Rift	  Valley	  Local	  
Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  II	  
(LEAP	  II)
Final	  Evaluation	  Report
Submitted	  by:
Judith	  McCallum,	  PhD
July	  25,	  2013
1
List	  of	  Acronyms
C4W	  –	  Cash	  for	  Work
CoP	  –	  Chief	  of	  Party
DPC	  –	  District	  or	  Divisional	  Peace	  Commission
EWER	  –	  Early	  Warning	  Early	  Response	  
GOK	  –	  Government	  of	  Kenya
IOM	  –	  International	  Organization	  of	  Migration
KTI	  –	  Kenya	  Transition	  Initiative
KYC	  –	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre
LPC	  – Location	  Peace	  Committee
LEAP	  II	  –	  Local	  Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  II	  project
MCK	  –	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya
NCCK	  –	  National	  Council	  of	  Churches	  of	  Kenya
NSC	  –	  National	  Steering	  Committee
COCS	  -­‐	  Officer	  Commanding	  Police	  Station
PC	  –	  Program	  Coordinator
PDF	  –	  Peace	  and	  Development	  Forum
PEV	  –	  Post	  Election	  Violence	  
TOT	  –	  Training	  of	  Trainers
USAID	  –	  United	  States	  Agency	  for	  International	  Development
WRPL	  –	  Women’s	  Rural	  Peace	  Link
WYI	  –	  Wareng	  Youth	  Initiative
YDC	  –	  Youth	  Development	  Coordinator
YSHG	  –	  Youth	  Self	  Help	  Groups
YYC	  –	  Yes	  Youth	  Can
2
Table	  of	  Contents
TABLE	  OF	  CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................2
LIST	  OF	  FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................4
LIST	  OF	  TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................4
EXECUTIVE	  SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................5
1.	  RATIONALE	  FOR	  THE	  EVALUATION..........................................................................................................8
2.	  METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................8
3.	  RESULTS	  OF	  THE	  LEAP	  II	  PROGRAM.......................................................................................................13
OBJECTIVE1: STRENGTHEN	  SUSTAINABLE	  MECHANISMS	  FOR	  CONFLICT	  MITIGATION	  AND	  RECONCILIATION...13
Result	  1.1	  Stakeholder	  mapping	  and	  conflict	  assessment	  done.................................................................. 14
Result	  1.2	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  established	  and/or	  strengthened ................................................ 14
Result	  1.3	  District	  leaders	  gain	  new	  leadership	  and	  consensus-­building	  skills	  to	  resolve	  problems
.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Result	  1.4	  	  32-­40	  district	  dialogue	  forums	  conducted	  that	  bring	  groups	  together	  to	  discuss	  and	  
resolve	  joint	  problems.................................................................................................................................................... 19
Result	  1.5	  Early	  warning	  and	  response	  systems	  established	  in	  8	  districts............................................. 21
Result	  1.6	  District	  and	  provincial	  leaders	  increase	  interaction	  through	  multi-­district	  and	  regional	  
forums................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
OBJECTIVE	  2: SPONSOR	  COMMUNITY	  DIALOGUES	  AND	  IMPLEMENT	  JOINT	  DEVELOPMENT	  PROJECTS	  THAT	  BUILD	  
BRIDGES	  AMONG	  DIVIDED	  COMMUNITIES	  AND	  DEMONSTRATE	  TANGIBLE	  BENEFITS	  TO	  COOPERATION .............22
Result	  2.1	  64	  communities	  engage	  in	  dialogue	  to	  promote	  reconciliation	  and	  identify	  projects	  for	  
implementation ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Result	  2.2a	  64	  community	  and	  district	  projects	  are	  implemented	  that	  demonstrate	  tangible	  
benefits	  to	  cooperation. ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Result	  2.2b	  Community	  members	  show	  increased	  willingness	  to	  cooperate	  across	  conflict	  lines.23
Result	  2.3	  Joint	  monitoring	  teams	  are	  established	  for	  all	  projects............................................................ 27
OBJECTIVE	  3: SUPPORT	  YOUTH	  INTEGRATION	  AND	  ADDRESS	  A	  KEY	  CAUSE	  OF	  VIOLENCE	  THROUGH	  YOUTH	  
LEADERSHIP	  TRAINING	  AND	  INCOME	  GENERATION	  ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................27
Result	  3.1	  Organizational	  capacity	  of	  local	  partner	  and	  YSHGs	  strengthened.................................... 28
Result	  3.2	  Young	  people	  gain	  new	  skills	  that	  help	  them	  earn	  an	  income	  and	  address	  daily	  
challenges............................................................................................................................................................................ 30
Result	  3.3a	  Youth	  implement	  at	  least	  40	  C4W	  activities	  that	  promote	  community	  development.31
Result	  3.3b	  Youth	  feel	  like	  they	  are	  making	  a	  positive	  contribution	  to	  their	  communities. ........... 32
Result	  3.4a	  Youth	  identify	  and	  implement	  at	  least	  40	  income-­generating	  activities........................ 33
Result	  3.4b	  Private	  sector	  mentors	  support	  youth	  entrepreneurs............................................................. 37
Result	  3.5	  8	  youth-­produced	  success	  stories	  published	  or	  aired	  on	  local	  media.................................. 38
4.	  COST	  EXTENSION	  RESULTS ........................................................................................................................38
OBJECTIVE	  1: STRENGTHEN	  TRANSFORMATIONAL	  PLATFORMS	  THAT	  PREVENT	  AND	  RESPOND	  TO	  LOCAL	  
CONFLICTS	  THAT	  THREATEN	  TO	  DESTABILIZE	  THE	  REGION.........................................................................................39
Result	  1.1	  Reach	  of	  DPCs	  and	  LPCs	  extended	  to	  address	  emerging	  inter-­community	  tensions.... 39
Result	  1.2	  Strengthened	  early	  warning/early	  response	  mechanisms...................................................... 40
OBJECTIVE	  2: PROMOTE	  PEACEFUL	  ELECTIONS	  THROUGH	  EDUCATION	  ON	  THE	  REFORM	  PROCESS	  AND	  THE	  
BENEFITS	  OF	  NON-­‐VIOLENCE..............................................................................................................................................42
3
Result	  2.1	  Electorate	  is	  more	  knowledgeable	  on	  reform	  efforts	  consistent	  with	  Agenda	  4	  of	  the	  
2008	  peace	  agreement. ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Result	  2.2	  Events	  and	  information	  campaigns	  to	  promote	  non-­violence,	  especially	  around	  the	  
elections. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Result	  2.3	  Stories	  about	  reconciliation	  documented	  and	  disseminated	  through	  Talking	  Circles 46
Result	  2.4	  Quick	  impact	  projects	  foster	  cooperation	  during	  the	  election	  season................................ 47
5.	  SYNTHESIS .......................................................................................................................................................49
CHALLENGES .........................................................................................................................................................................50
LESSONS	  LEARNT .................................................................................................................................................................51
EVALUATOR	  COMMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................52
ANNEXES ...............................................................................................................................................................53
ANNEX	  1:	  	  LIST	  OF	  RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................53
ANNEX	  2:	  	  LIST	  OF	  INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................................................55
ANNEX	  3:	  	  LIST	  OF	  FOCUS	  GROUP	  PARTICIPANTS ..........................................................................................................56
ANNEX	  4:	  	  PROJECTS	  VISITED ............................................................................................................................................60
ANNEX	  5:	  	  EVALUATION	  TOR............................................................................................................................................61
ANNEX	  6:	  	  FOCUS	  GROUP	  DISCUSSION	  GUIDE.................................................................................................................68
ANNEX	  7: END	  OF	  PROJECT	  HOUSEHOLD	  SURVEY
ANNEX	  8: DATA	  SET (SEPARATE	  FILE). ..........................................................................................................................85
4
List	  of	  Figures
Figure	  1	  Survey	  response	  per	  districts .......................................................................................................................10
Figure	  2	  Respondents	  by	  age...........................................................................................................................................11
