints	
   over	
   how	
   the	
   funds	
   were	
   spent,	
   which	
   is	
   something	
   of	
   an	
  
achievement	
  in	
  itself.
Overall,	
  Laletek	
  Project	
  has	
  been	
  well coordinated,	
  popular	
  with	
  the	
  community	
  and	
  
has	
  made	
  a	
  significant	
  and	
  lasting	
  impact	
  over	
  a	
  substantial	
  geographic area,	
  in	
  some	
  
of	
   the	
  most	
  violent	
  areas	
  of	
  Dili,	
  where	
  many	
  other agencies	
  have	
   tried	
  and	
   failed.	
  
This	
   success	
   has	
   been	
   achieved with	
   an	
   efficient	
   utilization	
   of	
   a minimum	
   of	
  
resources,	
   staff	
   and	
   financial	
   outlay.	
   While	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   upcoming	
   national	
  
elections	
   can	
   be	
   unpredictable,	
   there	
   are	
   strong	
   grounds	
   for	
   confidence	
   that	
   this	
  
impact	
  will	
  be	
  sustained well	
  into	
  the	
  future.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
6
Introduction
The	
  Laletek	
  Project	
  is	
  a	
  two-­‐year	
  project	
  (March	
  15,	
  2010	
  – March	
  14,	
  2012),	
  funded	
  
by	
   the	
   United	
   States	
   Agency	
   for	
   International	
   Development’s	
   (USAID)	
   Office	
   of	
  
Conflict	
   Management	
   and	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Catholic	
   Relief	
   Services	
   Timor-­‐Leste	
  
Program	
  (CRS/TL).	
  It	
  has	
  been	
  implemented	
  by	
  CRS	
  in	
  partnership	
  with	
  DJPC	
  Dili,	
  in	
  
22	
  aldeias	
  in	
  six	
  sucos	
  in	
  the	
  capital	
  district,	
  Dili.	
  The	
  Laletek	
  Project’s primary	
  goal	
  is	
  
that	
  opposing	
  groups	
  in	
  targeted	
  aldeias reduce	
  violent	
  conflict	
  with	
  each	
  other,	
  to	
  
be	
  achieved	
  through	
  its	
  two	
  strategic	
  objectives:	
  
SO1:	
   Opposing	
  groups	
  in	
  targeted	
  aldeias	
  develop	
  healthy	
  relationships	
  with	
  each	
  
other.
SO2:	
   Opposing	
  groups	
  in	
  targeted	
  aldeias	
  collaborate	
  non-­‐violently	
  to	
  manage	
  and	
  
maintain	
  existing,	
  new,	
  or	
  renovated	
  local	
  infrastructure.
The	
  project	
  uses	
   three	
   theories	
  of	
  change,	
  which	
  correspond	
   to	
   those	
   found	
  in	
   the	
  
“Healthy	
  Relationships”	
   (third)	
   family	
  of	
  theories	
  of	
  change1 in	
  support	
  of	
  achieving	
  
this	
  overall	
  goal:
1. If	
  opposing	
  groups	
  learn	
  more	
  about	
  one	
  other’s	
  experiences,	
   then	
   they	
  will	
  be	
  
more	
   willing	
   to	
   see	
   each	
   other	
   as	
   human	
   beings	
   rather	
   than	
   as	
   enemies	
   to	
   be	
  
vilified.
2. If	
   opposing	
   groups	
   see	
   each	
   other	
   as	
   fellow	
   human	
   beings,	
   then	
   they	
   will	
   be	
  
more	
  willing	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  what	
  connects	
  rather	
  than	
  what	
  divides	
  them.	
  
3. If	
   opposing	
   groups	
   are	
   willing	
   to	
   connect	
   and	
   work	
   constructively	
   together	
   on	
  
issues	
   of	
   collective	
   interest,	
   then	
   they	
   will	
   be	
   less	
   likely	
   to	
   engage	
   in	
   acts	
   of	
  
violence	
  against	
  one	
  other.	
  
Conducted	
  over	
  19	
  days	
  from	
  January	
  30	
  to	
  February	
  17,	
  2012,	
  this	
  final	
  evaluation	
  
had	
  the	
  following	
  objectives:
1. To	
   evaluate	
   the	
   performance	
   of	
   Laletek	
   Project	
   based	
   on	
   standard	
   evaluation	
  
criteria,	
   i.e.	
   its	
   overall	
   effectiveness	
   and	
   efficiency,	
   its	
   relevance	
   and	
  
appropriateness	
  re	
  current	
  context,	
  impacts	
  (the	
  changes	
  at	
  personal,	
  relational,	
  
structural	
   and	
   cultural	
   dimensions),	
   and	
   sustainability	
   of	
   the	
   interventions	
  
beyond	
  2012.
2. To	
   contribute	
   towards	
   organizational	
   learning	
   through	
   the	
   documentation	
   of	
  
best	
   practices	
   and	
   lessons	
   learned,	
   and	
   provide	
   recommendations	
   for	
   future	
  
peace	
  building	
  projects	
  for	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  USAID	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   1 USAID/DCHA/CMM	
  APS	
  Solicitation	
  #M/OAA/DCHA/DOFDA-­‐09-­‐857,	
  pg.	
  30
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
7
Limitations	
  of	
  this	
  evaluation
The	
  context	
   for this	
   final	
  evaluation	
  is	
  very	
  different	
   from	
  the	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation,
when	
  most	
  of	
   the	
  preliminary,	
  large-­‐scale	
  participatory	
  activities	
  such	
  as	
   the	
  Dahur	
  
competition	
   and	
   the	
   Active	
   Non	
   Violence	
   Training	
   had	
   only	
   recently	
   taken	
   place.	
  
Memories	
   were	
   still	
   fresh,	
   and	
   participants	
   were	
   readily	
   available.	
   One	
   year	
   later,	
  
memories	
   have	
   faded	
   somewhat,	
   and	
   in	
   the	
   interim,	
   there	
   have	
   also	
   been	
  
interventions	
  in	
  project	
  areas,	
  often	
  similar	
  to	
  Laletek	
  activities	
  such	
  as	
  ANV	
  training,
by	
   other	
   agencies	
   including	
   the	
  Ministry	
   of	
   Social	
   Solidarity	
   (MSS)	
   (although	
   often	
  
facilitated	
  by	
  Laletek	
  staff) and	
  Ba	
  Futuru.	
  
Nonetheless,	
   these	
  communities	
  were	
  well	
  placed	
   to	
  be	
  able	
   to	
  assess	
  change	
  at	
  a	
  
community	
  level	
  and	
  at	
  a	
  personal	
  level.	
  Also,	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  assessment	
  of	
  individual	
  
project	
  activities	
  had	
  already	
  been	
  conducted	
  shortly	
  after	
   their	
  implementation	
  at	
  
the	
   mid-­‐term	
   evaluation.	
   Therefore,	
   while	
   this	
   evaluation	
   assessed	
   project	
  
performance	
   against	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   criteria with	
   specific	
   reference	
   to	
   a	
   number	
   of	
  
project	
  activities, this	
   final	
  report	
  will	
  mainly	
  focus	
  on	
  impact	
  under	
  the	
  criteria	
  set	
  
out	
  in	
  in	
  Annex	
  1	
  of	
  the	
   framework	
  of	
   the	
  Reflective	
  Peacebuilding	
  Manual, with	
  a	
  
focus on	
  impact,	
  effectiveness,	
  efficiency	
  and	
  sustainability as	
  set	
  out	
  in	
  Objective	
  1
in	
  the	
  evaluation	
  Scope	
  of	
  Work.
Acknowledgements
The	
  author	
  would	
  like	
   to	
   thank	
   the	
  evaluation	
   team	
  of	
  Vital	
  Barreto,	
  Queizar	
  Savio	
  
and	
  Altino	
  Freitas	
  for	
  their	
  support,	
  professionalism	
  and	
  their	
  insights.	
  Thanks	
  also	
  to	
  
the	
  Laletek	
  team	
  for	
  their	
  organization	
  of	
  the	
  evaluation,	
  including	
  Luis	
  the	
  driver for	
  
his	
  patience	
  and perseverance on	
  some	
  appalling	
  roads,	
  and	
  special	
  thanks	
  to	
  Mize –
organizing	
   137	
   people	
   to	
   be	
  in	
   one	
   place	
  at	
  a	
   particular	
   time	
   over	
   19	
   days	
  was	
  an	
  
amazing	
  achievement.	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
8
Key	
  Findings
1. Appropriateness/Relevance
As	
   was	
   observed	
   in	
   the	
   mid-­‐term	
   evaluation,	
   the	
   intelligence	
   gathered	
   on	
   each	
  
community	
   in	
   the	
   preparatory	
   Baseline Assessment	
   has	
   played	
   a	
   major	
   part	
   in	
   its	
  
success	
   and	
   as	
   with	
   that	
   evaluation,	
   there	
   was	
   virtually	
   unanimous	
   praise	
   for	
  
Laletek’s	
   activities and	
  their	
  strategy	
   for	
   working	
   with	
   communities. One	
   common	
  
comment	
  was	
  that	
  Laletek’s	
  methods	
  and	
  materials	
  are	
  simple	
  and	
  straightforward,	
  
tailored	
  to	
  the	
  community’s	
  level	
  and	
  because	
  they	
  were	
  interesting	
  and	
  innovative,	
  
they	
   engaged	
   the	
   communities	
   where	
   other	
   strategies	
   had	
   failed.	
   A number	
   of	
  
respondents	
   made	
   the	
   comment	
   that	
   Laletek’s	
   approach	
   was	
   relevant	
   to	
   their	
  
communities as	
   rather	
   than	
  implement	
   strategies	
   used	
   overseas,	
   Laletek	
  identified	
  
the	
  situation	
  on	
  the	
  ground	
  in	
  each	
  community	
  and	
  utilised	
  East	
  Timorese	
  culture	
  as	
  
a	
  tool	
  for	
  change.
‘CRS	
   don’t	
   try	
   to	
   implement	
   programs	
   based	
   on	
   another	
   nation’s	
   culture	
   and	
  
implement	
   it	
   in	
   the	
   community.	
   CRS	
   programs	
   are	
   tailored	
   to	
   the	
   actual	
  
situation	
   in	
   Timor-­‐Leste.	
   Their	
   activities	
   have	
   relevance	
   to	
   Timor-­‐Leste’s	
   true	
  
condition.’	
  (Community	
  Police	
  Officer	
  Domingos	
  Maia)
One	
  respondent	
  claimed	
  that	
  other	
  agency	
  interventions	
  had	
  even	
  caused	
  conflict	
  in	
  
his	
   community	
   through	
   inadequate	
   identification	
   of	
   community	
   dynamics,	
   and	
  
praised	
   Laletek	
   both for	
   the	
   rigour	
   of	
   its	
   approach	
   and	
   its	
   consistent	
  engagement,	
  
claiming	
  that	
  other	
  agencies’ programs “were	
  like a	
  Christmas	
  light:	
  one	
  twinkle	
  and	
  
it’s	
  gone”.
A	
   number	
   of	
   respondents	
   for	
   key	
   informant	
   interviews	
   noted	
   that	
   Laletek’s	
  
strategies	
   are	
   appropriate	
   as	
   they	
   have	
   worked	
   at	
   an	
   aldeia	
   level where	
   the	
  
problems	
  actually	
  are,	
  and	
   that	
   they	
  get	
   people	
   to	
  work	
   together	
   to	
   cement	
   unity	
  
gained	
  through	
  other	
  activities.
There	
  was	
  particular	
  praise	
   for	
   the	
  Dahur competition,	
  and	
  all	
  informants	
  who	
  had	
  
been	
  involved	
   called	
   for	
  its	
   continuation.	
  A	
   number	
   of	
   respondents	
   described	
   how	
  
the	
  Dahur	
  competition	
  had, in	
  an	
  era	
  of	
  globalization, helped	
  people	
  remember	
  their	
  
traditions	
  and	
  bring	
  them	
  closer	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  culture.	
  
In	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   way	
   that	
   Laletek	
   communicates	
   with	
   communities,	
   key	
   informant	
  
interviewees	
   and	
   focus	
   group	
   respondents	
   were	
   almost	
   unanimous	
   with	
   their	
  
approval	
   of	
   Laletek’s	
   communication	
   strategy	
   of	
   working	
   through	
   both	
   formal	
   and	
  
informal	
   leaders	
   and	
   groups.	
   There	
   were	
   two	
   dissenting	
   voices however.	
   One	
  
community	
  claimed	
  that	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  had	
  worked	
  exclusively	
  through	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  
Aldeia	
   who	
   did	
   not	
   pass	
   on	
   information,	
   while	
   another	
   claimed	
   the	
   opposite; that	
  
Laletek,	
   perhaps	
   for	
   this	
   reason,	
   had	
  worked	
   directly	
  with	
   the	
  Dahur	
   dance	
  group,	
  
bypassing	
   the	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia,	
   perhaps	
   demonstrating	
   different	
   approaches	
   by	
  
different	
   staff	
   members	
   but	
   also	
   illustrating	
   the	
   challenges	
   of	
   working	
   with	
  
communities.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
9
2. Effectiveness
Program	
  Implementation
Not	
   all	
   project	
   activities	
   had	
   been	
   completed	
   in	
   the six beneficiary communities	
  
surveyed.	
   In	
   Caceularan, there	
   had	
   been	
   no	
   progress	
   there	
   since	
   the	
   mid-­‐term	
  
evaluation.	
  According	
   to	
  Laletek	
  staff,	
   this	
  is	
  due	
   to	
  an	
  impasse	
  between	
  the	
  Chefe	
  
De	
  Aldeia	
  and	
  the	
  youth	
  leader.	
  This	
  was	
  most	
  evident	
  in	
  the	
  focus	
  group	
  meetings	
  
where	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  had	
  received	
  conflicting	
  information	
  on	
  meeting	
  times	
  from	
  
these	
  leaders.	
   In	
  Toko	
  Baru,	
  the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  project,	
  a	
  drainage	
  system, had	
  
been	
   completed	
   at	
   a	
   Suko	
   level,	
   but	
   no	
   project	
   had	
   been	
   completed at	
   an	
   aldeia	
  
level,	
   due,	
   according	
   to	
   staff, to	
   an	
   apparent	
   lack	
   of	
   initiative	
   on	
   the	
   part	
   of	
   the	
  
Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia.
In	
  Metin	
  04,	
  however,	
  where	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  had	
  also	
  presented	
  an	
  obstacle	
  to	
  
further	
   action,	
   in	
   what	
   seemed	
   at	
   the	
   time	
   of	
   the	
   mid-­‐term	
   evaluation	
   to	
   be	
   an	
  
intractable	
   conflict,	
   staff	
  adopted	
   two	
   strategies,	
  with	
  a	
   subsequent	
   breakthrough.	
  
One	
  strategy	
  was	
  to	
  approach	
  martial	
  arts	
  group	
  leaders	
  directly	
  and	
  another	
  was	
  to	
  
conduct	
  a	
  door	
  knocking campaign	
  with	
  parents	
  of	
  martial	
  arts	
  group	
  members.	
  As	
  a	
  
consequence,	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  group,	
  members	
  of	
  both	
  7-­‐7	
  and	
  PSHT	
  groups	
  
were	
  engaged	
  in	
  building	
  a	
  community centre	
   there. The	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia has	
  now	
  
endorsed	
   the	
   project	
   and	
   now	
   allows	
   the	
   PSHT	
   leader	
   and	
   other	
   youth	
   leaders	
   to	
  
assist	
  him	
  in	
  his	
  work.	
  