Figure	  3	  Respondents	  by	  ethnic	  group .......................................................................................................................11
Figure	  4	  LEAP	  participation	  of	  respondents.............................................................................................................12
Figure	  5	  Awareness	  of	  peace	  existence.......................................................................................................................14
Figure	  6	  Awareness	  of	  existence	  of	  peace	  committees	  by	  district..................................................................15
Figure	  7	  Level	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  LPCs .......................................................................................................................15
Figure	  8	  Level	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  DPCs.......................................................................................................................16
Figure	  9	  Disputes	  referred	  to	  peace	  committees	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants ........................16
Figure	  10	  Strength	  of	  local	  mechanisms	  for	  peace ................................................................................................17
Figure	  11	  Interaction	  between	  district	  leaders.......................................................................................................21
Figure	  12	  Community	  Connector	  Bridge,	  Sachangwan........................................................................................23
Figure	  13	  Interaction	  across	  ethnic	  lines...................................................................................................................24
Figure	  14	  Trust	  between	  ethnic	  communities.........................................................................................................25
Figure	  15	  Tolerance	  in	  politics .......................................................................................................................................26
Figure	  16	  Exclusion	  by	  other	  ethnic	  groups .............................................................................................................26
Figure	  17	  Interest	  in	  sustainable	  peace	  by	  ethnic	  group ....................................................................................27
Figure	  18	  Kesses	  Youth	  Group	  greenhouses ............................................................................................................29
Figure	  19	  Youth	  participation	  in	  community	  action .............................................................................................31
Figure	  20	  Perceptions	  of	  youth	  participation	  in	  violence...................................................................................32
Figure	  21	  Reasons	  for	  youth	  involvement	  in	  crime	  or	  violence. .....................................................................33
Figure	  22	  Member	  of	  Hekima	  Development	  Skills	  in	  kiosk	  selling	  Amaranth...........................................36
Figure	  23:	  Map	  of	  project	  area........................................................................................................................................39
Figure	  24	  Perceptions	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  conflict	  mitigation	  actors .............................................................40
Figure	  25	  Role	  played	  in	  EWER......................................................................................................................................42
Figure	  26	  Politically	  instigated	  violence	  in	  communities ...................................................................................42
Figure	  27	  Understanding	  of	  Constitutional	  reforms	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants .................44
Figure	  28	  Understanding	  of	  legal	  and	  institutional	  reforms .............................................................................44
Figure	  29	  Impact	  of	  insecurity	  in	  investment	  in	  livelihoods .............................................................................45
Figure	  30	  Areas	  avoided	  because	  of	  insecurity .......................................................................................................46
Figure	  31	  Multi-­‐ethnic	  youth	  activities	  in	  communities......................................................................................48
List	  of	  Tables
Table	  1	  End	  of	  Project	  Survey	  District	  breakdown................................................................................................10
Table	  2	  Respondent	  by	  level	  of	  education.................................................................................................................12
Table	  3	  Attendance	  at	  peace	  events .............................................................................................................................20
Table	  4	  Anticipated	  economic	  condition	  in	  twelve	  months...............................................................................31
Table	  5:	  Analysis	  of	  Determinants	  of	  Youth	  Propensity	  Towards	  Political	  Violence	  	  in	  the	  Rift	  
Valley ...............................................................................................................................................................................34
Table	  6	  Youth	  average	  monthly	  income .....................................................................................................................38
Table	  7	  Level	  of	  understanding	  of	  constitutional	  reforms .................................................................................43
Table	  8	  Media	  stories	  during	  the	  LEAP	  II	  cost-­‐extension	  period ....................................................................46
Table	  9	  Quick	  impact	  projects	  planned	  and	  implemented.................................................................................47
5
Executive	  Summary
The	  USAID-­‐funded	  Rift	  Valley	  Local	  Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  (LEAP	  II)	  program	  was	  the	  
second	  phase	  of	  a	  peace building	  program	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley	  implemented	  by	  Mercy	  Corps,	  
built upon	  the	  successes	  and	  lessons	  learnt	  of	  the	  18-­‐month	  LEAP	  program.	  	  The	  two-­‐year	  
LEAP	  II	  project	  ran	  from	  July	  2010-­‐June	  2012,	  and	  was	  granted	  a	  one-­‐year	  cost	  extension	  
with	  a	  final	  end	  date	  of	  July	  3,	  3013,	  enabling	  Mercy	  Corps	  to	  address	  issues	  around	  the	  
March	  2013	  elections.	  	  	  The	  goals	  and	  objectives	  of	  the	  cost-­‐extension	  shifted, to	  reflect
the	  changed	  environment, narrowing	  the	  program	  focus	  while	  expanding its	  geographic	  
areas.
The	  primary	  focus	  of	  the	  extension	  was	  upon	  the	  2013	  elections,	  with	  support	  to	  the	  
peace	  committees,	  community	  early	  warning	  and	  the	  Uchaguzi	  Early	  Warning	  platform	  in	  
collaboration	  with	  other	  organizations.	  	  The	  program’s	  initial	  focus	  on	  youth	  activities	  was	  
dropped	  in	  the	  extension	  because	  of	  the	  Yes	  Youth	  Can	  (YYC)	  program	  that	  Mercy	  Corps,	  
and	  other	  organizations	  are	  implementing	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  The	  project’s	  strong	  focus	  on	  
strengthening	  local	  structures,	  particularly	  the	  various	  levels	  of	  Peace	  Committees	  
enabled	  it	  to	  address	  the	  causes	  of	  post	  election	  violence	  (PEV)	  in	  2008.
In	  its	  duration,	  the	  project	  had	  two	  main	  theories	  of	  change. The	  first	  theory	  was	  that	  the	  
economic	  empowerment	  of	  youth	  guards	  against	  their	  manipulation	  towards	  violence,	  
and the	  second being	  the	  strengthening	  of	  local	  structures	  in	  response	  to	  the	  causes	  of	  
post-­‐election	  violence enables	  them	  to	  sustain	  the	  peace	  in	  times	  of	  stress	  –	  such	  as	  during	  
election	  periods.	  	  While	  the	  extension	  period	  reduced	  its	  direct	  focus	  on	  youth	  it	  did	  
continue	  to	  engage	  them	  through	  the	  YYC	  Youth	  bunge	  structure,	  involving	  them	  in	  early	  
warning	  activities	  at	  the	  community	  level,	  and	  the	  Uchaguzi	  platform.	  	  Both	  theories	  were	  
appropriate	  to	  the	  context,	  and	  the	  project	  activities	  supported	  those	  theories by	  
addressing	  the	  results	  of	  the	  2008	  post	  election	  violence,	  and	  preparing	  for	  the	  2013	  
elections.	  	  Fortunately,	  the	  March	  2013	  elections	  were	  mostly	  peaceful, with	  some	  minor	  
issues	  that	  the	  structures	  were	  able	  to	  stop	  from	  escalating	  (for	  example	  there	  were	  
numerous	  reports	  of	  	  along the	  Nandi/Kisumu	  border).	  
The	  overall	  LEAP	  II	  Goal	  was	  to	  strengthen	  the	  ability	  of	  local	  structures	  to	  address	  causes	  
of	  post-­‐election	  violence	  and	  promote	  sustainable	  peace	  and	  reconciliation	  in	  the	  Rift	  
Valley	  province.	  In	  each	  of	  its	  three	  key	  objectives,	  the	  project	  was	  able	  to	  achieve	  
significant	  results:
1. Strengthen	  sustainable	  mechanisms	  for	  conflict	  mitigation	  and	  reconciliation.
Overall,	  it	  was	  clear	  from	  the	  focus	  group	  discussions	  and	  the	  interviews	  that	  the	  program	  
had	  achieved	  this	  objective	  by	  strengthening	  of	  a	  variety	  of	  community	  structures,	  
particularly	  the	  peace	  committees,	  from	  the	  district	  to	  the	  sub-­‐location,	  as	  well	  as	  other	  
structures	  such	  as	  elders,	  women,	  youth	  and	  religious	  groups	  in	  the	  community.	  	  The	  
LEAP	  team	  effectively	  utilized	  a	  training	  of	  trainer’s	  (TOT)	  approach	  to	  training,	  which	  
gave ownership	  to	  the	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  in	  terms	  of	  cascading	  the	  training	  
downwards,	  while	  at	  the	  same	  time	  expanding	  the	  reach	  of	  the	  training.	  	  	  	  While	  there	  are	  
6
some	  concerns	  related	  to	  the	  future	  of	  the	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  in	  the	  new	  
government	  structure,	  focusing	  on	  the	  other	  local	  structures	  built	  the	  sustainability	  of	  the	  
program.	  There	  was	  a	  high	  awareness	  of	  the	  DPCs,	  and	  over	  90%	  of	  the	  participants	  
surveyed	  felt	  that	  the	  local	  peace	  committees	  were	  either	  effective	  or	  very	  effective.	  
In	  addition	  to	  training,	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  also	  strengthened	  the	  connections	  between	  
the	  different	  structures,	  facilitating	  trust	  between	  the	  community	  and	  the	  peace	  
committees,	  and	  strengthening	  the	  relationship	  between	  the	  peace	  committees	  and	  the	  
government	  institutions	  through	  the	  joint	  trainings,	  support	  of	  dialogues	  and	  community	  
projects.
2. Sponsor	  community	  dialogues	  and	  implement	  joint	  development	  projects	  that	  
build	  bridges	  among	  divided	  communities	  and	  demonstrate	  tangible	  benefits	  
to	  cooperation.	  	  
Through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  over	  80 community	  dialogues	  were	  held	  by	  the	  various	  
government	  structures,	  from	  the	  district	  commissioners	  to	  the	  peace	  committees,	  on	  a	  
variety	  of	  issues,	  with	  a	  focus	  on	  the	  areas	  of	  high	  tension.	  These	  dialogues	  were	  identified	  
and	  driven	  by	  community	  issues,	  and	  had	  a	  high	  level	  of	  ownership	  by	  the	  peace	  actors.	  	  
Mercy	  Corps’	  support	  primarily	  concerned	  logistical	  support	  and	  facilitation,	  while	  the	  
peace	  actors	  identified	  and	  organized	  the	  activities.	  	  	  The	  project	  had	  targeted	  reaching	  
2400	  people	  at	  these	  events,	  but	  over	  exceeded	  this	  by	  almost	  double,	  reaching	  4435	  
participants.	  	  These	  dialogues	  were	  attributed	  with	  helping	  the	  communities	  to	  reduce	  the	  
tensions	  and	  build	  improved	  relationships	  between	  the	  communities.	  	  
The	  program	  also	  supported	  64	  joint	  reconstruction	  projects	  between	  conflicting	  
communities.	  The	  projects	  targeted	  particularly	  divided	  areas,	  and	  were	  selected	  by	  the	  
communities	  through	  intensive	  community	  consultation	  and	  dialogues.	  	  	  Mercy	  Corps	  was	  
successful	  in	  engaging	  the	  communities	  in	  the	  design,	  implementation	  and	  monitoring	  of	  
the	  programs	  at	  all	  levels,	  and	  in	  meetings	  with	  government	  and	  community	  members.	  In	  
addition,	  at	  all	  levels,	  there	  was	  a	  high	  level	  of	  knowledge	  of	  the	  different	  projects	  
supported	  through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program.	  	  The	  community	  connector	  projects	  had	  
significant	  symbolic	  meaning	  to	  the	  communities	  visited	  by	  the	  consultant.	  This	  was	  
particularly	  true	  of	  the	  bridge	  that	  reconnected	  two	  communities,	  which	  had	  been	  
removed	  during	  the	  post	  election	  violence	  in	  2008.	  	  	  	  In	  addition	  to	  their	  symbolic	  
meaning,	  the	  projects	  were	  also	  reported	  to	  have	  had	  great	  practical	  value	  –	  for	  example	  
in	  facilitating	  children	  being	  able	  to	  attend	  schools	  and	  access	  to	  services	  such	  as	  health	  
centers	  across	  the	  river.
3. Support	  youth	  integration	  and	  address	  a	  key	  cause	  of	  violence	  through	  youth	  
leadership	  training	  and	  income	  generation	  activities
There	  were	  two	  of	  different	  types	  of	  activities	  implemented	  through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program
that	  focused	  on	  youth:	   40 Cash	  for	  Work	  and	  40	  income-­‐generating	  projects.	  	  In	  all	  cases,	  
the	  projects were	  selected	  and	  identified	  with	  the	  primary	  focus	  of	  peace building,	  
building	  interaction	  and	  trust	  between	  the	  different	  ethnic	  communities	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley,	  
with	  the	  secondary	  objectives	  of	  economic	  empowerment of	  the	  youth.	  	  Unfortunately,	  the	  
economic	  success	  of	  the	  projects	  was	  diluted	  by	  the	  peace building	  focus,	  as	  working	  with	  
7
larger	  interethnic	  groups	  posed	  additional	  challenges,	  which	  had	  to	  be	  overcome	  in	  order	  
for	  the	  activities	  to	  be	  economically	  sustainable	  and	  successful.	  	  There	  was	  also	  much	  
higher	  participation	  in	  the	  projects	  than	  were	  initially	  anticipated;	  the	  C4W	  projects	  had	  
targeted	  600	  participants,	  but	  overall	  there	  were	  over	  800	  participants,	  and	  the	  IGA	  
projects	  had	  targeted	  200	  participants,	  but	  had	  over	  730	  participants,	  showing	  the	  high	  
interest	  in	  such	  activities.	  	  In	  addition,	  the	  youth	  who	  participated	  in	  the	  LEAP	  II	  project	  
reported	  a	  higher	  average	  monthly	  income	  than	  youth	  who	  did	  not	  participate.	  	  	  Likewise,	  
LEAP	  II	  participants	  were	  more	  aware	  of	  their	  monthly	  income,	  showing	  higher	  financial	  
literacy	  than	  non-­‐participants.
In	  addition,	  while	  the	  end	  of	  project	  survey	  showed	  a	  much	  lower	  impact	  of	  insecurity	  on	  
livelihoods	  compared	  with	  the	  baseline	  survey,	  the	  data	  also	  revealed	  that	  a	  higher	  
percentage	  of	  Luo	  community	  reported	  not	  investing	  in	  their	  livelihoods	  because	  of	  
insecurity	  than	  other	  ethnic	  groups.	  Likewise,	  a	  higher	  percentage	  of	  women	  reported	  
limiting	  their	  activities	  because	  of	  insecurity	  than	  men.
Cost-­Extension
The	  cost	  extension	  commenced	  in	  July	  2012,	  but	  its	  results	  fit	  into	  USAID’s	  September	  
2012-­‐August	  2013	  fiscal	  year.	  	  The	  extension	  changes	  some	  of	  the	  geographic	  locations	  of	  
the	  activities	  and	  streamlined the	  objectives	  and	  activities	  to	  focus	  primarily	  on	  the	  March	  
2013	  general	  elections.	  	  The	  project	  expanded	  into	  Trans	  Nzoia	  East	  and	  West	  Districts	  
and	  Sotik	  district	  of	  Bomet	  County,	  but	  dropped	  Keiyo	  North	  and	  Keiyo	  South	  districts.	  	  