Monitoring	
  and	
  Evaluation	
  Tools
Staff	
  reported	
  that	
  the	
  monitoring	
  and	
  evaluation	
  tools	
  had	
  greatly	
  assisted	
  them	
  in	
  
their	
  work,	
  proving	
  straightforward	
  and	
  easy	
   to	
  use,	
  allowing	
   them	
   to	
  measure	
   the	
  
effectiveness	
  of	
  their	
  work,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  beneficiaries,	
  and	
  to	
  identify	
  unresolved	
  
problems.	
  One	
  key	
  informant	
  interviewee	
  remarked	
  that	
  the	
  Laletek	
  M&E	
  system	
  set	
  
them	
   apart	
   from	
   other	
   agency	
   approaches, as	
   Laletek	
   had	
   been	
   the only	
   one	
   to	
  
follow	
   up	
   and	
  monitor	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   their	
   work,	
  mentor	
   the	
   community	
   and	
   their	
  
leaders and	
  to	
  seek	
  solutions	
  to	
  any	
  unresolved	
  issues.
Incident	
  Reports
While	
  few of	
   the	
   focus	
  group	
   respondents	
   reported	
  any	
  substantial	
  involvement	
  in	
  
either	
  the	
  Incident	
  Reports	
  or	
  Conflict	
  Maps,	
  a number	
  of	
  key	
  informant	
  interviews
confirmed	
   the	
   value	
   of	
   these	
   monitoring	
   tools.	
   In	
   all	
   cases, the	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia	
  
appeared	
  to	
  be	
  responsible	
  for	
  completing	
  them,	
  although	
  they	
  also	
  claimed	
  that	
  the	
  
community	
   assisted	
   them	
   in	
   providing	
   information.	
   All	
   sources	
   interviewed	
   who	
  
were	
   actually	
   involved	
   in	
   utilising the	
   Incident	
   Report	
   asserted	
   that	
   the	
   tool	
   had	
  
greatly	
  assisted	
  them	
  in	
  identifying	
  problems	
  so	
  they	
  could	
  resolve	
  them.
‘This	
   (Incident	
   Report)	
   is	
   highly relevant	
   in	
   effectively	
   responding to	
   the	
  
community’s	
   situation	
   to	
   bring	
   peace. The	
   Incident	
   Report	
   really	
   helps	
   us	
  
identify	
   the	
   problems	
   and	
   record	
   details	
   of	
   conflict	
   as	
   it	
   happens	
   within	
   the	
  
community. Many	
   times	
   we	
   have	
   set	
   an	
   example	
   for	
   other	
   communities	
   to	
  
follow.’ (Youth	
  leader,	
  Caceularan)
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
10
Conflict	
  Maps
By	
  all	
  accounts, the	
  conflict	
  maps	
  had	
  also	
  proven	
  useful	
  in	
  identifying	
  and	
  resolving	
  
conflict,	
   with	
   a	
   similar	
   pattern of	
   utilization	
   by	
   the	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia	
   but	
   with	
  
community	
  assistance.	
  One	
  respondent described	
  how	
  they	
  used	
  the	
  map	
  to	
  identify	
  
and	
  resolve	
  problems	
  in	
  their	
  community	
  as	
  follows:
‘The	
   Conflict	
  Map	
  is	
  like	
   a	
  map	
   or	
   drawing	
   that	
  local	
   authorities	
   use	
   to	
  mark	
  
places	
  where	
  conflict	
  has	
  occurred.	
  For	
  example, if	
  there	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  conflict	
  we	
  
put	
  a	
   red	
  symbol.	
  If	
  it’s	
  still	
  in	
  process	
  of	
  being	
   resolved	
  we	
  put	
  a	
  smaller	
   red	
  
symbol.	
  When	
   the	
   house	
   or	
   people	
  involved	
   agree	
   to	
   resolve	
   the	
   problem	
  we	
  
put	
  a	
  green	
  symbol.’ (FGD	
  Terminal)
Coordination	
  and	
  Communication
The	
   majority	
   of	
   feedback	
   for	
   coordination	
   and	
   communication	
   was	
   positive,	
   from	
  
both	
   the	
   community	
   and	
   partners,	
   and	
   there	
   were	
   only	
   three	
   complaints,	
   each	
  
demonstrating	
   the	
   challenges	
   of	
   dealing	
   with	
   communities.	
   One	
   community	
  
complained	
   about	
   frequent	
   changes	
   to	
   meeting	
   times,	
   causing	
   considerable	
  
inconvenience	
  when	
  community	
  members	
  had	
  been	
  organized	
  to	
  attend	
  a	
  meeting.	
  
Another	
  complained	
  about	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  sufficient	
  time	
  given	
  to	
  prepare	
  for	
  the	
  Dahur	
  
competition,	
  while	
  another	
  complaint	
  related	
  to	
  information	
  only	
  being	
  provided	
  to	
  
the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia.	
  Other	
  complaints	
  related	
  not	
  to	
  Laletek,	
  but	
  to	
  the	
  community’s	
  
own	
   internal	
   communication	
   processes. There	
   was	
   also	
   one	
   anomaly	
   relating	
   to	
  
information	
  provided	
  to	
  the	
  Laletek	
  monitoring	
  team,	
  whereby	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  
had	
   sent	
   a	
   representative	
   to	
   meetings who	
   had	
   not	
   communicated	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
  
Fatuhada	
   02	
   was	
   actually	
   experiencing	
   almost	
   daily	
   conflict,	
   which	
   came	
   as	
   some	
  
surprise	
  to	
  staff	
  in	
  the	
  staff	
  reflection	
  workshop.
3. Efficiency
Division	
  of	
  Labour
Under	
  the	
  terms	
  of	
  their	
  MOU,	
  the	
  DJPC	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  implementation	
  of	
  project	
  
activities	
   in	
   the	
   target	
   communities,	
   with	
   CRS	
   responsible	
   for	
   management	
   and	
  
monitoring	
  support.	
  Nonetheless,	
  at	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  project there	
  appeared	
  to	
  
be	
  some	
  misunderstanding	
  about	
  implementation	
  roles	
  between	
  DJPC	
  and CRS,	
  with	
  
some	
   staff	
   unsure	
   of	
   whom exactly	
   they	
   were	
   working	
   for.	
   However,	
   in	
   this	
   final	
  
evaluation, all	
   sources	
   interviewed	
   agreed	
   that	
  through	
   discussions	
   between	
   staff	
  
and	
  with	
  the	
  passage	
  of	
  time,	
  this	
  issue	
  had	
  now	
  been	
  resolved.	
  
Staff	
   at	
   DJPC	
   did identify, however,	
   that	
   the	
   confusion	
   now	
   resided	
   at the	
  
community	
   level	
   rather	
   than	
   at	
   the	
   partnership	
   level,	
   with	
   a	
   common	
  
misunderstanding	
  that	
  Laletek was	
  an	
  NGO,	
  or	
  confusion	
  over	
  whether	
  Laletek	
  was	
  a	
  
DJPC	
  or CRS	
  program.	
  While	
   this	
  confusion	
  did	
  not	
  seem	
  widespread	
  in	
  discussions	
  
for	
   this	
  evaluation	
  with	
  communities,	
  a	
  number	
  of	
   focus	
  groups	
  and	
  key	
  informant	
  
interviews	
   did	
   use the	
   names	
   of	
   Laletek	
   and	
   the	
   two	
   partner	
   organizations	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
11
interchangeably.	
   Having	
   two	
   director	
   positions	
   at	
   DJPC	
   and CRS	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
  
project	
   also	
   initially	
   caused	
   some	
   confusion-­‐both	
   for	
   staff	
   at	
   DJPC and	
   the	
  
community,	
  but	
  this	
  was	
  also	
  no	
  longer	
  cited	
  as	
  a	
  problem.
Partnerships
Both	
   JPC	
   and	
   CRS	
   staff	
   agreed	
   that	
   while	
   Laletek’s	
   approach	
   differed	
   considerably	
  
from	
  the	
  Government’s	
  (principally,	
  the	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Social	
  Solidarity),	
  the	
  partnership	
  
between	
  Laletek and	
  the	
  Government	
  was	
  working	
  well,	
  that	
  both Laletek staff	
  and	
  
the	
   Government always	
   called	
   each	
   other	
   to	
   attend	
   ceremonies	
   or	
   mediation	
  
processes,	
  with	
  the	
  government	
  often	
  calling	
  on	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  to	
  assist,	
  as	
  they	
  did	
  in	
  
Manleauana	
  to	
  help	
  conduct	
  the	
  Tara	
  Bandu	
  Process there.	
  
The	
   respondents	
   involved in	
   the	
   Peace	
   Building	
   Working	
   Group	
   also	
   praised	
   the	
  
leadership	
   and	
   regular	
   participation	
   of	
   Laletek	
   staff at	
   meetings,	
   and	
   their	
  
willingness	
   to	
   share	
   information. The	
   partnership	
   with	
   BELUN	
   on	
   the	
   Incident	
  
Reports	
   also	
   worked	
   well,	
   with	
   Laletek	
   complementing	
   the	
   BELUN	
  suko	
   level	
   data	
  
collection	
   process	
   rather	
   than	
   replicating	
   it,	
   using	
   BELUN’s	
   existing	
   format	
   and	
  
adding	
  to	
  it.
Financial	
   coordination	
   was	
   also	
   praised	
   by	
   both	
   partners,	
   including	
   the	
   smooth	
  
transfer	
   of	
   funds from	
   CRS	
   to	
   JPC,	
   with	
   regular	
   financial	
   reports	
   submitted	
   to	
  
deadlines.	
   JPC	
   staff	
   also	
   received	
   regular	
   feedback	
   and	
   mentoring	
   on	
   financial
reports,	
  with	
  regular	
  monitoring	
  to	
  avoid	
  any	
  discrepancies.	
  The	
  budget	
  was	
  90	
  per	
  
cent	
  spent	
  with	
  outlay	
  largely	
  conforming	
  to	
  planning;	
  some	
  extra	
  expenditure was
occasionally	
   necessary	
   due	
   to	
   unexpected	
   activities such	
   as	
   extra	
   overtime	
   to	
  
mentor	
   new	
   JPC	
   staff	
   after	
   a	
   sudden	
   staff	
   turnover	
   there.	
   Expenditure	
   is	
   also	
  
monitored	
  through	
  a	
  monthly	
  budget	
  comparison	
  so	
  that	
  spending	
  can	
  be	
  adjusted	
  if	
  
required.	
  	
  
While	
  early	
  staff	
  turnover	
  had	
  caused	
  some	
  project	
  disruption	
  at	
  the	
  beginning,	
  both	
  
DJPC,	
  Laletek	
  and	
  partner	
  respondents	
  believed	
  that	
  with	
  mentoring	
  from	
  CRS	
  staff,	
  
DJPC	
  staff	
  had	
  since	
  gained	
  increased	
  confidence	
  and	
  competence	
  and	
  now	
  had	
  the	
  
capabilities	
  to	
  run	
  activities	
  themselves,	
  including	
  the	
  organization	
  and	
  facilitation	
  of	
  
the	
   ANV	
   training,	
   the	
   Dahur	
   competition	
   and	
   also	
   possessed	
   the	
   financial	
  
management	
  skills	
  required	
  to	
  run	
  these	
  projects.	
  	
  CRS	
  staff	
  involved	
  in	
  Laletek	
  also	
  
reported	
   feeling	
   confident	
   in	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   duties	
   including	
   facilitating	
   meetings	
   and	
  
training,	
   community	
   mobilization and	
   grant	
   management,	
   and	
   feel	
   that	
   their	
  
involvement	
   in	
   the	
   project	
   has	
   tremendously	
   boosted	
   their	
   capabilities	
   and	
  
confidence	
  overall.
Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Project	
  Funds	
  Management
Funding	
  for	
  the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Projects	
  also	
  seemed	
  to	
  run	
  smoothly.	
  While	
  no	
  
concerns were	
   raised	
   in	
   the	
   interviews	
   or	
   focus	
   groups about	
   transparency	
   or	
  
budgets,	
   Laletek	
   staff	
   believed	
   that	
   these	
   funds	
   had sometimes	
   created	
   jealousy	
  
between	
  community	
  members	
  or	
  leaders.	
  One	
  community	
  also	
  had	
  met	
  an	
  impasse	
  
where	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Suko	
  did	
  not	
  trust	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  with	
  the	
  money	
  and	
  so	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
12
the	
   project	
   had	
   not	
   gone	
   ahead.	
   Overall, it	
   generally	
   appeared	
  that	
   the	
   Chefe	
   De	
  
Aldeias	
   were responsible	
   for	
   implementation. There	
   was,	
   however,	
   some	
   concern	
  
over	
   the	
   fact	
  that	
   some	
   communities	
  were	
   still	
   submitting	
   project	
   proposals	
  when	
  
the	
  deadline	
  has	
  long	
  passed.
Of	
   the	
   sources	
   interviewed	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   involved in	
   submitting	
   proposals,	
   all	
  
expressed	
  satisfaction	
  with	
  the	
  support	
  they	
  received	
  from Laletek.	
  One	
  source	
  also	
  
praised	
  Laletek	
  for	
  their	
  support	
  in	
  linking	
  them	
  to	
  a	
  government	
  agency	
  when	
  their	
  
project	
  proposal	
  exceeded	
  Laletek’s	
  budget:
‘The	
  community	
  put	
  forward	
  a	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Project	
  proposal	
  for	
  a	
  Youth	
  
Centre, which	
   would	
   cost	
   $14,000,	
   but	
   this	
   wasn’t	
   realistic	
   as	
   CRS	
   could	
   only	
  
offer	
  $4000.	
  As	
  a	
  solution,	
  Laletek	
  assisted	
  us	
   to	
  meet	
   the	
  government	
   to	
  get	
  
support	
   from	
   the	
  Cabinet	
   of	
   the	
   Prime	
  Minister’s	
   Civil	
   Society	
  Fund. Although	
  
the	
  government	
  replied	
  that	
  they	
  have	
  to	
  wait	
  until	
  after	
  the	
  election,	
  we	
  have	
  
made	
  the	
  connection.’ (Youth	
  Leader,	
  Caceularan)
4. Impact
In	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  as	
  to	
  what	
  the	
  situation	
  had	
  been	
  like	
  before	
  the	
  Laletek	
  
intervention,	
  with	
  the	
  exception	
  of	
  the	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  focus	
  groups	
  in	
  Mate	
  Lahotu	
  
and	
  Culuhun,	
  the	
  difference	
  in	
  accounts	
  between	
  male	
  and	
  female	
  focus	
  groups	
  was	
  
often quite	
   marked,	
   with	
   male	
   focus	
   groups	
   keen	
   to	
   portray	
   a	
   positive	
   portrait	
   of	
  
their	
  community	
  and	
  deny	
  problems	
  existed	
  before	
  or	
  now,	
  while	
  the	
   female	
   focus	
  
groups	
  were	
  considerably	
  more	
  frank.	
  This	
  contrast	
  was	
  most	
  stark	
  in	
  Fatuhada	
  02,	
  
where	
  the	
  men	
  denied	
  there	
  were any	
  problems	
  at	
  all,	
  whereas the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia,	
  
a	
  woman,	
  and	
  the	
  women’s	
  focus	
  group	
  claimed	
  that	
  up	
  until	
  the	
  banning	
  of	
  martial	
  
arts	
   group	
   training	
   in	
   December 2011 there	
   was	
   almost	
   nightly	
   group	
   conflict,	
  
pointing	
  to	
  a	
  place	
  less	
  than	
  twenty	
  meters away	
  and	
  also	
  indicating	
  other	
  hot	
  spots	
  
around	
  the	
  neighborhood on	
  the	
  Conflict	
  Map.	
  
Nonetheless,	
   except	
   for	
   Fatuhada	
   02,	
  no	
   communities	
   surveyed	
   reported	
   anything	
  
other	
  than	
  minor	
  disputes	
  in	
  their	
  community	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  six	
  months.	
  Five	
  out	
  of	
  six	
  
communities	
  said	
  that	
  while	
  sometimes	
  there	
  were	
  small	
  problems,	
  of	
  a	
  personal	
  or	
  
domestic	
   nature,	
   Laletek	
   had	
   helped	
   bring	
   peace.	
   The	
   Dahur	
   competition,	
   ANV	
  
training	
  and	
  where	
  it	
  had	
  been	
  implemented,	
  the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Projects	
  were
cited	
   as	
   the	
   project	
   activities	
   that	
   had	
   most	
   contributed	
   to	
   this	
   change. Two	
  
communities	
   thought	
   that	
   peaceful	
   change	
   in	
   their	
   community	
   was	
   exclusively	
   a	
  
result	
   of	
   Laletek’s	
   programs,	
   while	
   the	
   others	
   said	
   that	
   it	
   was	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
  
Laletek	
   and	
   Church,	
   Government	
   or	
   other	
   NGO	
   supported	
   projects	
   or	
   the	
  
community’s	
  own	
  initiatives.	
  Some	
  also	
  mistakenly	
  attributed	
  Laletek	
  activities such	
  
as	
  ANV	
   training and	
   the	
  Conflict	
  Map to	
  other	
  agencies such	
  as	
  Ba	
  Futuru. Indeed,	
  
areas	
  like	
  Becora	
  have	
  become	
  quite	
  ‘crowded’	
  with	
  donor	
  attention,	
  so	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  
easy	
  to	
  confuse	
  the	
  programs	
  by	
  different	
  agencies	
  that have	
  done	
  similar	
  training.
On	
   a	
   quantitative	
   level,	
   when	
   asked	
   if there	
   are	
   more	
   positive	
   relations	
   between	
  
opposing	
   groups	
   at	
   the	
   end	
   of	
   the	
   project than	
   before, with	
   the	
   exception	
   of	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
13
Fatuhada	
  02,	
   the	
   result	
  was	
  unanimously	
  in	
   favour.	
  Overall,	
  107 people	
  out	
  of	
  115	
  
(93	
  per	
  cent)	
  focus	
  group	
  participants	
  agreed,	
  as	
  did nine	
  out	
  of	
   ten	
  key	
  informant	
  
interviews	
  with	
  community	
  leaders.	
  Similarly,	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  “Have	
  you	
  
experienced	
  conflict	
  in	
  your	
  community	
  in	
   the	
  last	
  six	
  months?”	
  only	
   two	
  (two	
  per	
  
cent)	
   out	
   of	
   115	
   people	
   reported	
   any	
   conflict,	
   and	
   this	
   was	
   a	
   personal,	
   not	
   a	
  
community	
  level.
The	
  impact	
   of the Laletek project	
   can	
  also	
   be	
   seen	
  in	
   these	
   two	
   diagrams, seen	
  at	
  