The	  goal	  of	  the	  cost	  extension	  was	  to	  strengthen	  the	  capacity	  of	  local	  actors	  and	  
institutions	  in	  targeted	  counties	  to	  develop	  and	  advance	  sustainable	  peace,	  reconciliation	  
and	  norms	  of	  nonviolence	  based	  on	  justice,	  accountability	  and	  equality.	  This	  extension	  had
two	  key	  objectives:
1. Strengthen	  transformational	  platforms	  that	  prevent	  and	  respond	  to	  local	  
conflicts	  that	  threaten	  to	  destabilize	  the	  region.	  
Under	  the	  first	  objective,	  the	  reach	  of	  the	  peace	  committees	  was	  expanded	  and	  they	  
spearheaded	  the	  community	  early	  warning	  system,	  which	  engaged	  a	  broad	  base	  of	  
participants	  from	  across	  the	  communities.	  	  The	  strategy	  of	  using	  the	  youth	  bunges	  to	  
cascade	  the	  early	  warning	  to	  youth	  in	  the	  communities	  was	  also	  well	  received	  and	  youth	  
experienced	  a	  great	  sense	  of	  accomplishment	  in	  their	  ability	  to	  be	  positive	  peace	  actors	  
during	  the	  2013	  elections.	  	  The	  project	  also	  worked	  closely	  with	  women,	  particularly	  in
border	  areas,	  in	  a	  door-­‐to-­‐door	  peace	  campaign,	  to	  address	  inter-­‐ethnic	  conflicts,	  as	  well	  
as	  prepare	  for	  a	  peaceful	  election.	  	  The	  Uchaguzi	  early	  warning	  platform	  was	  less	  
successful	  than	  the	  community	  based	  system,	  and	  informants	  stated	  that	  the	  text-­‐message	  
platform	  had	  less	  trust	  within	  the	  communities.	  	  	  
2. Promote	  peaceful	  elections	  through	  education	  on	  the	  reform	  process	  and	  the	  
benefits	  of	  non-­violence
Overall,	  there	  was	  little	  violence	  during	  the	  March	  2013	  elections,	  and	  the	  project	  was	  
able	  to	  support	  the	  key	  actors	  (government,	  community)	  to	  address	  the	  areas	  of	  tension	  
8
that	  did	  arise	  in	  a	  timely	  manner.	  	  Through	  the	  civic	  education,	  the	  participants	  also	  
reported	  an	  increased	  understanding	  of	  the	  Constitutional	  Reforms,	  with	  most	  people	  of	  
the	  informants	  stating	  that	  they	  were	  in	  support	  of	  the	  reforms.	  	  Likewise,	  the	  end	  of	  
project	  survey	  found	  that	  the	  LEAP	  II	  participants	  had	  a	  significantly	  higher	  
understanding	  of	  the	  reform	  agenda	  than	  non-­‐participants.	  	  
Overall,	  participants	  exhibited	  a	  high	  level	  of	  ownership	  for	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  with	  
great	  pride	  expressed	  in	  their	  accomplishments	  in	  partnership	  with	  Mercy	  Corps.	  	  In	  
addition,	  while	  the	  current	  political	  context	  makes	  the	  sustainability	  of	  some	  of	  the	  
structures	  (particularly	  the	  District	  Peace	  Committees)	  uncertain,	  many	  of	  the	  activities	  
were	  designed	  with	  sustainability	  in	  mind.	  	  Two	  years	  after	  funding	  was	  provided	  to	  some	  
of	  the	  C4W	  and	  IGA	  activities,	  the	  consultant	  found	  that	  the	  groups	  were	  still	  active	  and	  
that	  they	  had	  expanded	  their	  operations	  and	  activities,	  using	  the	  Mercy	  Corps-­‐sponsored	  
activities	  as	  the	  seed	  for	  their	  current	  activities.
1.	  Rationale	  for	  the	  Evaluation
This	  external	  evaluation	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  project	  and	  it’s	  cost-­‐extension	  was	  commissioned	  
by	  Mercy	  Corp	  for	  donor	  reporting	  purposes,	  but	  also	  as	  an	  important	  internal	  document	  
for	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  its	  implementing	  partners.	  The	  importance	  of	  this	  documentation	  lies	  
in	   it’s	   measuring	   of	   the	   programmatic	   outcomes	   of	   LEAP	   II,	   as	   well	   as	   inform	   future	  
project	  identification,	   design	   and	  implementation,	   and	   as	   to	  inform	  Mercy	   Corp	   Kenya’s	  
strategy. While USAID	  had	  not	  stipulated	  a	  final	  external	  evaluation,	  the	  report	  will	  also	  be	  
a	  useful	  tool	  for	  USAID’s	  planned	  evaluation	  of	  its	  peace building	  activities	  in	  Kenya.
The	   evaluation	   examines	   the	   sustainability	   and	   overall	   action	   of	   the	   implemented	  
activities,	  as	  well	  as	  how they measure	  against	   the	  planned	  program	  results,	  impact	  and	  
goal.	  	  It	  includes	  recommendations	  based	  on	  these	  results,	  and	  necessary	  future	  activities	  
in	  light	  of	  the	  program.	  
2.	  Methodology
This	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  utilized	  both	  quantitative and	  qualitative	  methods	  in	  
collecting	  data	  through	  focus	  group	  discussions,	  in-­‐depth	  interviews,	  visits	  to	  project	  
activities	  (cash	  for	  work,	  income	  generating	  and	  community	  connector	  projects),	  an	  end	  of	  
project	  household	  survey,	  and	  a	  review	  of	  key	  program	  documents.	  
Twenty	  key	  informant	  interviews	  were	  held	  with	  key	  government	  figures	  (District	  
Commissioners,	  Police,	  Peace	  Monitors)	  as	  well	  as	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  partner	  staff	  (see	  
Annex	  2	  for	  a	  list	  of	  interviews).	  	  Eleven	  of	  the	  interviews	  were	  with	  men	  and	  eight	  were	  
with	  women.	  	  Most	  of	  the	  government	  officials	  were	  men,	  but	  there	  was	  greater	  gender	  
balance	  within	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  partners.	  	  Bias	  was	  avoided	  in	  both	  the	  key	  informant	  
interviews	  as	  well	  as	  the	  focus	  group	  discussions,	  by	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  LEAP	  staff	  
introducing the	  consultant	  to	  the	  interviewee/group	  and	  then leaving	  the	  room.	  All	  of	  the	  
interviewees	  spoke	  English	  therefore	  translation	  was	  not	  necessary.
9
Overall	  nineteen	  focus	  group	  discussions	  were	  held	  with	  a	  total	  of	  109	  participants	  (53	  
men	  and	  56	  women)	  in	  Uasin	  Gishu,	  Kericho,	  Nakuru,	  Nandi,	  and	  Trans	  Nzoia	  Counties	  
(see	  Annex	  3	  for	  a	  list	  of	  focus	  groups	  and	  participants).	  	  The	  targeted	  participants	  
included	  Peace	  Committee	  members	  at	  various	  levels,	  youth	  participants	  in	  the	  projects,	  
influential	  leaders	  in	  the	  communities,	  and	  women’s	  groups.	  Rather	  than	  one	  on	  one	  
interviews,	  a	  focus	  group	  discussion	  was	  held	  with	  a	  project	  partner,	  Wareng,	  as	  their	  
whole	  team	  was	  present	  at	  the	  meeting.	  	  	  An	  interview	  guide,	  developed	  with	  the	  LEAP	  II	  
team	  was	  used	  to	  guide	  the	  discussions	  (see	  Annex 6).	  	  As	  in	  the	  interviews,	  the LEAP	  II	  
staff	  members	  introduced	  the	  consultant	  to	  the	  participants,	  	  then	  left	  the	  group	  to	  avoid	  
bias. 	  In	  each	  group	  a	  participant	  who	  spoke	  both	  English	  and	  Kiswahili	  was	  selected	  to	  
translate	  if	  necessary.