Figure	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  below, produced	
  at	
  staff	
  reflection	
  exercises	
  at	
  the	
  mid-­‐term	
  and	
  final	
  
evaluation.	
  In	
  this	
  exercise,	
  staff	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  identify,	
  by	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  consensus,	
  
which	
   communities	
   were	
   the	
   easiest	
   to	
   work	
   with	
   and	
   which	
   were	
   the	
   hardest,	
  
which	
   were	
   showing	
   progress	
   and	
   which	
   were	
   not.	
   The	
   categories	
   of	
   Cooperative	
  
and	
  Getting	
  Better	
  do	
  not	
  necessarily	
  signify	
  that	
  a community	
  is	
  free	
  of	
  conflict,	
  but	
  
that	
   the	
   community is more	
   amenable	
   to	
   working	
   with	
   Laletek	
   and	
   to	
   resolving	
  
conflict.	
  Criteria	
   for	
  these	
  categories,	
  identified	
  during	
  that	
   first	
  staff	
  reflection,	
  are	
  
as	
  follows:
Cooperative
1. Strong	
  sense	
  of	
  initiative	
  shown	
  by	
  the	
  Chefe	
  de	
  Aldeia	
  and	
  their	
  community
2. Willpower	
  and	
  initiative	
  to	
  resolve	
  conflict
3. Cooperative	
  with	
  Laletek	
  Project	
  staff	
  and	
  objectives
4. A	
  strong	
  voluntary	
  ethic
Uncooperative
1. Lack	
   of	
   initiative	
   and	
   engagement	
   from	
   the	
   community	
   leadership	
   or	
   the	
  
community	
  itself,	
  including	
  expecting	
  money	
  for	
  involvement
2. Community	
   or	
   leadership	
   claim	
   they	
   are	
   too	
   busy but	
   do	
   not	
   deputise	
  
somebody	
  else	
  to	
  assist
3. Leader	
  has	
  low	
  legitimacy due	
  to	
  friction	
  between	
  them and	
  their	
  community
4. Lack	
  of	
  willpower	
  to	
  resolve	
  conflict	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  leader	
  or	
  
their	
  community
5. Lack	
   of	
   ability	
   on	
   the	
   part	
   of	
   leadership	
   to	
   organize	
   the	
   community, which	
  
was	
  sometimes	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  local	
  leaders	
  lack	
  of	
  legitimacy	
  or	
  popularity	
  
in	
  their	
  community
In	
  the	
  first	
  diagram,	
  there	
  are	
  only	
  four	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  top	
  right	
  quadrant that	
  
signifies	
  they	
  are more cooperative, with	
  less	
  conflict, and	
  nine	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  
left	
  quadrants that indicate less	
  cohesion,	
  cooperation	
  and	
  continued	
  conflict.	
  In	
  the	
  
second	
  diagram	
  a	
  year	
  later,	
  there	
  are	
  18	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  top	
  left	
  quadrant	
  and	
  
only	
  four	
  on	
  the	
  right. While	
  this	
  analysis	
  is staff	
  self-­‐assessed,	
  except	
  for	
  Fatuhada	
  
02,	
   the	
   results	
   for	
   five	
   other	
   communities	
   were	
   verified	
   in	
   this	
   evaluation	
   and	
  
confirmed	
  through	
  the	
  control	
  sample	
  of	
  two	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  communities.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
14
Figure	
  1:	
  Laletek	
  Impact	
  at	
  Mid-­‐term	
  Evaluation
Figure	
  2:	
  Laletek	
  Impact	
  at	
  Final	
  Evaluation
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
15
4.1 Personal	
  Dimension
A	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  respondents	
  reported	
  significant	
  change	
  at	
  a	
  personal	
  level	
  on	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  grounds.	
  Some	
  community	
  members reported	
  personal	
  change	
   through	
  
being	
  able	
  to	
  walk	
  through	
  neighbouring	
  aldeias	
  they	
  had	
  previously	
  never	
  been	
  able	
  
to,	
  or	
  simply	
  through	
  access	
  to	
  clean	
  water	
  due	
  to the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Project.	
  	
  
Community	
  leaders	
  referred	
   to	
   new	
   skills	
  acquired	
   such	
  as	
   conflict	
   resolution	
   skills	
  
from	
   ANV	
   training, on	
   how	
   to	
   write	
   a	
   proposal,	
   or	
   new	
   respect	
   gained	
   in	
   the	
  
community	
   through	
   their	
  participation	
  or	
  leadership	
  in	
  project	
  activities	
  such	
  as	
  by	
  
playing	
  a	
  leading	
  role	
  in	
  coordinating the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Projects,	
  or leading	
  a
Dahur	
   team,	
   as	
   described here	
   by	
   the	
   Fatuhada	
   02	
   Dahur	
   Coordinator,	
   a	
   young	
  
woman:
‘I	
   have	
   experienced	
   major	
   change	
   through	
   the	
   Dahur	
   Competition,	
   as	
   I	
   can	
  
understand	
   more	
   about	
   the	
   Dahur	
   and	
   also	
   through	
   the	
   respect	
   that	
   I	
   now	
  
have	
  from	
  youth and	
  their	
  parents	
  through	
  my	
  role	
  as	
  Dahur	
  Coordinator.’
Two	
   gang	
   members	
   were	
   also	
   transformed through	
   their	
   involvement.	
   One	
   man,
who	
   had	
   formerly	
   been	
   involved	
   in	
   setting	
   up	
   barricades	
   at	
   the	
   bus	
   terminal	
   in	
  
Terminal	
  Becora	
  to	
  extort	
  money	
  from	
  bus	
  drivers and	
  their	
  passengers, stopped	
  this	
  
behaviour	
   after	
   ANV	
   training	
   and	
   dissuaded	
   others,	
   and	
   reportedly	
   also	
   stopped	
  
beating	
  his	
  wife.	
  Another	
  gang	
  member	
  had	
  been	
  involved	
  in	
  setting	
  up	
  checkpoints	
  
at	
  night	
  to	
  identify	
  rival	
  gang	
  members	
  and	
  was	
  integral	
  to	
  that	
  conflict	
  in	
  Metin	
  04,	
  
Faulara,	
   had	
   also	
   reformed	
   his	
   behaviour	
   through	
   involvement	
   in	
   the	
   Small	
  
Infrastructure	
  Project,	
  and	
  played	
  an	
  active	
  leadership	
  role	
  in	
  conflict	
  prevention.
The	
   personal	
   impact	
   of	
   involvement	
   in	
   this	
   project	
   by	
   Laletek	
  must	
   also	
   be	
  noted,	
  
with	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  gaining new	
  skills	
  in	
  community	
  mobilization	
  and	
  engagement,	
  and	
  
greater	
   self-­‐confidence	
   through	
   their	
   participation	
   in	
   this	
   project. Their	
   skills	
   will	
  
prove	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  valuable	
  asset	
  for	
  future	
  peacebuilding	
  projects.
4.2 Relational	
  Dimension
The	
   success	
   in	
   mediating	
   the	
   Metin	
   04/Faulara	
   and	
   Moris	
   Foun	
   conflicts	
   is	
   of	
  
particular	
  note.	
  Up	
  until	
  November	
  last	
  year,	
  these	
  had	
  been	
  possibly	
  the	
  two	
  most	
  
intractable	
   conflicts	
   in	
   Dili, with	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   houses	
   destroyed and	
   fatalities	
   as	
  
recently	
   as	
   December	
   last	
   year.	
   Indeed,	
   an	
   interview	
   there	
   for	
   the	
   mid-­‐term	
  
evaluation	
  had	
   to	
  be	
  cancelled	
  due	
   to	
  an	
  eruption	
  of	
  fighting.	
  Faulara	
  interviewees	
  
directly	
   attributed	
   the	
   success	
   of	
   mediation	
   efforts	
   to	
   Laletek,	
   to	
   both	
   the	
   ANV	
  
training	
   and	
   Dahur	
   competition, but	
   most	
   importantly, the	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
  
Project that	
  motivated	
  former	
  enemies	
  to	
  work	
  together.
As	
  described	
  by	
  staff,	
  the	
  success	
  of	
  this	
  enterprise	
  could	
  largely	
  be	
  attributed	
  to	
  a	
  
change	
  of	
   tactics	
  whereby	
  staff	
  both	
  used	
  parents	
   to	
  appeal	
   to	
  gang	
  members	
  and	
  
then	
   after	
   talks	
   with	
   the	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia	
   failed	
   to	
   bear	
   fruit,	
   directly	
   approached	
  
gang	
  leaders.	
  As	
  one	
  source	
  in	
  Metin	
  04	
  described	
  the	
  result:
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
16
‘The	
  community	
  and	
  youth	
  can	
  now	
  walk	
  free	
  in	
  the daytime and	
  at	
  night	
  and	
  
now	
   work	
   together	
   to	
   create	
   this	
   village	
   centre-­‐many	
   different	
   martial	
   arts	
  
group	
   members	
   are	
   involved	
   in	
   this	
   construction	
   effort.’ (Antonio	
   Soibada,	
  
PSHT	
  leader,	
  Metin	
  04)
Another	
   focus	
  group	
   reported	
   that	
   they	
  now	
  organized	
   sports	
  activities	
  with	
  youth	
  
from	
  a	
  neighbouring	
  village	
  they	
  had	
  been	
  in	
  conflict with,	
  sang	
  together	
  in	
  Church	
  
and	
  invited	
  each	
  other	
  to	
  wedding	
  festivities.	
  
Conflict	
  resolution	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  communities	
  had a	
  flow	
  on	
  effect, as	
  proved	
  by	
  
the	
   focus	
   group	
   conducted	
   with	
   a	
   non-­‐beneficiary	
   aldeia,	
   Mate	
   Lahotu.	
   While	
  
according	
  to	
  focus	
  groups there, this	
  community	
  continues	
  to	
  suffer	
  internal	
  conflict,
they	
  asserted	
  that	
  they	
  no	
  longer	
  have	
  conflict	
  with	
  three	
  Laletek	
  target	
  aldeias	
  of	
  20	
  
Septembru,	
  Metin	
   04	
   and	
  Moris	
   Foun.	
   The	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
   Project	
  to	
   provide	
  
clean	
   water	
   to	
   Fatuk	
   Fransisco,	
   a	
   source	
   of	
   tension	
   between	
   the	
   two	
   aldeias,
resulted	
  in	
  clean	
  water	
  for	
  co-­‐beneficiary	
  aldeia Terminal,	
  and	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  aldeia	
  
Buburlao.
Key	
  informant	
  interviews	
  and	
  some	
  focus	
  groups	
  also	
  reported	
  a	
  new	
  willingness	
  for	
  
their	
   communities	
   to	
   resolve	
   problems	
   themselves,	
   and	
   a	
   new	
   initiative	
   to	
   work	
  
voluntarily	
   on	
   community	
   projects	
   rather	
   than	
   expecting	
   money. Another	
  
community	
   also	
   reported	
   that	
   they	
   felt	
   they	
   now	
   had	
   a	
   cooperative	
   connection	
  
between	
  local	
  authorities,	
  the	
  Church	
  and	
  the	
  Government.
4.3 Structural	
  Dimension
It	
   was	
   difficult	
   to	
   gauge	
   from	
   such	
   a	
   short-­‐term	
   evaluation	
   how	
   structural	
  
dimensions	
  have	
  changed.	
  Laletek	
  activities	
  appear	
  to	
  have	
  been	
  generally	
  inclusive	
  
of	
   all	
   marginalised	
   or	
   maligned	
   groups	
   such	
   as	
   women,	
   youth	
   and	
   martial	
   arts	
  
groups.	
  One	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  commented	
   that	
  Laletek	
  was	
  successful	
  because	
   they	
  
identified	
   youth’s	
   potential.	
   One	
   woman	
   Dahur	
   coordinator,	
   as	
   described	
   above,	
  
reported	
   gaining	
   new	
   prestige	
   within	
   the	
   community	
   through	
   the	
   Dahur	
  
Competition.	
  Otherwise	
   power	
   dynamics	
   have	
   remained	
   essentially	
   the	
   same	
   with	
  
traditional	
   and	
   formal	
   authorities	
   still	
   wielding	
   decision-­‐making power	
   within	
   their	
  
communities.	
  While	
  that	
  state	
  of	
  affairs	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  change	
   for	
  a	
  long	
  time, it	
  can	
  
certainly	
  be	
  claimed	
  on	
   the	
  basis	
  of	
   focus	
  group	
  and	
  key	
  informant	
  interviews	
   that	
  
many	
  of	
  them	
  have	
  learned	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  consultative	
  and	
  inclusive	
  in their approach	
  
to	
  their	
  communities. One	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  reported	
  that	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  project,	
  
while	
   formerly he	
  had	
  always	
  worked	
  by	
  himself,	
  now	
  he	
  accepted	
  assistance	
   from	
  
other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  in	
  his	
  work,	
  including	
  local	
  youth:
‘The	
   major	
   change	
   is	
   that	
   before	
   I	
   did	
   everything	
   myself,	
   but	
   together	
   with	
  
Laletek	
   we	
   identified	
   the	
   potential	
   of	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   local	
   youth,	
   for	
   example,	
  
Antonio	
   Soibada,	
   Fernando	
   and	
   Adriano	
   and	
   now	
   they	
   all	
   help	
   me	
   with	
   my	
  
work.’ (Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  Metin	
  04,	
  Faulara)
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
17
4.4 Cultural	
  Dimension
As	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  Reflective	
  Peacebuilding	
  Manual,	
  cultural	
  change	
  is	
  embedded	
  in	
  
the	
   three	
   other	
   dimensions	
   and	
   is	
   difficult	
   to	
   isolate	
   for	
   evaluation	
   purposes.	
   As	
  
stated	
  in	
  the	
  introduction,	
  it	
  was	
  easier	
  to	
  discern	
  changes	
  to	
  cultural	
  perceptions	
  in	
  
the	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation	
   where	
   people	
   had	
   just	
   participated	
   in	
   activities	
   when	
   the	
  
impact	
   was	
   most	
   profoundly	
   felt.	
   Certainly	
   though,	
   there	
   is	
   evidence	
   of	
   a	
   cultural	
  
shift	
  away	
  from	
  entrenched	
  cultural	
  attitudes	
  with	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  community	
  reporting	
  
that	
   it	
   has	
   moved	
   away	
   from	
   East-­‐West	
   enmities	
   and	
   through	
   the	
   Dahur	
  
competition,	
  have	
  an	
  enhanced	
  understanding	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  means	
  to	
  be	
  East	
  Timorese	
  
rather	
  than	
  seeing	
  themselves	
  through	
  a	
  narrow	
  prism	
  of	
  ethnicity	
  or	
  group.
The	
  main	
  activities	
  cited	
  as	
  having	
  been	
  the	
  most	
  effective	
  in	
  facilitating	
  this	
  change	
  
were	
  the	
  ANV	
  training,	
  Dahur	
  and	
  in	
  particular,	
  the	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Projects.	
  In	
  
some	
  cases	
  this	
  was	
  due	
  the	
  activity	
  bringing	
  opposing	
  groups	
  together,	
  as	
  in	
  Metin	
  
04,	
   or	
   in	
   others,	
   where	
   the	
   project	
   itself	
   resolved	
   a	
   source	
   of	
   community	
   friction,
such	
  as	
  access	
  to	
  water	
  as	
  in	
  Terminal	
  and	
  Fatuk	
  Fransisco.
Laletek	
  Team and	
  evaluation	
  team with	
  Comoro	
  Metin	
  04	
  community	
  at	
  site	
  of	
  
their	
  Small	
  Infrastructure	
  Project,	
  a	
  community	
  centre
5. Sustainability
Laletek	
   cannot	
   be	
  expected	
   to	
   solve	
  all	
  ills	
  and	
  a	
   number	
   of	
   deep	
   structural	
  issues	
  
such	
   as	
   access	
   to	
   employment,	
   education	
   and	
   basic	
   services	
   will	
   always	
   have	
   the	
  
potential	
  to	
  reignite	
  old	
  tensions.	
  The	
  coming	
  elections	
  are	
  also	
  expected	
  to	
  provide	
  
a	
   potential	
   flashpoint,	
   but	
   while	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   respondents	
   expressed	
   some	
  
trepidation	
  on	
  that	
  front,	
  all	
  respondents in	
  the	
  key	
  informant	
  interviews	
  and	
  focus	
  
groups seemed	
   confident that	
   peace	
   in	
   their	
   communities	
   would last	
   for	
   a	
  
considerable	
  time.	
  Some	
  were	
  more	
  confident	
  than	
  others:
‘I	
  give	
  my	
  guarantee	
  that	
  that	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  no	
  more	
  conflict	
  here	
  in	
  the	
  future.’
(Youth	
  Leader,	
  Terminal)
Certainly,	
   those	
   communities	
   who	
   have	
   alleviated	
   communal	
   tensions	
   through	
   the	
  
provision	
   of	
   amenities	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
   Projects	
   have	
   a	
   strong	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
18
chance	
   of	
   perpetuating	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   Laletek.	
   As	
   well	
   as	
   addressing	
   a	
   source	
   of	
  
conflict,	
  these	
  amenities,	
  as	
  one	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  member	
  claimed,	
  also	
  serve	
  a	
  symbolic	
  
value:
‘They (the	
   Small	
   Infrastructure	
   Projects) serve	
   as	
   a	
   monument	
   to	
   their	
   joint	
  
achievement	
  as	
  a	
  community.’
While	
  all	
  communities	
  expressed	
  a	
  desire	
  for	
  Laletek	
  to	
  continue	
  or	
  that	
  they	
  receive	
  
some	
   kind	
   of	
   ongoing	
   support,	
   a number	
   of	
   communities	
   already	
   had	
   plans	
   to	
  
continue	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  the	
  CPDGs,	
  with	
  one	
  community	
  planning	
  to	
  convene	
  monthly	
  
meetings	
  after	
   the	
   conclusion	
   of	
   the	
   Laletek	
   project.	
  Another	
   said	
   that	
   they	
  would	
  
collect	
  money	
  from	
  the	
  community	
  to	
  put	
  towards	
  small	
  infrastructure	
  projects. One	
  
community,	
  Terminal,	
  also	
  had	
  a	
  plan	
  to	
  maintain	
  their	
  new	
  facilities.
‘We	
   have	
   already	
   prepared	
   a	
   youth	
   leadership	
   structure	
   so	
   that	
   we	
   can	
  
continue	
   to	
   work	
   together	
   after	
   the	
   conclusion	
   of	
   Laletek.’	
   (Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia,
Metin	
  04)
The	
   DJPC,	
   who	
   currently	
   have	
   two	
   staff	
   trained	
   in	
   ANV	
   methodology,	
   plans	
   to	
  
continue	
  the	
  ANV	
  training	
  by	
  integrating	
  it	
  with	
  other	
  programs.	
  One	
  avenue	
  will	
  be	
  
the	
  TLPI	
  workshops,	
  held	
   twice	
  a	
  year	
  and	
  the	
  Youth	
  Development	
  Program,	
  which	
  
has	
  weekly	
  and	
  monthly	
  meetings	
  and	
  works	
  in	
  three	
  Parishes	
  covering	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
Laletek	
  areas.	
  Participants	
  for	
  the	
  TLPI	
  training	
  are	
  drawn	
  from	
  all	
  of	
  Dili.	
  There	
  will	
  
also	
   be	
   a	
   general	
   assembly	
   once	
   a	
   year	
   where	
   ANV	
   training	
   will	
   be	
   held	
   and	
   also	
  
possibly	
   during	
  the	
   Christmas	
   season	
   Day	
   of	
   Reflection.	
   Community	
   dialogues	
   will	
  
also	
  be	
  held	
  under	
  the	
  auspice	
  of	
  the	
  DJPC	
  Human	
  Rights	
  Division.
The	
   DJPC	
   have	
   also	
   submitted	
   a	
   proposal	
   to	
   the	
   government,	
   accepted	
   by the	
  
Minister	
  of	
  Culture,	
  to	
  continue	
  the	
  Dahur	
  competition on	
  an	
  annual	
  basis.
The	
   DJPC	
   currently	
   have	
   funding	
   until	
   2013	
   but	
   one	
   or	
   two	
   funders	
   are	
   unsure	
  
beyond	
  that,	
  although	
  both	
  the	
  UNDP	
  and	
  MSS	
  have	
  been	
  asking	
  for	
  proposals.	
  They	
  
will	
   also	
   look	
   at	
   the	
   Prime	
   Minister’s	
   Office	
   Civil	
   Society	
   Fund but	
   this	
   only	
   offers	
  
funding	
  up	
  to	
  $10,000. Staffing	
  will also continue	
  to	
  present	
  a	
  challenge	
  as	
  trained,	
  
competent	
  staff	
  tend	
  to	
  get	
  poached	
  by	
  other	
  organizations	
  offering	
  higher	
  salaries.
According	
  to	
  Laletek	
  staff,	
  project	
  impact	
  will	
  continue	
  through a	
  number	
  of	
  avenues	
  
such through trained	
  community	
  groups	
  and	
  leaders	
  holding regular	
  meetings	
  of	
  the	
  
Conflict	
  Prevention	
  Network	
  (RPK)	
  at	
  the	
  sub-­‐district	
  level,	
  the	
  collection	
  of	
  incident	
  
reports	
   by	
   LNGO	
   Belun;	
  support	
   for	
   conflict	
   resolution	
   training	
   needs,	
   community	
  
development	
   and	
   engagement	
   activities	
   by the	
   Department	
   of	
   Peacebuilding	
   and	
  
Social	
  Cohesion; dialogue	
  and	
  advocacy	
  from	
  the	
  Martial	
  Arts	
  Group	
  (FESTIL)	
  and	
  the	
  
Secretary	
  of	
  State	
  for	
  Youth	
  and	
  Sport.	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
19
6. Challenges
A	
   staff	
   reflection	
  workshop	
  was	
   held	
  where staff	
  were asked	
   to	
  identify	
   the	
  issues	
  
they	
  faced	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  six	
  beneficiary	
  aldeias surveyed	
  for	
  the	
  evaluation,	
  and	
  the	
  
strategies	
   they	
   adopted	
   to	
   deal	
   with	
   these	
   challenges.	
   While	
   a	
   solution	
   was	
   not	
  
found for	
  every	
  problem,	
  here	
  are	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  strategies	
  staff	
  used	
  to	
  address	
  some	
  
of	
   these	
   issues. Given	
   that	
   some	
   issues	
   such	
   as	
   described	
   above	
   were	
   common	
   to	
  
most	
  of	
  the	
  aldeias,	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation,	
  they	
  are	
  summarised	
  here:
1. Problems	
  with	
   local	
   authorities: In	
  a	
   number	
   of cases	
   there	
  was	
  little	
   or	
   no	
  
coordination	
   between	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  and	
   Chefe	
  De	
   Suko,	
   or	
  between	
  
the	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia	
   and	
   community,	
   or	
   local	
   authorities	
   refused	
   to	
  
collaborate	
   with	
   Laletek	
   staff.	
   In	
   other	
   cases, community	
   leaders	
   were	
  
involved	
  in	
   politics,	
  and	
   claimed	
   Laletek	
  achievements	
  as	
   their	
   own	
   party’s,	
  
which	
   created	
   difficulties	
   for	
   Laletek	
   staff	
   who	
   don’t	
   want	
   to	
   appear	
   to	
   be	
  
endorsing	
  any	
  particular	
  party.	
  
While	
  not	
  always	
  successful,	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  tried	
  to	
  resolve	
  impasses	
  with	
  local	
  
authorities	
  by	
  approaching	
  alternative	
  sources	
  of	
  authority,	
  working through	
  
established	
  groups,	
  for	
  example, such	
  as	
  the	
  Dahur	
  Dance	
  Teams,	
  the	
  Theatre	
  
Groups	
   or	
   the	
   Youth	
   Development	
   Groups,	
   or	
   by	
   identifying other	
   leaders	
  
with influence	
   such	
   as	
   martial	
   arts	
   group	
   or	
   youth	
   leaders.	
   While	
   this	
  
approach	
  paid	
  dividends	
  in	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  cases,	
  there	
  was	
  one	
  complaint	
  from	
  
a	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  that	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  had	
  ‘gone	
  behind	
  their	
  back’,	
  illustrating	
  
the	
   need	
   to	
   conduct	
   such	
  strategies	
  with	
   utmost	
   sensitivity	
  and	
   tact. In	
   the	
  
case	
   of	
   enmity	
   between	
   local	
   authorities,	
   Laletek	
   staff	
   offered	
   to	
   mediate	
  
between	
  them,	
  acting	
  as	
  a	
  bridge, as	
  one	
  staff	
  member	
  described	
  it.	
  
In	
  terms	
  of	
  communication, it	
  was	
  acknowledged	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  
different	
   ways	
   of	
   communicating	
   with	
   the	
   community	
   and	
   leaders,	
   both	
  
informal	
  and	
   formal.	
   People	
  may	
  know	
  about	
  an	
  event,	
   for	
  example,	
  if	
   told	
  
informally	
   through	
  a	
  sibling,	
   friend	
  etc.	
  but	
  may	
  not	
  attend	
  unless	
  informed	
  
by	
  the	
  ‘appropriate’	
  source	
  e.g.	
  a	
   figure	
  of	
  respect	
  or	
  authority,	
  or	
  a	
  Laletek	
  
staff	
   member	
   themselves. It	
   was	
   agreed	
   that	
   more	
   attention	
   would	
   be	
  
devoted	
   to	
   addressing	
   this	
   problem	
   in	
   future	
   to	
   ensure	
   clear	
   lines	
   of	
  
communication.
2. Martial arts	
   group	
   conflict: While	
   in	
   some	
   cases	
   martial	
   arts	
   group	
   conflict	
  
represents	
   communal	
   conflict,	
   in	
   some	
   cases	
   it	
   is	
   separate,	
   and	
   despite	
   a	
  
community’s	
  best	
  efforts,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  Fatuhada	
  02	
  or	
  Metin	
  04,	
  MAG	
  conflict	
  
endures.	
   In	
   the	
   case	
   of	
  Metin	
   04,	
   Laletek	
   conducted	
   door	
   to	
   door	
   visits	
   to	
  
listen	
   to	
   the	
   perspectives	
   of	
   families	
   of	
   youth	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
   conflict,	
   and	
  
also	
   utilised	
   local	
   Church	
   leaders	
   in	
   dialogue. It	
   was	
   also	
   suggested	
   that	
   in	
  
similar	
   seemingly	
   intractable	
   situations, it	
   was	
   advisable	
   to	
   repeat	
   the	
   ANV	
  
training	
  session	
  to	
  reinforce	
  community	
  commitment	
  to	
  resolve	
  conflict,	
  and	
  
encourage	
   new	
   community	
   leaders	
   to	
   participate.	
   This	
   was	
   also	
   seen	
   as	
   a	
  
possible	
  solution	
  to	
  hostility	
  between	
  formal	
  community	
  leaders.	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
20
3. Lack	
  of	
  respect	
  for	
  community	
  leaders: Sometimes	
  formal	
  community	
  leaders	
  
do not	
   have	
   the	
   trust	
   or	
   respect	
   of	
   the	
   community-­‐in	
   one	
   case, as	
   she	
   is	
   a	
  
woman.	
  While	
  it	
  was	
  acknowledged	
  that	
  sometimes	
  there	
  were	
  deep	
  rooted	
  
causes	
   for	
   a	
   community	
   leaders’	
   unpopularity,	
   it	
   was	
   suggested	
   that	
  
community	
  leaders	
  be	
  mentored,	
  trained	
  and	
  supported	
  to	
  hold	
  Tara	
  Bandu
ceremonies,	
   both	
  to	
   raise	
   the	
   consciousness	
   of	
   the	
   community	
   about	
   such	
  
traditions	
   and	
   at	
   the	
   same	
   time, to	
   increase	
   the	
   community’s	
   trust	
   and	
  
confidence	
  in	
  their	
  leaders.
4. Community	
   asking	
   for	
   much	
   greater	
   funding	
   than	
   is	
   available: In	
   situations	
  
where	
   the	
   community’s	
   aspirations	
   are	
   beyond	
   the	
   scope	
   of	
   the	
   Small	
  
Infrastructure	
  Fund,	
  staff	
  responded	
   that	
   the	
  community	
  should	
  be	
  assisted	
  
in	
  proposal	
  writing	
  and	
  linked	
  up	
  with	
  the	
  relevant	
  government	
  authorities.
5. Community	
   or	
   leadership	
   are	
   unmotivated	
   or	
   expect money: Make	
   people	
  
feel	
  that	
  they	
  own	
  the	
  problem	
  and	
  the	
  solution,	
  so	
  that	
  the	
  people	
  involved	
  
in	
  conflict	
  become	
  ‘owners	
  of	
  peace’. Staff	
  agreed	
  that	
  this	
  takes	
  a	
  long	
  time	
  
but	
  this	
  approach	
  has	
  clearly	
  worked	
  in	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  areas,	
  such	
  as	
  Terminal,	
  
where	
  people	
  and	
  community	
  leaders	
  were	
  previously	
  expecting	
  payment	
  in	
  
return	
  for	
  participation.
Lessons	
  Learned	
  in	
  Summary
While	
   not	
   all	
   problems	
   were	
   resolved	
   and	
   some	
   communities	
   continue	
   to	
   present	
  
challenges,	
  the	
  Laletek	
  staff	
  have	
  shown	
  through	
  their	
  responses	
  to	
  these	
  challenges	
  
that	
   they	
   have	
   adopted	
   a	
   creative	
   and	
   flexible	
   approach	
   to	
   problem	
   solving	
   and	
  
community	
   engagement	
   strategies	
   and an	
   ability	
   to	
   reflect	
   on	
   their	
   current	
  
strategies	
  and	
  adapt where	
  necessary.	
  Their	
  patience	
  and	
  perseverance	
  in	
   the	
   face	
  
of	
  such	
  challenges	
  was	
  also	
  evident	
  and	
  the	
  result	
  in	
  Metin	
  04	
  is	
  a	
  particular	
  example	
  
of	
   where	
   this	
   approach	
   has	
   shifted	
   previously	
   seemingly	
   intractable	
   attitudes,	
  
bringing	
  remarkable	
  dividends.
Not	
   taking	
   static	
   formal	
   leadership	
   for	
   granted	
   was	
   another	
   central	
   lesson,	
   as	
   the	
  
leaders	
  are	
  sometimes	
   themselves	
   the	
  source	
  of	
   the	
  problem.	
  Alternative	
   forms	
  of	
  
leadership	
  and	
  influence	
  should	
  be	
  sought,	
  involving	
  youth	
  and	
  women	
  in	
  particular,	
  
but	
  done	
  with	
   sensitivity	
   so	
   that	
   formal	
  leadership	
  is	
   not	
  undermined	
  at	
   the	
   same	
  
time,	
  as	
  one	
  leader	
  complained in	
  this	
  evaluation.
Another	
   strong	
   message	
   to	
   emerge	
   from	
   the	
   workshop, that	
   marks	
   the	
   Laletek	
  
approach	
   as	
   different	
   from	
   other	
   approaches, is	
   community	
   ownership.	
   Resisting	
  
community	
   and	
   leaders’ appeals	
   for	
   reimbursement	
   and	
   encouraging	
   them	
   to	
   talk	
  
about	
   their	
   problems	
  and	
   take	
   the	
  initiative	
   themselves,	
  while	
   it	
  is	
  hard	
  work,	
   has	
  
ensured	
   the	
   future	
  long-­‐term success	
  of	
   this	
  project	
  where	
  others	
  have	
   failed.	
  This	
  
was	
   often	
   pointed	
   out	
   in	
   interviews for	
   this	
   evaluation in	
   areas	
   where	
   there	
   had	
  
often	
   been	
   multiple	
   interventions, which	
   had	
   in	
   some	
   cases	
   only	
   brought	
   more	
  
conflict	
  than	
  peace.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
21
The	
   main	
   conclusion	
   that	
   can	
   be	
   drawn	
   is	
   that	
   successful	
   peacebuilding	
   requires	
  
imagination,	
   flexibility	
  and	
  a	
  long-­‐term	
  approach,	
  which	
  have	
  been	
  lacking	
  in	
  many	
  
approaches	
  in	
  the	
  past,	
  where	
  programs	
  have	
  been	
  often	
  implemented	
  mechanically	
  
with	
  little	
  regard	
   for	
  the	
  realities	
  on	
  the	
  ground	
  or	
   for	
  outcomes.	
  As	
  one	
  informant	
  
for	
   this	
  evaluation	
  described	
  it,	
  in	
   the	
  past	
   there	
  has	
  been	
  “too	
  much	
  emphasis	
  on	
  
spending	
  the	
  money	
  rather	
  than	
  resolving	
  the	
  problem	
  itself”.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
22
Conclusion
The	
   Laletek	
   project	
   has	
   been	
   well	
   coordinated,	
   with	
   sound	
   methodology	
   and	
  
effective	
   use	
   of	
   funds,	
   receiving	
   overwhelmingly	
   positive	
   feedback.	
   From	
   the	
   data	
  
gathered	
  for	
  this	
  final	
  evaluation,	
  this	
  project	
  has	
  brought	
  about	
  real	
  change	
  in	
  most	
  
communities	
  where	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  implemented.	
  Even	
  where	
  project	
  activities	
  have	
  not	
  
been	
  fully	
  implemented	
  due	
  to	
  factors	
  described	
  above,	
  there	
  has	
  still been at	
  least	
  
a	
  major	
  reduction	
  in	
  conflict.
While	
  a	
  significant	
  amount	
  of	
  communities	
  now	
  enjoy	
  peace	
  largely	
  due	
   to	
  Laletek	
  
activities,	
   the	
   increased	
   capacity	
   and	
   confidence	
   of	
   the	
   staff	
   involved	
   is	
   an	
  
achievement	
   in	
   itself.	
   Laletek	
   staff	
   (and	
   through	
   their	
   involvement	
   with	
   Laletek	
  
project, some	
  staff of	
  other	
  agencies) now	
  have	
  considerable	
  and	
  enviable	
  expertise	
  
in	
  community	
  engagement	
  and	
  mobilization strategies,	
  and	
  have	
  learned new	
  skills	
  
in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  other	
  areas.	
  Such	
  human	
  resources will	
  provide	
  a	
  valuable	
  resource	
  for	
  
peacebuilding	
  efforts	
  in	
  the	
  future. The	
  success	
  of	
  the	
  project	
  so	
  far	
  is	
  a	
  testament	
  to	
  
their	
  skills	
  and	
  ingenuity.
The	
   project	
   methodology,	
   of	
   course,	
   has	
   played	
   a	
   major	
   part	
   in	
   this	
   success	
   for	
   a	
  
number	
   of	
   reasons,	
   but	
   especially	
   for	
   its	
   ability	
   to	
   implement	
   long-­‐term	
  relational
and	
   structural	
   change while	
   also	
   retaining	
   the	
   flexibility	
   to	
   be	
   responsive	
   to	
  
immediate	
   concerns	
   and	
   new	
   situations. As	
   the	
   case	
   in	
   Faulara	
   demonstrates,	
   the	
  
ability	
   to	
  engage ‘spoilers’	
  and	
  informal	
  groups in	
  community	
  projects and	
   treating	
  
them	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  has	
  also	
  been	
  a	
  major	
  contributing	
  factor.	
  Utilising	
  an	
  
intuitive	
   approach	
   to	
   peacebuilding	
   through	
  strengthening local	
   conflict	
   resolution	
  
potential and	
   mechanisms,	
   instead	
   of	
   imposing	
   ‘readymade’	
   external	
   models,	
   has	
  
also	
  clearly	
  created	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  community	
  ownership	
  of	
  the	
  process.
As	
  with	
   the	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation,	
  progress	
  was	
   not	
   uniform	
  across	
  all	
  aldeias, with
some	
   aldeias	
   continuing to	
   present	
   challenges	
   and	
   so	
   project	
   implementation	
   has	
  
stalled in	
   those	
   communities.	
   	