Eight	  groups	  were	  selected	  for	  visits	  from	  among	  the	  different	  types	  of	  funding	  
mechanisms	  implemented	  through	  the	  project	  including	  cash	  for	  work,	  income	  generating	  
and	  community	  connector	  projects	  (see	  Annex	  4	  for	  a	  list	  of	  groups	  visited).	  	  Some	  of	  the	  
groups	  had	  received	  multiple	  funding	  through	  various	  mechanisms.	  The	  selection	  of	  the	  
groups	  visited	  was	  done	  by	  the	  project	  staff	  based	  upon	  availability	  of	  	  group	  members	  
and	  logistics	  due	  to	  the	  	  restricted	  time	  frame	  for	  field	  research,	  and	  was	  likely	  biased	  
towards	  selecting	  the	  most	  successful	  activities.	  However,	  they	  gave	  a	  good	  overall	  view	  of	  
the	  different	  types	  of	  activities	  supported	  over	  the	  life	  of	  the	  project.
An	  end	  of	  project	  household	  survey	  was	  administered	  in	  all	  of	  the	  six	  counties	  where	  the	  
LEAP	  II	  project	  operated.	  	  The	  survey	  used	  a	  clustering	  method	  at	  the	  household	  level,	  and
sought	  to	  include	  both	  participants	  and	  non-­‐participants	  of	  the	  LEAP	  program.	  	  The	  
questionnaire	  was	  developed	  by	  the	  consultant	  in	  consultation	  with	  the	  LEAP	  II	  staff	  and	  
other	  key	  Mercy	  Corp	  staff	  in	  Nairobi	  and	  Washington	  DC	  (see	  Annex	  7	  for	  the	  Survey	  
Questionnaire).	  	  It	  incorporated	  key	  questions	  that	  were	  used	  in	  the	  original	  baseline	  
(September	  2010)	  the	  end	  of	  project	  survey	  done	  with	  youth	  (August	  2012)	  and	  the	  
extension	  baseline	  (October	  2012).	  	  	  The	  questionnaire	  is	  appended	  in	  Annex	  6.	  The	  
survey	  was	  written	  and	  administered	  in	  English,	  with	  translation	  where	  necessary.	  	  Data	  
collection	  happened	  from	  June	  5-­‐10,	  2013	  by	  twenty	  enumerators	  who	  had	  administered
the	  earlier	  surveys.	  	  It	  was	  self-­‐administered	  whenever	  possible,	  with	  the	  data	  collectors	  
instructed	  to	  only	  answer	  the	  respondents	  questions,	  not	  suggest	  answers.	  	  
The	  survey	  was	  conducted	  in	  18	  districts	  (current	  divisions)	  in	  six	  different	  counties;	  
Trans	  Nzoia,	  Uasin	  Gishu,	  Nandi,	  Kericho,	  Bomet,	  and	  Nakuru.	  	  The	  data	  was	  merged	  into	  
the	  original	  10	  baseline	  districts	  for	  comparison	  purposes.	  Two	  of	  the	  districts,	  Trans	  
Nzoia	  and	  Sotik	  had	  no	  baseline	  as	  they	  were	  added	  in	  the	  LEAP	  II	  extension.	  	  	  Table	  1	  
below	  outlines	  the	  districts	  where	  the	  survey	  was	  implemented.	  	  Figure	  1	  provides	  a	  
graph	  of	  the	  breakdown	  of	  districts.	  
10
Table	  1	  End	  of	  Project	  Survey	  District	  breakdown
Districts where 
at Baseline 
data collected
Districts 
today and 
data collected
District merged 
in the EOP 
survey dataset Comments
Questionnair
es received 
by district
% 
questionnaires 
by district
Keiyo North
Keiyo 
North Keiyo North
LEAP presence only in phase 
I but not under extension 112 7.6
Keiyo South
Keiyo 
South Keiyo South
LEAP presence only in phase 
I but not under extension 147 10
Eldoret West Eldoret W. Eldoret West Phase I and extension 150 10.2
Wareng Wareng Wareng Phase I and extension 127 8.6
Eldoret East Eldoret E. Eldoret E. Phase I and extension 106 7.2
Nakuru
Nakuru, 
Rongai Nakuru Phase I and extension 127 8.6
Molo Molo Molo Phase I and extension 133 9
Kericho 
West Kericho W. Kericho West Phase I and extension 188 12.7
Kericho East
Bureti, 
Kericho E. Kericho East Phase I and extension 114 7.7
Nandi North
Nandi S., 
Nandi N., 
Tinderet, 
Nandi E. Nandi North Phase I and extension 123 8.3
N/A
Trans 
Nzoia E.,
Trans
Nzoia W. Trans Nzoia
LEAP presence only under 
extension but not phase I 69 4.7
N/A Sotik Sotik
LEAP presence only under 
extension but not phase I 80 5.4
Total 1,476 100
Figure	  1 Survey	  response	  per	  districts
0	   20	   40	   60	   80	   100	   120	   140	   160	   180	   200	  
Missing	  
Eldoret	  West	  
Transnzoia	  
Keiyo	  North	  
Bureti	  Kericho	  
KERICHO	  EAST	  
Molo	  
Survey	  districts	  	  
11
Respondents	  by	  age	  
13-­‐18	  
19-­‐25	  
26-­‐30	  
31-­‐35	  
36	  and	  above	  
Missing	  
Data	  was	  collected	  at	  the	  household	  level	  by	  enumerators	  who	  interviewed	  one	  person	  
from	  each	  fourth	  household.	  Respondents	  were	  selected	  to	  be	  above	  18	  years	  of	  age,	  
although	  there	  was	  a	  small	  percentage	  between	  13-­‐18	  years	  of	  age	  who	  did	  end	  up	  
responding	  (see	  Figure	  2	  below	  for	  respondents	  by	  age).	  When	  more	  than	  one	  person	  was	  
found	  in	  a	  household	  who	  qualified	  for	  interview,	  the	  enumerator	  randomly	  picked	  one,	  
through	  a	  raffle	  (if	  more	  than	  two)	  or	  a	  coin	  toss	  (if	  two).	  	  Of	  the	  1,560	  questionnaires	  that	  
were	  distributed	  (130	  per	  district	  for	  12	  districts) 1,476	  forms	  were	  received	  back,	  with	  a
94.6%	  response	  rate.
Figure	  2	  Respondents	  by	  age
The	  majority	  of	  the	  respondents	  (63%)	  were	  from	  the	  Kalenjin	  ethnic	  group,	  which	  
represents	  the	  ethnic	  make-­‐up	  of	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  The	  Kikuyu	  were	  the	  next	  largest	  group	  
at	  12%,	  while	  the	  Kamba	  had	  the	  lowest	  representation.	  	  See	  Figure	  3	  below	  for	  a	  
breakdown	  of	  respondents	  by	  ethnic	  group.
Figure	  3	  Respondents	  by	  ethnic	  group
The	  respondents	  were	  asked	  to	  identify	  whether	  they	  had	  participated	  in	  the	  LEAP	  
program.	  	  Of	  the	  respondents,	  41%	  stated	  that	  they	  had	  participated	  in	  the	  program,	  while	  
59%	  had	  not	  (see	  Figure	  4).	  The	  gender	  breakdown	  of	  the	  respondents	  was	  almost	  
50/50%.
926	  (63%)	  
16	  (1%)	  
178	  (12%)	  
132	  (9%)	  
118	  (8%)	  
77	  (5%)	  
29	  (2%)	  
0	   200	   400	   600	   800	   1000	  
Kalenjin	  
Kamba	  
Kikuyu	  
Kisii	  
Luhyia	  
Luo	  
Others	  
12
Figure	  4	  LEAP	  participation	  of	  respondents
In	  terms	  of	  educational	  level,	  30%	  of	  respondents	  had	  completed	  secondary	  school,	  22%	  
had	  attended	  some	  level	  of	  post-­‐secondary	  education,	  and	  just	  over	  10%	  had	  not	  
completed	  primary	  school.	  	  See	  Table 2	  for	  a	  breakdown	  of	  respondents	  by	  educational	  
level.
Table	  2	  Respondent	  by	  level	  of	  education
Level	  of	  education	   Percent
Never	  cleared	  primary 10.2
Cleared	  primary 14.6
Never	  cleared	  secondary 13.2
Secondary	  (form	  4) 30.2
Vocational/Polytechnic/College	  diploma	  or	  certificate 22.2
University	  degree 7.5
Postgraduate	  studies 1.8
Missing .3
Total 100.0
The	  survey	  data	  was	  entered	  into	  SPSS	  16	  by	  Mercy	  Corps’	  M&E	  specialist	  Josiah	  Mukoya	  
and	  team	  of	  data	  entry	  clerks.	  	  Josiah	  Mukoya	  and	  Ruben	  Grangaard	  analyzed	  the	  data	  and	  
generated	  the	  tables	  and	  graphs,	  which	  was	  further	  analyzed	  by	  the	  consultant.	  	  
Ruben	  Grangaard	  and	  Jon	  Kurtz	  from	  Mercy	  Corps’s	  Washington	  DC	  office	  further	  
analyzed	  the	  data	  using	  two	  different	  statistical	  approaches.	  Firstly,	  they	  used	  propensity	  
score	  matching	  in	  an	  attempt	  to	  move	  towards	  assessing	  causal	  impacts	  of	  the	  program	  
and;	  secondly,	  they	  used	  a	  multiple	  regression	  analysis	  to	  assess	  correlations	  between	  
program	  interventions,	  the	  intermediate	  and	  the	  long-­‐term	  outcomes.	  The	  regression	  
analysis	  was	  done	  in	  two-­‐steps.	  The	  first	  part	  analyzed	  the	  correlations	  of	  the	  program	  
components’	  (Peace	  Dialogues,	  Youth	  Multi-­‐Ethnic	  events	  etc.)	  with	  intermediate	  
outcomes,	  such	  as	  interaction,	  trust	  and	  security.	  The	  second	  part	  looked	  at	  correlations	  
between	  intermediate	  outcomes	  and	  the	  long-­‐term	  outcome	  (propensity	  for	  violence).
41%	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  59%	   Yes	  
No	  
13
Using	  this	  analysis	  they	  found	  that	  LEAP	  II	  participants	  that	  were	  matched	  to	  similar	  non-­‐
participants	  had	  significantly	  higher	  levels	  of	  trust.	  However,	  there	  were	  no	  significant	  
difference	  between	  participants	  and	  non-­‐participants	  with	  regards	  to	  interaction,	  security	  
and	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
Finally,	  a review	  of	  key	  documents	  including	  the	  quarterly	  reports	  throughout	  the	  life	  of	  
the	  project,	  the	  baseline	  survey,	  the	  original	  and	  cost	  extension	  proposals,	  informed	  this
end	  of	  project	  evaluation,	  and	  provided	  background	  information	  for	  both	  the	  qualitative	  
research	  as	  well	  as	  in	  the	  development	  of	  the	  survey	  tool	  and	  the	  analysis	  of	  the	  resulting	  
data.	  	  
3.	  Results of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  Program
This	  section	  looks	  at	  the	  results	  of	  each	  of	  the	  activities	  as	  well	  as	  their	  sustainability.	  The	  
information	  for	  this	  analysis	  is	  drawn	  from	  a	  triangulation	  of	  the	  various	  data	  collection	  
methods	  outlined	  in	  section	  2	  above.
Objective1:	  Strengthen	  sustainable	  mechanisms	  for	  conflict	  mitigation	  and	  reconciliation	  
It	  was	  clear	  from	  the	  evaluation	  that	  the	  LEAP	  II	  team	  worked	  very	  closely	  at	  all	  levels	  
within	  the	  targeted	  communities	  in	  order	  to	  build	  the	  local	  capacity	  for	  conflict	  mitigation	  
and	  reconciliation	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  The	  original	  LEAP	  program	  commenced	  shortly	  after	  
the	  2007/8	  post-­‐	  election	  violence	  when	  there	  were	  a	  number	  of	  organizations	  that	  were	  
already	  targeting	  peace	  building	  activities	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley	  province.	  However,	  by	  the	  
time	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  and	  particularly	  during	  the	  extension	  period,	  most	  of	  the	  
other	  organizations	  had	  pulled	  out	  and	  were	  no	  longer	  operational.	  	  The	  sustained	  
support	  of	  the	  Mercy	  Corp	  team	  was	  repeatedly	  commented	  upon	  in	  the	  interviews	  and	  
focus	  groups	  where	  the	  program	  had	  been	  operational (LEAP,	  LEAP	  II	  and	  the	  cost-­‐
extension)	  and	  greatly	  appreciated	  by	  the	  communities.	  	  
Overall,	  the	  greatest	  strength	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  was	  in	  the	  relationships	  between	  the	  
LEAP	  team,	  the	  targeted	  communities,	  and	  the	  various	  levels	  of	  government
administration.	  	  Because	  of	  the	  strong	  relationships	  and	  the	  trust	  of	  the	  communities	  at	  all	  
levels,	  the	  LEAP	  team	  was	  able	  to	  strengthen relationships	  between	  the	  various	  
communities	  as	  well	  as between	  the	  communities	  and	  the	  police	  and	  provincial	  
administration.	  	  
One	  participant	  commented	  that	  in	  the	  past	  the	  District	  Commissioners	  and	  the	  police	  
were	  inaccessible	  to	  the	  average	  community	  member,	  particularly	  to	  the	  youth,	  but	  
through	  the	  life	  of	  the	  project,	  especially	  during	  the	  extension	  period	  where	  the	  focus	  was	  
on	  early	  warning,	  they	  were	  ‘brought	  closer’	  to	  the	  communities	  in	  which	  they	  served.	  	  
Likewise,	  the	  Police	  Chief	  Inspector	  David	  Apima	  in	  Fort	  Ternan,	  having	  organized	  a	  
number	  of	  community	  events	  with	  LEAP	  II	  support	  which	  built	  trust	  and	  opened	  up	  
avenues	  for	  closer	  interaction	  between	  members	  of	  the	  community	  and	  the	  police,	  stated	  
that	  working	  with	  the	  LEAP	  II	  project	  enabled	  him	  to	  build	  relationships	  with	  the	  youth.
14
All	  participants	  commented	  on	  how	  consistently	  supportive	  the	  LEAP	  II team	  had	  been	  
throughout	  the	  project	  life.	  One	  participant	  stated	  “Other	  NGOs	  turn	  off	  their	  phones	  when	  
they	  don’t	  need	  anything	  from	  us,	  but	  Mercy	  Corps	  staff	  were	  always	  available	  for	  us,	  night	  
and	  day.”	  	  The	  LEAP	  II	  team	  was	  also	  held	  up	  as	  good	  example	  of	  a	  mixed	  ethnic	  team	  that	  
worked	  closely	  and	  was	  seen	  as	  neutral	  in	  the	  communities.	  	  	  