   While	
   according	
   to	
   staff	
   assessments,	
   these	
  
communities	
   themselves	
  or	
   their	
  leaders	
  are	
   the	
  obstacles	
   to	
   further	
  progress,	
   the	
  
example	
  of	
  Comoro	
  Metin	
  04	
   has	
   shown	
   the	
   dividends	
  of	
   persistence	
  and	
  creative	
  
thinking.	
  
Nonetheless,	
   as	
   stated	
   above,	
  the	
   data	
   from	
   this	
   evaluation	
   has	
   shown	
   that	
   while	
  
not	
  every	
  aldeia	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  total	
  success	
  story,	
  there	
  still	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  clear	
  reduction,
or	
   total	
   cessation	
   of	
   conflict	
   in	
   most	
   of	
   its	
   target	
   areas.	
   There	
   is	
   every	
   reason	
   to	
  
believe,	
  an	
   upcoming	
  election	
   notwithstanding,	
   that	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   this	
   project	
  will	
  
endure	
  well	
  beyond	
  its	
  conclusion.	
  This	
  conclusion	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  belief	
  that	
  due	
  to	
  
Laletek’	
   s	
   long	
   term,	
   multifaceted	
   approach,	
   the	
   innovation	
   and	
   novelty	
   of	
   its	
  
methods	
  and	
  sheer	
  patience	
  and	
  perseverance,	
  communities	
  have	
  been encouraged	
  
to	
  take	
  the	
  initiative	
  themselves	
  and	
  therefore	
  take	
  ownership,	
  and	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  best	
  
guarantee	
  of	
  sustainability.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
23
Recommendations
1) As	
   the	
   Laletek	
   Project	
   nears	
   its	
   conclusion,	
   it	
   would	
   be regrettable if this	
  
forward	
   momentum	
   was lost.	
   While	
   most	
   communities	
   involved	
   in	
   this	
  
project	
   now	
   enjoy	
   peace,	
   some	
   of	
   their	
   neighbouring	
   communities	
   do	
   not.	
  
Experience	
  in	
  Dili	
  in	
  the	
  past	
  has	
  shown	
  that	
  just	
  as	
  peace	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  flow	
  on	
  
effect,	
   so	
   can	
   conflict.	
   It	
   is	
   recommended	
   here	
   that	
   the	
   Laletek	
   Project	
  
continue, but	
   in	
   a	
   much	
   abridged	
   form,	
   and	
   be	
   focused	
   on	
   two	
   clusters	
   of	
  
neighbouring	
   communities	
   that	
  include	
  a	
  mix	
   of	
  past	
   beneficiaries	
  and	
   new	
  
communities,	
   both	
   to	
   reinforce	
   past	
   gains	
   and	
   extend	
   these	
   gains	
   to	
   new	
  
communities.	
   Past	
   beneficiary	
   communities	
   could	
   also	
   support	
   and	
   mentor	
  
new	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  process,	
  for	
  example,	
  as	
  community	
  members	
  from	
  
20	
   Septembru did	
   in	
   Metin	
   04.	
   Two	
   suggested	
   areas	
   are	
   the	
   communities	
  
surrounding	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  the	
  bus	
  Terminal,	
  Becora,	
  along	
  the	
  path	
  of	
  the	
  river	
  
and	
  also	
  the	
  aldeias	
  in	
  the	
  Bebonuk	
  area. At	
  the	
  very	
  least,	
  perhaps	
  the	
  non-­‐
beneficiary	
  aldeias	
  adjoining	
  beneficiary	
  areas	
  could	
  be	
  targeted.
2) It	
  is	
  also	
  strongly	
  recommended	
  that	
  given	
  Laletek’s	
  successes	
  in	
  Dili,	
  that	
  it	
  
be	
   trialled	
  in	
   rural	
  areas	
  which	
  have	
  some	
  of	
   the	
  worst	
  and	
  longest	
   running	
  
conflicts	
   in	
   the	
   country.	
   One	
   suggested	
   area	
   is	
   Baucau	
   city,	
   where	
   CRS	
  
already have	
  a	
  presence	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  a prominent	
  Baucau	
  Diocese.	
  Another	
  is	
  
Uatolari	
  in	
  Viqueque	
  or	
  Atsabe	
  in	
  Ermera.	
  There	
  is	
  strong	
  evidence	
  to	
  suggest	
  
that	
  through	
  constant	
  circular	
  and	
  permanent	
  rural	
  urban	
  migration,	
  conflicts	
  
in	
  these	
  regions also affect	
  conflicts	
  in	
  DIli.
3) After	
   five	
   years	
   of	
   intensive	
   peacebuilding	
   efforts,	
   there	
   is	
   currently no	
  
accessible	
   document or	
   record	
   that	
   might	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   build	
   on	
   or	
   inform	
  
future	
  peacebuilding	
  efforts.	
  	
  It	
  is	
   strongly	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
  learnings	
  
from	
  this	
   project	
   be	
   distilled	
   in	
   a	
   publically	
   available	
  report	
   or	
  manual that	
  
can	
   be	
   utilised	
   by	
   government	
   peacebuilding	
   departments	
   and	
   other	
  
agencies,	
  local	
  or	
  international,	
  for	
  future	
  peacebuilding	
  projects.
4) Responses	
   to	
   the	
   crisis	
   of	
   2006-­‐7	
   revealed	
  a	
   dearth	
   of	
   people	
   qualified	
  and	
  
experienced	
  in	
  community	
  engagement	
  and	
  peacebuilding	
  methodologies.	
  It	
  
is	
   recommended	
   here	
   that	
   a	
   detailed	
   database	
   of	
   staff	
   employed	
   on	
   this	
  
project	
  be	
  compiled,	
  containing	
  information	
  about	
  roles,	
  experience,	
  relevant	
  
expertise	
  and	
  training	
  undertaken be	
  maintained, so	
  that	
  this	
  knowledge	
  and	
  
expertise	
  is	
  available	
   to	
  other	
  agencies	
   for	
   future	
  needs and	
  possible	
   future	
  
emergencies.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
24
Annexures
Annex	
  1:	
  Methodology
The	
  evaluation	
  tools	
  were	
  developed	
  in	
  consultation	
  with	
  Laletek	
  staff,	
  designed	
  to	
  
capture	
   the	
   five main	
   criteria	
   as	
   set	
   out	
   by	
   the	
   CRS	
   ‘Reflective	
   Peacebuilding	
  
Manual’2 of:
1. Appropriateness/Relevance
2. Effectiveness
3. Efficiency
4. Impact	
  (at	
  personal,	
  relational,	
  structural	
  and	
  cultural	
  level)
5. Sustainability
Sixteen	
   focus	
   groups	
   were	
   conducted	
   (divided	
   into	
  men’s	
   and	
   women’s	
   groups)	
   in	
  
eight	
  aldeias.	
  Two	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  areas	
  (formerly	
  in	
  conflict	
  with	
  beneficiary	
  areas)	
  
were	
  selected,	
  along	
  with	
  four	
  beneficiary	
  aldeias	
  seen	
  as	
  successful	
  and	
  two	
  seen	
  as	
  
unsuccessful	
   (there	
   were	
   originally	
   to	
   be	
   three	
   of	
   each;	
   Comoro	
   Metin	
   04	
   was	
  
originally	
  deemed	
  as	
  unsuccessful	
  but	
  during	
  the	
  planning	
  process	
  for	
  the	
  evaluation	
  
it	
  became	
  a	
  success	
  story	
  instead).
No. Place Status No.	
  Men No.	
  Women
1 Terminal,	
  Camea successful 7 11
2 Mascarenhas	
  06 successful 7 8
3 Toko	
  Baru successful 3 8
4 Comoro	
  Metin	
  04 successful 26 0
5 Comoro	
  Fatuhada	
  02 unsuccessful 3 8
6 Caqeularan,	
  Becora unsuccessful 7 4
7 Aldeia	
  Mate	
  Lahotu non-­‐beneficiary 7 6
8 Toko	
  Baru	
  II,	
  Kuluhun non-­‐beneficiary 5 5
TOTAL 65 50
Co-­‐facilitator	
  Vital	
  Barreto,	
  accompanied	
  by	
  note	
  taker	
  Queizar	
  Savio,	
  conducted	
  the	
  
women’s	
   groups,	
   and	
   the	
   evaluator	
   James	
   Scambary,	
   accompanied	
   by	
   note	
   taker	
  
Altino	
   Freitas,	
   conducted	
   the	
   men’s	
   focus	
   groups.	
   All	
   focus	
   group	
   discussion	
   was	
  
conducted	
  in	
  Tetum	
  without	
  an	
  interpreter.
There	
  were	
  21 Key	
  Informant	
  Interviews	
  (see	
  Annex	
  2)	
  with	
  project	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  
partners.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   2Lederach,	
  John	
  Paul,	
  Reina	
  Neufeldt	
  and	
  Hal	
  Culbertson,	
  2007,	
  ‘Reflective	
  Peacebuilding:	
  A	
  Planning,	
  Monitoring	
  and	
  
Learning	
  Toolkit’ available	
  online	
  at	
  http://www.crs.orgwww.crs.org and	
  http://kroc.nd.edu	
  	
  	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
25
A	
  group	
  interview	
  was	
   conducted	
  with	
   JPC	
   staff	
  at	
   their	
   office, and	
  a	
   full	
   day	
   staff	
  
reflection	
   was	
   held	
   at	
   the	
   CRS	
   office	
   with	
   combined	
   JPC	
   and	
   Laletek	
   staff	
  
participating.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
26
Annex	
  2:	
  Sources	
  Interviewed
Name Role	
  and	
  Organization
1 Leonito	
  Guterres Head	
   of	
   Unity,	
   Dialogue	
   and	
   Mediation
Ministry	
  of	
  Social	
  Solidarity
2 Carmen	
  Ribeiro	
  de	
  Jesus Assistant	
   to	
   Dialogue	
   and	
   Mediation,	
  
Department	
   of	
   Peacebuilding	
   and	
   Social	
  
Cohesion,	
   Ministry	
   of	
   Social	
   and	
  
Solidarity
3 Jose	
  Belo UNDP Program	
  Analyst
4 Domingos	
  Maia Community	
   Police,	
   National	
   Police	
  
(PNTL)
5 Maria	
  Emilia Dahur	
  Coordinator	
  Fatuhada	
  02
6 Serafim	
  Mechado Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  Metin	
  04
7 Antonio	
  Soibada PSHT	
  Leader	
  Metin	
  04
8 Cornelio CPDG	
  leader	
  Mascarenhas	
  06
9 Judit	
  Dos	
  Santos Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  Toko	
  Baru
10 Eugenio	
  Sarmento Secretary	
  of	
  State	
  for	
  Culture
11 Mateus	
  Valenti Chefe	
  de	
  Suku	
  Mascarenhas
12 Manuel	
  C.	
  Freitas Chefe	
  Aldeia	
  Terminal
13 Celestino Youth	
  Coordinator	
  Bedois	
  and	
  Terminal
14 Ricky	
  Gonsalves Jesuit	
  Relief	
  Services
15 Fatima	
  Sanches	
   Chefe	
  Aldeia	
  02	
  Fatuhada
16 Into	
  Parada Youth	
  Leader	
  Caceularan
17 Cris	
  Caetano Trocaire	
  Programe	
  Officer
18 Sister	
  Clare	
  Garcillano JPC	
  Director
19 Agustinho	
  G.	
  da	
  Silva Finance	
  Manager	
  of	
  CRS/TL
20 Florentino	
  Sarmento CRS	
  Head	
  of	
  Office	
  Baucau
21 Catharina	
  Maria Director	
  Laletek
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
27
Annex	
  3:	
  Survey	
  Tool
CRS	
   designed	
  a	
   set	
   of	
   tools	
  as	
   set	
   out	
   below,	
  which	
  were	
   further	
   refined	
  together	
  
with	
  the	
  consultant:
Table	
  1: Evaluation	
  Questions	
  and	
  Tools
Evaluation	
  Questions FGD	
   w/	
  
beneficiary
FGD	
   w/	
  
non-­‐
beneficiary
Staff	
  
Reflection
KII	
   w/	
  
community	
  
&	
   group	
  
leaders
KII	
   w/	
   gov	
  
officials	
  
(incl.	
   sub-­‐
district	
   &	
  
line	
  
ministries)
KII	
   w/	
  
NGOs,	
  
PBWG
Appropriateness (relevance	
   of	
   objectives	
   to	
   community,	
   needs	
   assessment,	
   gender	
   strategy,	
   community	
  
participation,	
  targeting	
  criteria	
  and	
  selection	
  methods,	
  timeliness)	
  
• Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
  
given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
X x X x x
Was	
   participation	
   from	
  
partner/stakeholder	
   groups	
  
involved	
   in	
   planning,	
  
implementation	
   and	
  
monitoring	
   of	
   project	
   activities	
  
enough?	
  Why/why	
  not?
X X x
Was	
   the	
   strategy	
   to	
   increase	
  
women’s	
   involvement	
   in	
  
project	
   activities	
   appropriate?	
  
Why?
X X
Why	
   project	
   activities	
  
implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
  
communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
X x X x
Was	
   the	
   communication	
  
strategy	
  appropriate	
  in	
  utilizing	
  
groups	
   in	
   communities	
   other	
  
than	
   the	
   aldeia	
   chiefs	
  
contributed	
   towards	
   project	
  
implementation?	
   E.g.	
   parish	
  
priests	
   and	
   leaders	
   of	
   other	
  
existing	
   groups	
   in	
   the	
  
community,	
   including	
   martial	
  
arts	
   groups,	
   ritual	
   arts	
   groups,	
  
and	
   youth	
  and	
  women	
  groups;	
  
especially	
   in	
   the	
   aldeias	
   where	
  
their	
  chiefs	
  are	
  not	
  very	
  active.
x
Was	
   the	
   accompaniment	
   of	
  
CRS	
   and	
   partner	
   staff	
   to	
  
community	
  leaders	
  appropriate	
  
to	
   minimize	
   gaps	
   between	
  
opposing	
  groups?
x x x x
Effectiveness	
  (met	
  planned	
  outputs	
  on	
  time,	
  M&E	
  System,	
  incorporation	
  of	
  learning	
   from	
  mid-­‐term,	
  enhancing	
  
partner	
  capacity)
• What	
   are	
   the	
   obstacles	
   to	
  
program	
   effectiveness?	
   How	
  
can	
   these	
   obstacles	
   be	
  
overcome?
x
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
28
How	
   effective	
   have	
   the	
  
incident	
   reports	
  contributed	
   to	
  
monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
   the	
  
aldeias?	
   Have	
   the	
  
youth/community	
   shown	
  
ownership	
   of	
   the	
   incident	
  
reports?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?	
  
x x x x
How	
  well	
  was	
  the	
  M&E	
  System	
  
worked	
   during	
   the	
   life	
   of	
   the	
  
project?	
   How	
   to	
   improve	
  M&E	
  
for	
   a	
   similar	
   project?	
   Was	
   our	
  
M&E	
   system	
   effective	
   in	
  
informing	
  project	
  management	
  
decisions	
   and	
   identifying	
  
project	
  impact?
x
What	
   is	
   the	
   success	
   rate	
   from	
  
the	
   direct	
   accompaniment	
   of	
  
staff	
   in	
   proposal	
   and	
   budget	
  
development	
   for	
   community	
  
leaders	
   in	
   obtaining	
   external	
  
funding	
   for	
   their	
   local	
  
activities/	
  development?
x x
Has	
   the	
   community	
   conflict	
  
monitoring	
   improved	
   since	
   the	
  
start	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  
aspect	
   of	
   the	
   project	
  
contributed	
   to	
   this	
  
improvement?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
x x x
Efficiency (cost	
   per	
   beneficiary,	
   ratio	
   of	
   programming	
   to	
   admin	
   costs,	
   staffing	
   structure,	
   human	
   resources,	
  
coordination)
How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
  
coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
  
CRS,	
  JPC	
  and	
  the	
  Peace	
  building	
  
working	
   group	
   members	
   and	
  
the	
   government	
   officials	
   and	
  
bodies?
x x x x
Was	
   the	
   mechanism	
   to	
   ensure	
  
transparency	
   in	
   constructing	
  
the	
   community-­‐based	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
  
sufficient?	
  If	
  not,	
  why?
x x
Have	
   the	
   project	
   been	
  
executed	
  efficiently	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
the	
   ratio	
   between	
  
programming	
   to	
   admin	
   costs?	
  