A	  number	  of	  training	  sessions	  were	  held	  to	  build	  the	  capacity	  of	  the	  various	  community	  
institutions,	  and	  overall	  focus	  group	  discussions	  and	  interviewees	  felt	  the	  training	  was	  
both appropriate	  and	  relevant	  to	  addressing	  the	  conflict	  in	  their	  communities.	  	  The	  
strategy	  of	  using	  training	  of	  trainers	  (ToTs),	  both	  with	  the	  DPCs	  and	  the	  youth,	  in	  order	  to	  
cascade	  the	  training	  down	  to	  the	  community	  level	  was	  greatly	  appreciated	  and	  increased	  
the	  ownership.	  It	  also	  increased	  the	  reach	  of	  the	  training	  as	  more	  people	  were	  trained	  
than	  planned	  as	  the	  DPCs	  and	  the	  youth	  were	  able	  to	  reach	  deeper	  into	  their	  communities	  
and	  train	  the	  other	  levels	  of	  peace	  committees	  and	  youth	  participants.
Result	  1.1	  Stakeholder	  mapping	  and	  conflict	  assessment	  done
At	  the	  onset	  of	  the	  project,	  a	  stakeholder	  mapping	  and	  conflict	  assessment	  was	  planned	  in	  
the	  five	  target	  areas.	  However,	  because	  of	  the	  split	  of	  one	  district	  into	  two,	  there	  were	  six
conflict	  assessments	  completed.	  
Result	  1.2	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  established	  and/or	  strengthened
While	  the	  project	  had	  targeted	  working	  with	  eight	  DPCs	  during	  the	  first	  two	  years	  of	  the	  
project,	  because	  of	  the	  split	  of	  one	  district,	  it	  supported	  nine.	  	  	  The	  project	  worked	  not	  only	  
with	  the	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  but	  also	  with	  the	  divisional	  and	  sub-­‐location	  peace	  
committees.	  	  In	  the	  end	  of	  project	  survey,	  over	  90%	  of	  LEAP	  participants,	  and	  over	  50%	  of	  
non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  were	  aware	  of	  the	  peace	  committees	  (district,	  divisional	  or	  
location)	  in	  their	  communities,	  as	  compared	  with	  80%	  who	  were	  aware	  of	  the	  DPC	  in	  the	  
baseline	  survey	  (see	  Figure	  5	  below),	  showing	  a	  12.5%	  change	  from	  the	  baseline	  to	  the	  
EOP	  survey.	  	  
Figure	  5	  Awareness	  of	  peace	  existence
0.0	   20.0	   40.0	   60.0	   80.0	   100.0	  
Yes	  
No	  
Don't	  know	  
Percentage	  Frequency	  
Response	  
%	  Non-­‐
par9cipants	  
%	  Par9cipants	  
15
However,	  this	  varied	  significantly	  across	  the	  districts,	  with	  the	  lowest	  awareness	  levels	  in	  
Nandi	  East,	  Buret,	  Nandi	  South,	  Rongai	  and	  Tinderet	  districts.	  During	  the	  baseline	  survey,	  
the	  lowest	  levels	  of	  awareness	  were	  in	  Nandi	  North	  and	  Keiyo	  South.	  	  The	  highest	  levels	  of	  
awareness	  were	  in	  Kericho,	  Wareng,	  Eldoret	  West,	  Eldoret	  East	  and Molo	  districts (see	  
Figure	  6	  for	  a	  breakdown	  of	  awareness	  of	  the	  existence	  of	  peace	  committees	  by	  district).	  	  
Figure	  6	  Awareness	  of	  existence	  of	  peace	  committees	  by	  district
There	  was	  a	  variance	  in	  response	  between	  LEAP	  participants	  and	  non-­‐participants	  
surveyed	  regarding	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  various	  levels	  of	  peace	  committees.	  	  More	  
LEAP	  participants	  rated	  the	  local	  peace	  committees	  very	  effective	  (64.2%)	  as	  compared	  to	  
non-­‐LEAP	  participants (42.5%).	  	  See	  Figure	  7 below	  for	  a	  breakdown	  of	  perception	  of	  
effectiveness	  of	  LPCs	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants.	  	  This	  indicates	  that	  the	  LEAP	  
participants	  had	  more	  interaction	  with	  the	  LPCs.	  However,	  it	  is	  also	  highly	  likely	  that	  the	  
respondents	  were	  members	  of	  the	  LPCs	  and	  therefore	  rated	  themselves	  higher.	  
Figure	  7	  Level	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  LPCs
The	  perception	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  DPCs	  was	  lower	  overall	  when	  compared	  to	  the	  LPCs,	  
with	  47.1%	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  rating	  them	  very	  effective,	  compared	  to	  35%	  of	  non-­‐
LEAP	  participants.	  However,	  43.1%	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  and	  42.6%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  
0	  
20	  
40	  
60	  
80	  
100	  
120	  
140	  
160	  
Buret	  
Eldoret	  East	  
Eldoret	  West	  
Keiyo	  North	  
Keiyo	  South	  
Kericho	  
Kericho	  East	  
Kericho	  West	  
Molo	  
Nakuru	  
Nandi	  
Nandi	  North	  
Nandi	  South	  
Rongai	  
Son9k	  
￾Tinderet	  
Transnzoia	  East	  
Transnzoia	  West	  
Wareng	  
Yes	  
No	  
Don't	  Know	  
Existence	  of	  Peace	  CommiMees	  
0	   10	   20	   30	   40	   50	   60	   70	  
Very	  effec9ve	  
Effec9ve	  
Somewhat	  effec9ve	  
Not	  effec9ve	  
N/A	  
Percentage	  frequency	  
Level	  of	  effecOveness	  
EffecOveness	  of	  LPCs	  
%	  Non-­‐
par9cipants	  
16
participants	  perceived	  them	  as	  being	  effective.	  	  Less	  than	  1%	  of	  both	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  
participants	  viewed	  the	  DPCs	  as	  being	  non-­‐effective	  (see	  Figure	  8	  for	  a	  breakdown	  of	  
perceptions	  of	  DPCs	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants).	  	  
Figure	  8	  Level	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  DPCs
In	  spite	  of	  the	  perceptions	  of	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  peace	  committees,	  when	  asked	  
whether	  they	  had	  ever	  referred	  a	  dispute	  to	  the	  peace	  committees,	  only	  31.8%	  of	  LEAP	  
participants,	  and	  10.1%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  reported	  having	  done	  so	  (see	  Figure	  9
for	  a	  percentage	  of	  disputes	  referred	  to	  peace	  committees	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  
participants).	  	  The	  higher	  percentage	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  referring	  disputes	  to	  the	  peace	  
committees	  reflects	  both	  a	  higher	  awareness	  as	  well	  as	  a	  higher	  trust	  of	  the	  peace	  
committees	  of	  those	  who	  were	  part	  of	  the	  program.	  In	  spite	  of	  the	  overall	  level	  of	  dispute	  
referrals,	  it	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  the	  peace	  committees’	  roles	  were	  not	  exclusively	  
dispute	  resolution,	  but focused	  also	  on	  training	  of	  community	  members,	  early	  warning	  
and	  community	  dialogues.	  	  	  The	  DPC	  members	  also	  played	  a	  critical	  role	  in	  recruiting	  
individuals	  to	  join	  the	  disciplined	  forces1.	  	  In	  Kericho	  West/Belgut	  district,	  the	  DPC	  were	  
used	  to	  ensure	  the	  recruitment	  of	  police	  and	  the	  armed	  forces	  were	  fair	  and	  transparent.	  
They	  also	  vetted	  candidates	  during	  the	  interview	  process.	  	  
Figure	  9	  Disputes	  referred	  to	  peace	  committees	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­LEAP	  participants
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   1
 Police, Army, Kenya Forest Service, etc.