Why	
  &	
  why	
  not?
x
How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
  
coordination	
   and	
   division	
   of	
  
work	
  between	
  CRS	
  and	
  Partner	
  
staff	
  in	
  organization	
  of	
  events?
x
Were	
   there	
   clear	
   roles	
   and	
  
responsibilities	
   for	
   CRS	
   and	
  
Partner	
  staff?
x
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
29
What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
  
future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?	
  
x x x x x
Impact (achievement	
   of	
   SO	
   and	
   IR	
   impact	
   indicators,	
   positive	
   and	
   negative	
   impact,	
   planned	
   and	
   unplanned,	
  
differential	
  impact	
  on	
  different	
  community,	
  HHs,	
  individuals)
Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
  
Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
  
not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
x x x x x
What	
   percentage	
   of	
  
community	
   members	
   perceive	
  
positive	
   relations	
   between	
  
opposing	
   groups	
   at	
   the	
   end	
   of	
  
the	
  project?
x x
How	
   many	
   identified	
   violent	
  
conflict	
   between	
   opposing	
  
groups	
   are	
   resolved	
   at	
   the	
  
aldeia	
  level?	
  
x x x
Were	
   some	
   types	
   of	
   conflicts	
  
more	
   successfully	
   mitigated	
  
than	
  others?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?
x x x x
Did	
   the	
   social	
  
contracts/traditional	
   laws	
  
signed	
   and	
   disseminated	
  
contribute	
   to	
   the	
   number	
   of	
  
incidents	
  resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  
level?	
  If	
  not,	
  what	
  did?
x x x
What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
  
significant	
   change	
   at	
   personal	
  
level?	
  Different	
  impact	
  on	
  male	
  
and	
   female	
   (youth	
   and	
   adult)?	
  
How	
   have	
   Laletek	
   project	
  
activities	
   attributed	
   to	
   each	
   of	
  
this	
  change?
X X
What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
  
significant	
   change	
   in	
  
relationships	
   between	
  
opposing	
   groups?	
   How	
   have	
  
Laletek	
   project	
   activities	
  
attributed	
   to	
   each	
   of	
   this	
  
change?
X X
What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
  
significant	
   change	
   in	
   structure	
  
and	
   system?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  
project	
   activities	
   attributed	
   to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
X X
What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
  
significant	
   change	
   in	
   cultural	
  
patterns?	
   How	
   have	
   Laletek	
  
project	
   activities	
   attributed	
   to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
X X
Percentage	
   of	
   citizens	
  
knowledgeable	
   of	
   their	
   civic	
  
roles,	
   rights	
   and	
  
x x
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
30
responsibilities?	
   How	
   have	
  
Laletek	
   project	
   activities	
  
attributed	
   to	
   this	
   increase	
   of	
  
knowledge?	
  
Did	
   youth/communities	
   adopt	
  
the	
   promoted	
   non-­‐violent	
  
principles?	
   	
  If	
   so,	
  what	
  are	
   the	
  
evidences	
   of	
  a	
   shift	
  in	
   the	
  way	
  
communities	
   deal	
   with	
  
conflicts?	
  
What	
   were	
   the	
   barriers	
   to	
  
increase	
   adoption	
   of	
   these	
  
principles?
x x x
How	
   has	
   the	
   infrastructure	
  
projects	
  contributed	
  in	
  bringing	
  
peace	
   to	
   the	
   targeted	
  
communities?	
  
x x
How	
   is	
   the	
   relationship	
  
between	
   infrastructure	
   work	
  
teams	
   (involving	
   opposing	
  
groups)	
   and	
   their	
   communities	
  
after	
   project	
   completed?	
   If	
  
they	
   involved	
   in	
   conflicts	
   after	
  
the	
  project,	
  why?	
  
x x x
Have	
   there	
   been	
  
improvements	
   in	
  
communication	
   and	
   trust	
  
between	
   community	
   leaders	
  
and	
   members	
   (youth	
   and	
  
women)	
   as	
   a	
   result	
   of	
   Laletek	
  
project?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  
not?
x x x
What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  
the	
  project? X X X X X X
What	
   are	
   the	
   main	
   challenges	
  
of	
  the	
  project? X X X
Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
  
changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
x x X X
Sustainability	
   (capacity	
   of	
   community	
   organizations	
   and	
   committees,	
   value	
   in	
   community	
   of	
   continuing	
  
behaviors,	
  other	
  proxies	
  of	
  sustainability)
What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  
end	
   of	
   the	
   project?	
   /	
   Will	
  
project	
   activities	
   be	
   continued	
  
by	
  other	
  entities?	
  
x x x x x
What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
  
the	
   CPDG	
   (and	
   youth	
   groups,	
  
Grupu	
   Manutensaun	
  
Fasilidade,	
  FOSKA,	
  Comunidade	
  
Igreja	
   Base)	
   will	
   continue to	
  
function	
   (in	
  support	
  of	
  Chief	
  of	
  
Aldeia/Suco)	
   after	
   the	
   project?	
  
If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
x x x x
What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
  
youth	
  in	
   targeted	
   communities	
  
will	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
  initiative	
  
x x x x
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
31
and	
   participate	
   in	
   their	
   local	
  
community	
  development?	
  
Is	
  there	
  any	
  maintenance	
  plans	
  
for	
   the	
   completed	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
   post-­‐
Laletek?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   are	
   the	
  
indications	
   that	
   the	
  
communities	
   will	
   adhere	
   to	
  
these	
  plans?
x x x x
What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
  
the	
   increase	
   in	
   partner’s	
  
capacity	
   will	
   ensure	
  
sustainability	
   of	
   project	
  
results?
x
What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
  
this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
   with	
   CRS,	
   DJPC,	
  
stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
x x x x x x
Table	
  2: Tool	
  Outline	
  and	
  Methodology
Evaluat
ion	
  
Tool
Information	
  Needs:	
  Questions/topics/indicators	
  to	
  be	
  included Who?	
  
Respondent(s)/c
omparison	
  
groups
How: #	
   and	
  
strategy	
   for	
  
random	
   sample;	
  
#	
   and	
  
perspectives	
  
needed	
   for	
  
purposive	
  
sample.
Notes: for	
  
selection	
   of	
  
respondents,	
  etc.
FGD	
  
with	
  
benefic
iary
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Was	
   participation	
   from	
   partner/stakeholder	
   groups	
  
involved	
   in	
   planning,	
   implementation	
   and	
   monitoring	
   of	
  
project	
  activities	
  enough?	
  Why/why	
  not?	
  
3. Was	
   the	
   strategy	
   to	
   increase	
   women’s	
   involvement	
   in	
  
project	
  activities	
  appropriate?	
  Why?	
  
4. Why	
   project	
   activities	
   implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
   communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
5. Was	
   the	
   accompaniment	
   of	
   CRS	
   and	
   partner	
   staff	
   to	
  
community	
  leaders	
  appropriate	
  to	
  minimize	
  gaps	
  between	
  
opposing	
  groups?
6. How	
   effective	
   have	
   the	
   incident	
   reports	
   contributed	
   to	
  
monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
   the	
   aldeias?	
   Have	
   the	
  
youth/community	
   shown	
   ownership	
   of	
   the	
   incident	
  
reports?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?
7. Has	
  the	
  community	
  conflict	
  monitoring	
  improved	
  since	
  the	
  
start	
   of	
   the	
   project?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   project	
  
contributed	
  to	
  this	
  improvement?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
8. Was	
   the	
   mechanism	
   to	
   ensure	
   transparency	
   in	
  
constructing	
   the	
  community-­‐based	
  infrastructure	
  projects	
  
sufficient?	
  If	
  not,	
  why?
9. Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
   Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
   not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
10. What	
   percentage	
   of	
   community	
   members	
   perceive	
  
Male	
   (72)	
   and	
  
Female	
   (72)	
  
beneficiaries,	
  
total	
   144	
  
respondents	
  
(from	
   6	
  
targeted	
  
aldeias).	
  
The	
   6	
   targeted	
  
aldeias,	
   i.e.	
   3	
  
successful	
  
aldeias	
  
(Terminal,	
   06	
  
Mascarenhas,	
   &	
  
Toko	
   Baru),	
   and	
  
3	
  less-­‐successful	
  
aldeias	
  
(Fatuhada	
   02,	
  
Caqeu	
   Laran,	
   &	
  
Metin IV).
FGD	
   should	
   be	
  
limited	
   to	
  
community	
  
members	
   ONLY.	
  	
  
Chefe	
  
Suco/Aldeia/othe
r	
   groups	
   should	
  
not	
   participate	
   in	
  
any	
  of	
  the	
  FGDs.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
32
positive	
   relations	
  between	
  opposing	
  groups	
  at	
   the	
  end	
  of	
  
the	
  project?
11. How	
   many	
   identified	
   violent	
   conflict	
   between	
   opposing	
  
groups	
  are	
  resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?	
  
12. Were	
  some	
   types	
  of	
  conflicts	
  more	
  successfully	
  mitigated	
  
than	
  others?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?
13. Did	
   the	
   social	
   contracts/traditional	
   laws	
   signed	
   and	
  
disseminated	
   contribute	
   to	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   incidents
resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?	
  If	
  not,	
  what	
  did?
14. Percentage	
   of	
   citizens	
   knowledgeable	
   of	
   their	
   civic	
   roles,	
  
rights	
   and	
   responsibilities?	
   How	
   have	
   Laletek	
   project	
  
activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  this	
  increase	
  of	
  knowledge?
15. Did	
   youth/communities	
   adopt	
   the	
   promoted	
   non-­‐violent	
  
principles?	
  	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  are	
   the	
  evidences	
  of	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
   the	
  
way	
   communities	
   deal	
   with	
   conflicts?	
   What	
   were	
   the	
  
barriers	
  to	
  increase	
  adoption	
  of	
  these	
  principles?
16. How	
   has	
   the	
   infrastructure	
   projects	
   contributed	
   in	
  
bringing	
  peace	
  to	
  the	
  targeted communities?
17. How	
   is	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
   infrastructure	
   work	
  
teams	
   (involving	
  opposing	
  groups)	
  and	
   their	
  communities	
  
after	
  project	
  completed?	
  If	
  they	
  involved	
  in	
  conflicts	
  after	
  
the	
  project,	
  why?
18. Have	
   there	
   been	
   improvements	
   in	
   communication	
   and	
  
trust between	
   community	
   leaders	
   and	
   members	
   (youth	
  
and	
  women)	
  as	
  a	
   result	
   of	
   Laletek	
   project?	
  If	
   so,	
   how?	
  If	
  
not,	
  why	
  not?
19. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
20. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  project?
21. Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
   changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
22. What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  /	
  Will	
  
project	
  activities	
  be	
  continued	
  by	
  other	
  entities?
23. What	
  are	
  the	
  indications	
  that	
  the	
  CPDG	
  (and	
  youth	
  groups,	
  
Grupu	
   Manutensaun	
   Fasilidade,	
   FOSKA,	
   Comunidade	
  
Igreja	
  Base)	
  will	
  continue	
   to	
   function	
   (in	
   support	
  of	
  Chief	
  
of	
  Aldeia/Suco)	
  after	
  the	
  project?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
24. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   youth	
   in	
   targeted	
  
communities	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
   initiative	
   and	
  
participate	
  in	
  their	
  local	
  community	
  development?
25. Is	
   there	
   any	
   maintenance	
   plans	
   for	
   the	
   completed	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
   post-­‐Laletek?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   are	
   the	
  
indications	
   that	
   the	
   communities	
   will	
   adhere	
   to	
   these	
  
plans?
26. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
FGD	
  
with	
  
non-­‐
benefic
iary
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Why	
   project	
   activities	
   implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
   communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
3. Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
   Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
   not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
4. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
5. Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
   changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
6. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
Male(24)	
   and	
  
Female	
   (24)	
  
non-­‐
beneficiaries
Total	
   48	
  
respondents	
  
from	
   2	
   non-­‐
targeted/neighb
oring	
   aldeias,	
  
i.e.	
  Mate	
  la	
  hotu	
  
and	
   Moru	
  
Berlin.	
  
FGDs	
   with	
   non-­‐
target	
   beneficiary	
  
are	
   NOT	
   limited	
  
to	
   community	
  
members	
   ONLY.	
  	
  
Chefe	
  
Suco/Aldeia/othe
r	
   groups	
   could	
  
participate	
   in	
   any	
  
of	
  the	
  FGDs.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
33
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
Staff	
  
Reflecti
on
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Was	
   participation	
   from	
   partner/stakeholder	
   groups	
  
involved	
   in	
   planning,	
   implementation	
   and	
   monitoring	
   of	
  
project	
  activities	
  enough?	
  Why/why	
  not?
3. Was	
   the	
   strategy	
   to	
   increase	
   women’s	
   involvement	
   in	
  
project	
  activities	
  appropriate?	
  Why?
4. Why	
   project	
   activities	
   implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
   communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
5. Was	
   the	
   communication	
   strategy	
   appropriate	
   in	
   utilizing	
  
groups	
   in	
   communities	
   other	
   than	
   the	
   aldeia	
   chiefs	
  
contributed	
   towards	
   project	
   implementation?	
   E.g.	
   parish	
  
priests	
   and	
   leaders	
   of	
   other	
   existing	
   groups	
   in	
   the	
  
community,	
   including	
   martial	
   arts	
   groups,	
   ritual	
   arts	
  
groups,	
   and	
   youth	
   and	
   women	
   groups;	
   especially	
   in	
   the
aldeias	
  where	
  their	
  chiefs	
  are	
  not	
  very	
  active.
6. What	
   are	
   the	
   obstacles	
   to	
   program	
   effectiveness?	
   How	
  
can	
  these	
  obstacles	
  be	
  overcome?
7. How	
  well	
  was	
   the	
  M&E	
  System	
  worked	
   during	
   the	
  life	
   of	
  
the	
   project?	
   How	
   to	
   improve	
   M&E	
   for	
   a	
   similar	
   project?	
  
Was	
   our	
   M&E	
   system	
   effective	
   in	
   informing	
   project	
  
management	
  decisions	
  and	
  identifying	
  project	
  impact?
8. Has	
  the	
  community	
  conflict	
  monitoring	
  improved	
  since	
  the	
  
start	
   of	
   the	
   project?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   project	
  
contributed	
  to	
  this	
  improvement?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
9. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
JPC	
   and	
   the	
   Peace	
   building	
   working	
   group	
   members	
   and	
  
the	
  government	
  officials	
  and	
  bodies?
10. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   and	
   division	
   of	
   work	
  
between	
  CRS	
  and	
  Partner	
  staff	
  in	
  organization	
  of	
  events?
11. Were	
   there	
   clear	
   roles	
   and	
   responsibilities	
   for	
   CRS	
   and	
  
Partner	
  staff?
12. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
  between	
  CRS,	
  Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?
13. Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
   Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
   not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
14. How	
   many	
   identified	
   violent	
   conflict	
   between	
   opposing	
  
groups	
  are	
  resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?
15. Were	
  some	
   types	
  of	
  conflicts	
  more	
  successfully	
  mitigated	
  
than	
  others?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?
16. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   at	
   personal	
  
level?	
   Different	
   impact	
   on	
   male	
   and	
   female	
   (youth	
   and	
  
adult)?	
   How	
   have	
   Laletek	
   project	
   activities	
   attributed	
   to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
17. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
  
relationships	
  between	
  opposing	
  groups?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  
project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
18. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
   structure	
  
and	
  system?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  
to	
  each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
19. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
   cultural	
  
patterns?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
CRS	
   Laletek	
  
Staff	
   (3)	
  &	
   DJPC	
  
Staff	
  (5).
CRS	
   Project	
  
Director	
  and	
  DJPC	
  
acting	
   Director	
  
will	
   be	
  
interviewed	
  
separately.
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
34
20. Did	
   youth/communities	
   adopt	
   the	
   promoted	
   non-­‐violent	
  
principles?	
  	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  are	
   the	
  evidences	
  of	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
   the	
  
way	
   communities	
   deal	
   with	
   conflicts?	
   What	
   were	
   the	
  
barriers	
  to	
  increase	
  adoption	
  of	
  these	
  principles?
21. How	
   is	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
   infrastructure	
   work	
  
teams	
   (involving	
  opposing	
  groups)	
  and	
   their	
  communities	
  
after	
  project	
  completed?	
  If	
  they	
  involved	
  in	
  conflicts	
  after	
  
the	
  project,	
  why?
22. Have	
   there	
   been	
   improvements	
   in	
   communication	
   and	
  
trust	
   between	
   community	
   leaders	
   and	
   members	
   (youth	
  
and	
  women)	
  as	
  a	
   result	
   of	
   Laletek	
   project?	
  If	
   so,	
   how?	
  If	
  
not,	
  why	
  not?
23. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
24. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  project?
25. Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
   changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
26. What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  /	
  Will	
  
project	
  activities	
  be	
  continued	
  by	
  other	
  entities?
27. What	
  are	
  the	
  indications	
  that	
  the	
  CPDG	
  (and	
  youth	
  groups,	
  
Grupu	
   Manutensaun	
   Fasilidade,	
   FOSKA,	
   Comunidade	
  
Igreja	
  Base)	
  will	
  continue	
   to	
   function	
   (in	
   support	
  of	
  Chief	
  
of	
  Aldeia/Suco)	
  after	
  the	
  project?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
28. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   youth	
   in	
   targeted	
  
communities	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
   initiative	
   and	
  
participate	
  in	
  their	
  local	
  community	
  development?
29. Is	
   there	
   any	
   maintenance	
   plans	
   for	
   the	
   completed	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
   post-­‐Laletek?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   are	
   the	
  
indications	
   that	
   the	
   communities	
   will	
   adhere	
   to	
   these	
  
plans?
30. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   the	
   increase	
   in	
   partner’s	
  
capacity	
  will	
  ensure	
  sustainability	
  of	
  project	
  results?
31. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
KII	
  with	
  
commu
nity	
  	
  
and/or	
  
group	
  
leaders
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Was	
   participation	
   from	
   partner/stakeholder	
   groups	
  
involved	
   in	
   planning,	
   implementation	
   and	
   monitoring	
   of	
  
project	
  activities	
  enough?	
  Why/why	
  not?
3. Was	
   the	
   accompaniment	
   of	
   CRS	
   and	
   partner	
   staff	
   to	
  
community	
  leaders	
  appropriate	
  to	
  minimize	
  gaps	
  between	
  
opposing	
  groups?
4. How	
   effective	
   have	
   the	
   incident	
   reports	
   contributed	
   to	
  
monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
   the	
   aldeias?	
   Have	
   the	
  
youth/community	
   shown	
   ownership	
   of	
   the	
   incident	
  
reports?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?
5. What	
   is	
   the	
   success	
   rate	
   from	
   the	
   direct	
   accompaniment	
  
of	
   staff	
   in	
   proposal	
   and	
   budget	
   development	
   for	
  
community	
  leaders	
  in	
  obtaining	
  external	
   funding	
   for	
   their	
  
local	
  activities/	
  development?
6. Has	
  the	
  community	
  conflict	
  monitoring	
  improved	
  since	
  the	
  
start	
   of	
   the	
   project?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   project	
  
contributed	
  to	
  this	
  improvement?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
7. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
JPC	
   and	
   the	
   Peace	
   building	
   working	
   group	
   members	
   and	
  
the	
  government	
  officials	
  and	
  bodies?
8. Was	
   the	
   mechanism	
   to	
   ensure	
   transparency	
   in	
  
constructing	
   the	
  community-­‐based	
  infrastructure	
  projects	
  
Total	
   11	
  
respondents:	
  
-­‐ MAGs:	
   PSHT	
  
(1)
-­‐ CPDG	
  & other	
  
groups:	
   Chefe	
  
CPDG	
   06	
  
Mascarenhas	
  
(1),	
   Leader	
   of	
  
Dahur	
   Group	
  
02	
   Fatuhada	
  
(1),	
   Member	
  
CPDG	
   Youth	
  
Leader	
  
Terminal	
   (1),	
  
Leader	
  
Juventude	
  
Caqeu	
   Laran	
  
(1),	
  
-­‐ Chefe	
   Aldeia	
  
(4):	
   Metin	
   IV,	
  
Toko	
   Baru,	
  
Terminal,	
   02	
  
Fatuhada
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
35
sufficient?	
  If	
  not,	
  why?
9. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
  between	
  CRS,	
  Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?
10. Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
   Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
   not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
11. What	
   percentage	
   of	
   community	
   members	
   perceive	
  
positive	
   relations	
  between	
  opposing	
  groups	
  at	
   the	
  end	
  of	
  
the	
  project?
12. How	
   many	
   identified	
   violent	
   conflict	
   between	
   opposing	
  
groups	
  are	
  resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?
13. Were	
  some	
   types	
  of	
  conflicts	
  more	
  successfully	
  mitigated	
  
than	
  others?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?
14. Did	
   the	
   social	
   contracts/traditional	
   laws	
   signed	
   and	
  
disseminated	
   contribute	
   to	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   incidents	
  
resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?	
  If	
  not,	
  what	
  did?
15. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   at	
   personal	
  
level?	
   Different	
   impact	
   on	
   male	
   and	
   female	
   (youth	
   and	
  
adult)?	
   How	
   have	
   Laletek	
   project	
   activities	
   attributed	
   to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
16. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
  
relationships	
  between	
  opposing	
  groups?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  
project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
17. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
   structure	
  
and	
  system?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  
to	
  each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
18. What	
   has	
   been	
   the	
   most	
   significant	
   change	
   in	
   cultural	
  
patterns?	
  How	
  have	
  Laletek	
  project	
  activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  
each	
  of	
  this	
  change?
19. Percentage	
   of	
   citizens	
   knowledgeable	
   of	
   their	
   civic	
   roles,	
  
rights	
   and	
   responsibilities?	
   How	
   have	
   Laletek	
   project	
  
activities	
  attributed	
  to	
  this	
  increase	
  of	
  knowledge?
20. Did	
   youth/communities	
   adopt	
   the	
   promoted	
   non-­‐violent	
  
principles?	
  	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  are	
   the	
  evidences	
  of	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
   the	
  
way	
   communities	
   deal	
   with	
   conflicts?	
   What	
   were	
   the	
  
barriers	
  to	
  increase	
  adoption	
  of	
  these	
  principles?
21. How	
   has	
   the	
   infrastructure	
   projects	
   contributed	
   in	
  
bringing	
  peace	
  to	
  the	
  targeted	
  communities?
22. How	
   is	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
   infrastructure	
   work	
  
teams	
   (involving	
  opposing	
  groups)	
  and	
   their	
  communities	
  
after	
  project	
  completed?	
  If	
  they	
  involved	
  in	
  conflicts	
  after	
  
the	
  project,	
  why?
23. Have	
   there	
   been	
   improvements	
   in	
   communication	
   and	
  
trust	
   between	
   community	
   leaders	
   and	
   members	
   (youth	
  
and	
  women)	
  as	
  a	
   result	
   of	
   Laletek	
   project?	
  If	
   so,	
   how?	
  If	
  
not,	
  why	
  not?
24. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
25. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  challenges	
  of	
  the	
  project?
26. Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
   changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
27. What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  /	
  Will	
  
project	
  activities	
  be	
  continued	
  by	
  other	
  entities?
28. What	
  are	
  the	
  indications	
  that	
  the	
  CPDG	
  (and	
  youth	
  groups,	
  
Grupu	
   Manutensaun	
   Fasilidade,	
   FOSKA,	
   Comunidade	
  
Igreja	
  Base)	
  will	
  continue	
   to	
   function	
   (in	
   support	
  of	
  Chief	
  
of	
  Aldeia/Suco)	
  after	
  the	
  project?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
29. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   youth	
   in	
   targeted	
  
-­‐ Chefe	
   Suco:	
  
Mascarenhas	
  
(1)
-­‐ Youth	
  
Organizer	
  
Bidau	
   Santa	
  
Ana	
  (1).
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
36
communities	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
   initiative	
   and	
  
participate	
  in	
  their	
  local	
  community	
  development?
30. Is	
   there	
   any	
   maintenance	
   plans	
   for	
   the	
   completed	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
   post-­‐Laletek?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   are	
   the	
  
indications	
   that	
   the	
   communities	
   will	
   adhere	
   to	
   these	
  
plans?
31. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
KII	
   w/	
  
gov	
  
official
s	
   (incl.	
  
sub-­‐
district	
  
&	
   line	
  
ministri
es)
1. Was	
   the	
   accompaniment	
   of	
   CRS	
   and	
   partner	
   staff	
   to	
  
community	
  leaders	
  appropriate	
  to	
  minimize	
  gaps	
  between	
  
opposing	
  groups?
2. How	
   effective	
   have	
   the	
   incident	
   reports	
   contributed	
   to	
  
monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
   the	
   aldeias?	
   Have	
   the	
  
youth/community	
   shown	
   ownership	
   of	
   the	
   incident	
  
reports?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?
3. What	
   is	
   the	
   success	
   rate	
   from	
   the	
   direct	
   accompaniment	
  
of	
   staff	
   in	
   proposal	
   and	
   budget	
   development	
   for	
  
community	
  leaders	
  in	
  obtaining	
  external	
   funding	
   for	
   their	
  
local	
  activities/	
  development?
4. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
JPC	
   and	
   the	
   Peace	
   building	
   working	
   group	
   members	
   and	
  
the	
  government	
  officials	
  and	
  bodies?
5. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
  between	
  CRS,	
  Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?
6. Do	
   opposing	
   groups	
   respect	
   Peace	
   Pact	
   in	
   their	
  
communities?	
   Why	
   or	
   why	
   not?	
   What	
   has	
   Laletek	
  
attributed	
  to	
  this?
7. Did	
   the	
   social	
   contracts/traditional	
   laws	
   signed	
   and	
  
disseminated	
   contribute	
   to	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   incidents	
  
resolved	
  at	
  the	
  aldeia	
  level?	
  If	
  not,	
  what	
  did?
8. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
9. What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  /	
  Will	
  
project	
  activities	
  be	
  continued	
  by	
  other	
  entities?
10. What	
  are	
  the	
  indications	
  that	
  the CPDG	
  (and	
  youth	
  groups,	
  
Grupu	
   Manutensaun	
   Fasilidade,	
   FOSKA,	
   Comunidade	
  
Igreja	
  Base)	
  will	
  continue	
   to	
   function	
   (in	
   support	
  of	
  Chief	
  
of	
  Aldeia/Suco)	
  after	
  the	
  project?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
11. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   youth	
   in	
   targeted	
  
communities	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
   initiative	
   and	
  
participate	
  in	
  their	
  local	
  community	
  development?
12. Is	
   there	
   any	
   maintenance	
   plans	
   for	
   the	
   completed	
  
infrastructure	
   projects	
   post-­‐Laletek?	
   If	
   so,	
   what	
   are	
   the	
  
indications	
   that	
   the	
   communities	
   will	
   adhere	
   to	
   these	
  
plans?
13. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
Total	
   7	
  
respondents,	
  
i.e.	
   MSS	
   – Dept	
  
for	
   PB	
   and	
  
Social	
   Cohesion	
  
(2),	
   Secretary	
   of	
  
State	
   for	
  
Culture	
   (4),	
   and	
  
Community	
  
Police	
  (1).	
  
When	
   there	
   are	
  
more	
  
respondents	
  
representing	
  
one	
  
government	
  
office,	
   the	
   KII	
  
can	
   be	
   done	
   in	
  
group,	
   with	
   the	
  
respondent’s	
  
consent.
Alternatives: Sec	
  
of	
   State	
   for	
  
Security	
   – Nat.	
  
Directorate	
   for	
  
Community	
  
Conflict	
  
Prevention,	
   and	
  
Sec.	
   of	
   State	
   for	
  
Youth	
   and	
   Sport.	
  
However,	
   these	
  
respondents	
  were	
  
not	
   directly	
  
involved	
   in	
  
project	
  activities.
KII	
   w/	
  
NGOs,	
  
PBWG
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Why	
   project	
   activities	
   implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
   communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
3. Was	
   the	
   accompaniment	
   of	
   CRS	
   and	
   partner	
   staff	
   to	
  
community	
  leaders	
  appropriate	
  to	
  minimize	
  gaps	
  between	
  
opposing	
  groups?
4. How	
   effective	
   have	
   the	
   incident	
   reports	
   contributed	
   to	
  
monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
   the	
   aldeias?	
   Have	
   the	
  
youth/community	
   shown	
   ownership	
   of	
   the	
   incident	
  
Total	
   3	
   NGOs,	
  
i.e.	
   UNDP,	
  
Trocaire,	
  
JRS/BELUN,	
   and	
  
1	
   other	
   group:	
  
Escravas	
   Sisters	
  
in	
   Bebonuk	
  
(Metin	
  IV)
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
37
reports?	
  If	
  so,	
  how?
5. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
JPC	
   and	
   the	
   Peace	
   building	
   working	
   group	
   members	
   and	
  
the	
  government	
  officials	
  and	
  bodies?
6. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
  between	
  CRS,	
  Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?
7. Were	
  some	
   types	
  of	
  conflicts	
  more	
  successfully	
  mitigated	
  
than	
  others?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?
8. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
9. What	
  is	
  the	
  exit	
  strategy	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?	
  /	
  Will	
  
project	
  activities	
  be	
  continued	
  by	
  other	
  entities?
10. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
KII	
  with	
  
CRS	
  
Laletek	
  
Project	
  
Directo
r	
  
Same	
  questions	
  as	
  for	
  Staff	
  Reflection. Catharina	
  Maria
KII	
  with	
  
acting	
  
Directo
r	
  of	
  Dili	
  
Justice	
  
and	
  
Peace	
  
Commi
ssion	
  
(imple
mentin
g	
  
partner
)
Same	
  questions	
  as	
  for	
  Staff	
  Reflection. Sister	
   Clare	
  
Gracilano
KII	
  with	
  
Head	
  
of	
   CRS	
  
Baucau	
  
Office	
  
and	
  
Church	
  
Relatio
ns
1. Is	
   the	
   strategy	
   adopted	
   for	
   given	
   conflict	
   situations
appropriate	
  and	
  relevant?
2. Was	
   participation	
   from	
   partner/stakeholder	
   groups	
  
involved	
   in	
   planning,	
   implementation	
   and	
   monitoring	
   of	
  
project	
  activities	
  enough?	
  Why/why	
  not?
3. Why	
   project	
   activities	
   implemented	
   considered	
  
appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   targeted	
   communities	
   and	
   context	
   in	
  
Timor-­‐Leste?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
4. How	
   efficient	
   is	
   the	
   coordination	
   of	
   work	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
JPC	
   and	
   the	
   Peace	
   building	
   working	
   group	
   members and	
  
the	
  government	
  officials	
  and	
  bodies?
5. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
coordination	
  between	
  CRS,	
  Partner	
  and	
  the	
  Government?
6. What	
  are	
  the	
  main	
  successes	
  of	
  the	
  project?
7. Was	
   there	
   any	
   unplanned	
   changes/impact	
   resulted	
   from	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
8. What	
   are	
   the	
   indications	
   that	
   the	
   increase	
   in	
   partner’s	
  
capacity	
  will	
  ensure	
  sustainability	
  of	
  project	
  results?
9. What	
   have	
   you	
   learned	
   from	
   this	
   project	
   that	
   could	
   be	
  
shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  stakeholders	
  and	
  donor?
Florentino	
  
Sarmento
KII with	
  
CRS	
  
Financ
1. Have	
  the	
  project	
  been	
  executed	
  efficiently	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  
ratio	
   between	
   programming	
   to	
  admin	
   costs?	
  Why	
  &	
  why	
  
not?	
  
Agostinho	
   Da	
  
Silva
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
38
Simplified	
  Focus	
  Group	
  Questions
As	
   there	
   were	
   22	
   key	
   informant	
   interviews	
   with	
   considerably	
   varying	
   roles	
   and	
  
interactions	
  with the	
  project,	
  these	
  tools	
  were	
  adapted	
  according	
  to	
  each	
  source,	
  so	
  
the	
   modified	
   tools	
  will	
   not	
   be	
   individually	
   listed	
   here. For	
  the	
  focus	
   groups,	
   given	
  
often	
   low	
   education	
   levels	
   and	
   time	
   constraints,	
   these	
   questions	
   were	
   further	
  
adapted and	
  simplified from	
   the	
   tool into a	
   basic	
   set	
   of	
   18 questions,	
  which	
   were	
  
applied	
  consistently	
  across	
  all	
  focus	
  groups.	
  These are	
  listed	
  below.
1. Do	
  you	
  think	
  Laletek	
  activities	
  are	
  relevant	
  to	
  the	
  situation	
  in	
  your	
  community?	
  
To	
  you	
  personally?	
  How	
  and	
  why	
  are	
   they	
   relevant?	
  Do	
  you	
   think	
   that	
  Laletek	
  
activities	
  effectively	
  targeted	
  the	
  sources	
  of	
  conflict	
  in	
  your	
  community?
2. Are you	
   happy	
   with	
   the	
   way	
   Laletek	
   has	
   been	
   implemented	
   by	
   CRS	
   and	
   JPC	
  
partners?	
  If	
  so,	
  why?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
• Communication
• Coordination
• Inclusion	
  of	
  all	
  groups	
  in	
  activities?
3. Do	
  you	
  know	
  about	
   the	
  incident	
  report?	
  Have	
   the	
  incident	
  reports	
  contributed	
  
to	
  monitoring	
  peace	
  in	
  the	
  aldeias?	
  Who	
  is	
  completing	
  it?	
   (If	
  the	
  answer	
  is	
  the	
  
Chefe	
   De	
   Aldeia	
   or	
   Chefe	
   De	
   Suko)	
   are	
   youth	
   or	
   other	
   members	
   of	
   the	
  
community	
  involved	
  in	
  it?	
  
4. What	
   about	
   the	
   conflict	
   maps?	
   Have	
   they	
   contributed	
   to	
   monitoring	
   peace	
   in	
  
the	
  aldeias?	
  Who	
  is	
  completing	
  it?	
  If	
  the	
  answer	
  is	
  the	
  Chefe	
  De	
  Aldeia	
  or	
  Chefe	
  
De	
  Suko-­‐are	
  youth	
  or	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  involved	
  in	
  it?	
  Have	
  you	
  
learned	
  anything	
  from	
  the	
  maps	
  about	
  conflict	
  in	
  your	
  community?	
  (Ask them	
  to	
  
give	
  examples).
5. Were	
   you	
   happy	
   with	
   the	
   process	
   for	
   the	
   community-­‐based	
   infrastructure	
  
projects?	
  If	
   not,	
   why?	
   Did	
   you	
   understand	
   the	
   process?	
  Were	
   you	
   happy	
   with	
  
the	
  support	
  from	
  CRS	
  and	
  JPC	
  in	
  the	
  process?	
  What	
  could	
  be	
  improved?
6. Do	
   people	
   feel	
   that	
   they	
   now	
   know	
   more	
   about	
   of	
   their rights	
   and	
  
responsibilities	
   to	
   maintain	
   peace	
   and	
   participate	
   in	
   local	
   development?	
   How	
  
have	
  Laletek	
  project	
  activities	
  (ask	
  them	
  to	
  name	
  one)	
  attributed	
  to	
  this	
  increase	
  
of	
  knowledge?	
  
e	
  
Manag
er	
  
2. Was	
   the	
   mechanism	
   to	
   ensure	
   transparency	
   in	
  
constructing	
   the	
  community-­‐based	
  infrastructure	
  projects	
  
sufficient? If	
  not,	
  why?
3. Were	
   there	
   clear	
   roles	
   and	
   responsibilities	
   for	
   CRS	
   and	
  
Partner	
  staff	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  Financial	
  Management?
4. What	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   in	
   future	
   projects	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
financial	
   coordination	
   and	
   management	
   between	
   CRS,	
  
Partner	
  and	
  USAID?
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
39
7. What	
  was	
  the	
  situation	
  in	
  your	
  aldeia	
  like	
  before	
  the	
  Laletek	
  project	
  (be	
  specific-­‐
not	
  2006-­‐7-­‐in	
  the	
  year	
  before	
  the	
  project).
8. (Show	
  of	
  hands)	
  Have	
  you	
  experienced	
  conflict	
  in	
  your	
  community	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  six	
  
months?	
  How	
  many	
  times?	
  What	
  types?	
  Were	
  they	
  resolved	
  now?	
  If	
  yes/	
  if	
  no	
  
why?
9. (Show	
  of	
  hands)	
  How	
  many	
  people	
  think	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  more	
  positive	
  relations	
  
between	
  opposing	
  groups	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  project?
10. What	
  was	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  change	
  in	
  this	
  community	
  since	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  
the	
  Laletek	
  project?	
  
11. Do	
  you	
   think	
   this	
  change	
  was	
  a	
  direct	
   result	
  of	
   the	
  Laletek	
  project?	
  Or	
  outside	
  
factors?	
  Or	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  both?
12. If	
   it	
   is	
   the	
   result	
   of	
   Laletek	
   project,	
   which	
   particular	
   activity	
   or	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
  
project	
  approach	
  contributed	
  the	
  most	
  to	
  this	
  change?	
  
13. What	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  change	
  this	
  project	
  made	
  in	
  you	
  personally?	
  
14. Was	
  there	
  any	
  unexpected	
  changes/impacts,	
  negative	
  or	
  positive,	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  
the	
  project?	
  If	
  so,	
  what?
15. Do	
  you	
   think	
   that	
  youth	
  and	
   the	
  community	
  will	
  continue	
   to	
  work	
   together	
   to	
  
find	
   ways	
   to	
   prevent	
   conflict	
   and	
   help	
   their	
   community	
   after	
   the	
   project	
  
finishes?	
  If	
  not,	
  why	
  not?
16. Do	
  you	
  think	
  the	
  community	
  will	
  continue	
  the	
  project	
  activities	
  e.g.	
  CPDG?	
  small	
  
infrastructure,	
  mediation,	
  mapping?
17. Are	
   there	
   some	
   activities	
   that	
   you	
   would	
   like	
   to	
   see	
   continued	
   if	
   they	
   were	
  
supported?	
  (Ask	
  them	
  to	
  give	
  examples	
  and	
  why?
18. What	
  have	
  you	
  learned	
   from	
   this	
  project	
   that	
  could	
  be	
  shared	
  with	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  
stakeholders	
  and	
  donor	
  or	
  other	
  communities	
  outside	
  your	
  area?	
  How	
  could	
  the	
  
project	
  be	
  improved?
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
40
Annex	
  4: Documents	
  Reviewed
1. Fatuk	
  Fransisco	
  Press	
  Release	
  
2. Laletek’s	
  Achievements	
  January	
  2012-­‐02-­‐22	
  
3. Matrix	
  of	
  Activities	
  April	
  2011-­‐January	
  2012
4. Incident	
  Report	
  Data	
  Base
5. Laletek	
  Bulletin	
  April	
  2011
6. Press	
  release	
  ‘From	
  Troublemaker	
  to	
  Peace	
  Promoter:	
  The	
  story	
  of	
  Francisco	
  
Da	
  Cunha Douthel’	
  
7. Technical	
  Assistance	
  Report	
  (Myla	
  Leguro)
8. Peace	
  Pact	
  Process	
  Template
9. Press	
  release	
  ‘Projeitu	
  Komunidade	
  Kiikoan	
  Hakbesik	
  Grupu-­‐sira-­‐Terminal’
10. Press	
   release	
   ‘Projetu	
   Komunidade	
   Kiikoan	
   Hakbesik	
   Grupu-­‐sira	
   iha	
  
Aimetilaran’
11. ‘Building	
  Peace	
  and	
  Unity	
  through	
  Traditional	
  Dance’
12. Laletek	
  Project	
  Third	
  Semi-­‐Annual	
  Report
13. Laletek	
  Project	
  Fourth	
  Semi-­‐Annual	
  Report
14. Lederach,	
   John	
   Paul,	
   Reina	
   Neufeldt	
   and	
   Hal	
   Culbertson,	
   2007,	
   ‘Reflective	
  
Peacebuilding:	
  A	
  Planning,	
  Monitoring	
  and	
  Learning	
  Toolkit’	
  available	
  online	
  
at	
  http://www.crs.org and	
  http://kroc.nd.edu
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
41
Annex	
  5:	
  Scope	
  of	
  Work
Objectives	
  of	
  the	
  Final	
  Evaluation
The	
  final	
  evaluation	
  has	
  the	
  following	
  objectives:
1. To	
   evaluate	
   the	
   performance	
   of	
   Laletek	
   Project	
   based	
   on	
   standard	
   evaluation	
  
criteria,	
   i.e.	
   its	
   overall	
   effectiveness	
   and	
   efficiency,	
   its	
   relevance	
   and	
  
appropriateness	
  re	
  current	
  context,	
  impacts	
  (the	
  changes	
  at	
  personal,	
  relational,	
  
structural	
   and	
   cultural	
   dimensions),	
   and	
   sustainability	
   of	
   the	
   interventions	
  
beyond	
  2012.
2. To	
   contribute	
   towards	
   organizational	
   learning	
   through	
   the	
   documentation	
   of	
  
best	
   practices	
   and	
   lessons	
   learned,	
   and	
   provide	
   recommendations	
   for	
   future	
  
peace	
  building	
  projects	
  for	
  CRS,	
  DJPC,	
  USAID	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders	
  
Methodology
• All	
   relevant	
   project	
   documents	
   and	
   materials	
   will	
   be	
   made	
   available	
   by	
   CRS	
  
Laletek	
   Project	
  Staff	
   for	
   the	
  evaluator	
   prior	
   to	
   the	
  evaluation,	
  including	
   project	
  
proposal,	
   baseline	
   report,	
   mid-­‐term	
   evaluation	
   report,	
   six-­‐monthly	
   reports	
   to	
  
donor,	
  bulletins,	
  comic	
  book,	
  DVDs,	
  etc.	
  	
  
• Participatory	
   tools	
   such	
   as	
   Focus	
   Group	
   Discussions	
   (FGD)	
   and	
   Key	
   Informant	
  
Interviews	
  (KII)	
  with	
  project	
  beneficiary	
  and	
  non-­‐beneficiary	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  for	
  data	
  
collection	
   in	
   11	
   selected	
   project	
   locations,	
   where	
   project	
   activities	
   were	
  
implemented	
  from	
  March	
  2010	
  up	
  to	
  January	
  2012.	
  
ü The	
  target	
  interviewees	
  consisting	
  of	
  individuals	
  with	
  most	
  significant	
  change	
  
and	
  those	
  that	
  contribute	
  most	
  to	
  the	
  project	
  and	
  11	
  aldeias	
  to	
  be	
  evaluated	
  
have	
  been	
  identified	
  by	
  Laletek	
  project	
  team.
ü Staff	
  reflection	
  and	
  interviews	
  will	
  be	
  conducted	
  with	
  identified	
  CRS	
  staff	
  and	
  
partner	
  staff	
  (DJPC).	
  
• During	
   the	
  evaluation,	
   CRS	
   Laletek	
   Project	
   staff	
  will	
   be	
  assigned	
   to	
   support	
   the	
  
evaluator	
  in	
  community	
  organization	
  and	
  take	
  part	
  in	
  participatory	
  components.	
  
• Presentation	
   of	
   preliminary	
   findings	
   will	
   be	
   done	
   after	
   field	
   work	
   by	
   the	
  
evaluation	
   to	
   relevant	
   stakeholders,	
   including	
   but	
   not	
   limited	
   to	
   CRS,	
   USAID	
  
representatives,	
   the	
  Diocesan	
   Justice	
  and	
   Peace	
   Commission	
   of	
  Dili	
   (DJPC),	
  and	
  
other	
  relevant	
  stakeholders.	
  	
  
• Feedback	
  and	
  recommendation	
   from	
   the	
  presentation	
  will	
  be	
  incorporated	
  into	
  
the	
   Final	
   Report	
   by	
   the	
   evaluator.	
   The	
   report	
   will	
   be	
   presented	
   based	
   on	
   CRS	
  
evaluation	
   criteria,	
   i.e.,	
   relevance,	
   effectiveness,	
   efficiency,	
   impact	
   and	
  
sustainability,	
  along	
  with	
  recommendations	
  for	
  future	
  projects.	
  
Moreover,	
   CRS/TL	
   expects	
   the	
   evaluator	
   to	
   use	
   the	
   “Reflective	
   Peace	
   building	
   – A	
  
Planning,	
   Monitoring,	
   and	
   Learning	
   Tool	
   Kit”3 as	
   reference	
   in	
   the	
   design	
   and	
   the	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   3 Lederach,	
  John	
  Paul,	
  Reina	
  Neufeldt	
  and	
  Hal	
  Culbertson,	
  2007,	
  available	
  online	
  at	
  http://www.crs.orgwww.crs.org and	
  
http://kroc.nd.edu	
  	
  	
  
Laletek	
  Project	
  Final	
  Evaluation	
  
42
evaluation	
   process	
   to	
   measure	
   changes	
   at	
   the	
   personal,	
   relational,	
   structural	
   and	
  
cultural	
   dimensions	
   from	
   the	
   interventions	
   of	
   the	
   project.	
   Both	
   quantitative	
   and	
  
qualitative	
   data	
   collection	
   methods	
   should	
   be	
   used	
   appropriately	
   to	
   complement	
  
findings.
While	
   paying	
   attention	
   to	
   the	
   above	
   points,	
   the	
   evaluator	
   is	
   expected	
   to	
   propose	
  
evaluation	
  design	
  that	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  achieve	
  the	
  objectives	
  of	
  this	
  consultancy	
  using	
  
participatory	
  methods.
Deliverables
The	
  evaluators	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  complete	
  these	
  following	
  deliverables:
1) Review	
  project	
  proposal,	
  baseline	
  report,	
  mid-­‐term	
  evaluation	
  project,	
  bi-­‐annual	
  
reports,	
   samples	
   of	
   training	
   reports,	
   field	
   visit	
   reports	
   and	
   meeting	
   notes,	
   and	
  
monitoring	
  data,	
  prior	
  to	
  data	
  fieldwork.
2) Review	
  the	
  project	
  materials	
  produced	
  like	
  Active	
  Non-­‐Violence	
  Training	
  Manual,	
  
bulletins,	
  suku	
  profile,	
  comic	
  book,	
  dahur	
  competition	
  and	
  street	
   theatre	
  DVDs,	
  
and	
  others	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  evaluation.
3) In	
   consultation	
   with	
   project	
   team,	
   select	
   the	
   6	
   targeted	
   aldeias	
   for	
   evaluation	
  
using	
   best	
   and	
   worst	
   case	
   sampling	
   for	
   data	
   collection	
   activities	
   from	
   project	
  
beneficiaries	
   and	
   additional	
   aldeias	
   for	
   non-­‐project	
   beneficiaries.	
   Non-­‐
beneficiaries	
  are	
  people	
  living	
  at	
  neighboring	
  aldeias	
  who	
  have	
  had	
  conflicts	
  with	
  
project	
  beneficiaries	
  in	
  targeted	
  aldeias
4) Develop	
  and	
  propose	
  data	
  collection tools	
  and	
  analysis	
  methodologies	
   for	
  both	
  
beneficiary	
  and	
  non-­‐beneficiary,	
  based	
  on	
   final	
  evaluation	
  information	
  needs	
  to	
  
allow	
   comparison	
   with	
   baseline	
   data,	
   covering	
   quantitative	
   and	
   qualitative	
  
information	
   needs,	
   and	
   project	
   indicators.	
   Note:	
   baseline	
   data	
   included	
  
information	
   from	
   192	
   respondents	
   from	
   6	
   sukus.	
   Project	
   team	
  will	
   be	
  assigned	
  
tasks	
   to	
   review	
   tool	
   design,	
   participate	
   in	
   analysis	
   and	
   interpretation	
   sessions,	
  
and	
  also	
  provide	
  relevant	
  information	
  and	
  documents	
  to	
  the	
  evaluator.
5) Field-­‐test	
   and	
   finalize	
   all	
   data	
   collection	
   tools	
   and	
   analysis	
   components	
   after	
  
consultations	
  with	
  respondents	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders.	
  
6) Lead	
  data	
  collection	
  activities	
  directly	
  at	
  the	
  selected	
  respondents	
  and	
  locations,	
  
as	
  well	
  as	
  from	
  other	
  stakeholders,	
  and	
  CRS	
  and	
  partner	
  staff.
7) Lead	
   a	
   2-­‐day	
   participatory	
   analysis	
   workshop	
   and	
   facilitation	
   of	
   a	
   session	
   to	
  
identify	
  lessons	
  learned	
  with	
  project	
  team	
  and	
  CRS	
  senior	
  management
8) Present	
   preliminary	
   findings	
   and	
   recommendations	
   to	
   CRS,	
   partners	
   and	
  
stakeholders	
   -­‐ including	
   donor	
   (USAID)	
   and	
   representatives	
   from	
   government	
  
offices.
9) Incorporate	
   feedback	
   and	
   comments	
   from	
   CRS,	
   USAID,	
   partners	
   and	
   key	
  
stakeholders	
  on	
  the	
  preliminary	
  findings	
  into	
  the	
  draft	
  evaluation	
  report.	
  
10) Circulate	
  draft	
  evaluation	
  report	
  to	
  CRS,	
  DJPC	
  and	
  USAID	
  for	
  review	
  and	
  feedback
11) Submit	
  the	
  final	
  evaluation	
  report	
  presenting	
  an	
  executive	
  summary,	
  background	
  
of	
  the	
  evaluation,	
  methodology	
  of	
  the	
  evaluation,	
  findings	
  under	
  each	
  evaluation	
  
criteria	
  with	
  reference	
  to	
  personal,	
  relational,	
  structural	
  and	
  cultural	
  dimensions,	
  
followed	
   by	
   lists	
   of	
   lessons	
   learned	
   and	
   best	
   practices	
   and	
   also	
  
recommendations,	
  in	
  English	
  to	
  CRS	
  no	
  later	
  than	
  14	
  days	
  after	
  the	
  presentation.