0	   10	   20	   30	   40	   50	  
Very	  effec9ve	  
Effec9ve	  
Somewhat	  effec9ve	  
Not	  effec9ve	  
N/A	  
Percentage	  frequency	  
Level	  of	  EffecOveness	  
EffecOveness	  of	  DPCs	  
%	  Non-­‐
par9cipants	  
31.8%	  
10.1%	  
68.2%	  
89.9%	  
0	  
20	  
40	  
60	  
80	  
100	  
%	  Participants	   %	  Non-­‐participants	  
Percentage	  frequency	  
Respondents	  
Disputes	  referals	  to	  Peace	  Committees	  
Yes	  
No	  
17
Number	  of	  public	  fora/educational	  events	  to	  teach	  public	  about	  peace	  process
The	  program	  targeted	  40	  public	  fora/educational	  events	  to	  teach	  the	  public	  about	  peace	  
process,	  and	  was	  able	  to	  complete	  42	  during	  the	  first	  two	  years	  of	  the	  program.	  	  	  	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  baseline	  survey	  in	  2010	  found	  that	  respondents	  were	  generally	  confident	  in	  
the	  ongoing	  peace building	  efforts,	  with	  33%	  being	  very	  confident,	  and	  53%	  being	  
confident.	  	  In	  the	  evaluation	  survey,	  70.3%	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  responded	  that	  they	  felt	  
there	  were	  strong	  local	  mechanisms	  for	  peace,	  as	  compared	  to	  59.3%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  
participants	  (see	  Figure	  10),	  demonstrating	  the	  higher	  confidence	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  in	  
the	  local	  peace	  mechanisms.
Figure	  10 Strength	  of	  local	  mechanisms	  for	  peace
In	  the	  focus	  group	  and	  interviews,	  most	  of	  the	  participants reported	  that	  the	  local	  
mechanisms,	  especially	  the	  various	  level	  peace	  committees	  (district,	  divisional	  and	  local)	  
had	  been	  strengthened	  by	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  activities.	  	  	  However,	  they	  also	  emphasized	  
that	  the	  starting	  baseline	  was	  low	  thus	  more	  work	  is	  needed	  at	  various	  levels.	  
In	  addition,	  it	  was	  reported	  that	  currently	  the	  status	  of	  the	  district	  peace	  committees	  is	  
uncertain	  in	  the	  new	  government	  structure.
MC	  was	  an	  instrument	  of	  change	  and	  buried	  itself	  into	  the	  communities.	  They	  did	  
what	  others	  were	  not	  doing	  –	  building	  capacity.	  Many	  of	  the	  DPC	  members	  are	  not	  
educated,	  and	  so	  they	  had	  to	  find	  ways	  to	  get	  the	  information	  across	  to	  them	  in	  a	  way	  
that	  they	  were	  able	  to	  understand	  and	  then	  share	  with	  their	  communities.	  Women	  
can	  teach	  the	  women	  and	  men	  the	  men,	  youth	  with	  the	  youth.	  So	  the	  strategy	  of	  using	  
the	  DPCs	  as	  TOTs	  paid	  more	  dividends	  and	  people	  were	  more	  interested	  in	  the	  
training. Dr.	  SK	  Wanguru,	  Nakuru	  County	  Peace	  Monitor
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  was	  also	  attributed	  with	  increasing the	  level	  of	  women	  and	  youth	  
participation	  in	  the	  peace	  committees	  at	  all	  levels.	  	  Mary	  Njoki,	  the	  current	  chairperson	  of	  
the	  Wareng	  DPC	  stated:
Before	  the	  DPCs	  didn’t	  have	  women	  on	  them,	  and	  they	  didn’t	  even	  allow	  women	  to	  
play	  any	  part	  of	  them.	  The	  community	  saw	  it	  was	  only	  for	  the	  men	  or	  the	  elders.	  So	  
when	  Mercy	  Corps	  came,	  they	  said	  even	  women	  can	  be	  a	  chair	  and	  it	  was	  more
successful	  when	  the	  women	  come	  out.	  So	  Mercy	  Corps	  have	  made	  us	  to	  become	  
strong.	  Now	  for	  me,	  I	  am	  a	  chairperson	  for	  the	  whole	  district.	  Before	  this	  would	  not	  
have	  been	  possible.	  Now	  we	  know	  how	  to	  talk	  to	  people	  at	  the	  grassroots.	  And	  the	  
grassroots	  recognize	  that	  we	  are	  very	  strong.
0	   10	   20	   30	   40	   50	   60	   70	   80	  
%	  Participants	  
%	  Non-­‐participants	  
Pecentage	  frequency	  
Respondents	  
Strong	  local	  mechanisms	  for	  peace	  
No	  
Yes	  
18
The	  LEAP	  II	  project	  also	  took	  a	  number	  of	  DPC	  members	  on	  a	  cross-­‐site	  visit	  to	  Wajir,	  to	  
learn	  more	  about	  what	  the	  peace	  committee	  there	  had	  been	  able	  to	  accomplish.	  	  It	  was	  
clear	  from	  the	  focus	  group	  discussions	  that	  this	  visit	  had	  been	  an	  inspiration	  to	  the	  
participants,	  both	  those	  who	  were	  able	  to	  go	  to	  Wajir,	  and	  those	  who	  were	  not	  able	  to	  
participate.	  In	  particular	  was	  mentioned	  the	  self-­‐sustainability	  of	  the	  Wajir	  peace	  
committee,	  and	  how	  they	  had	  been	  able	  to	  resource	  funds	  and	  support	  from	  a	  wide	  variety	  
of	  sources;	  private	  sector,	  NGO	  and	  government.
Recommendation	  1:	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  establish	  the	  peace	  committee	  structure	  
within	  the	  new	  governing	  structure.	  	  The	  LEAP	  program	  was	  able	  to	  lay	  a	  solid	  structure	  
at	  the	  various	  levels,	  from	  the	  DPC	  to	  the	  local	  level.	  However,	  with	  the	  new	  County	  
government,	  the	  roles	  of	  these	  various	  peace	  committees	  are	  unclear.	  	  USAID	  should	  
continue	  to	  work	  with	  the	  peace	  committees	  and	  the	  National	  Steering	  Committee	  as	  they	  
work	  through	  these	  issues.
Lessons	  Learnt	  1:	  	  Cross-­‐site	  visits	  are	  an	  effective	  way	  for	  DPCs	  to	  learn	  from	  each	  other	  
and	  share	  challenges	  as	  well	  as	  strategies	  for	  overcoming	  them.
Result	  1.3	  District	  leaders	  gain	  new	  leadership	  and	  consensus-­‐building	  skills	  to	  resolve	  
problems
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  not	  only	  focused	  on	  training	  of	  the	  peace	  committees	  and	  local	  peace	  
actors,	  but	  it	  also	  trained	  district	  leaders	  in	  conflict	  resolution	  and	  consensus	  building.	  	  
The	  consultant	  was	  able	  to	  meet	  with	  four	  District	  Commissioners	  (DCs)	  and	  one	  assistant	  
to	  the	  County	  Commissioner.	  In	  all	  cases,	  the	  DC’s	  reported	  that	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  has	  
provided	  them	  with	  new	  skills	  as	  well	  as	  provided	  resources	  for	  conflict	  mediation	  and	  
consensus-­‐building.	  	  	  The	  program	  focused	  on	  some	  key	  areas	  along	  district	  and	  county	  
borders,	  for	  example	  the	  between	  Kisumu	  and	  Kericho	  counties,	  where	  the	  PEV	  in	  2008	  
was	  particularly	  violent,	  and	  where	  cattle	  raiding	  between	  the	  Luo	  and	  Kipsigis	  continues	  
to	  provoke	  violence	  between	  the	  communities.	  The	  program	  was	  reported	  to	  have	  a	  direct	  
impact	  upon	  reducing	  violent	  conflict.	  	  Jamlik	  Mbuba,	  the	  DC	  for	  Belgut	  assessed	  that	  there	  
had	  been	  an	  85%	  reduction	  in	  crime	  and	  ethnic	  conflict	  since	  2010:
We	  have	  a	  very	  vibrant	  DPC	  in	  this	  district –	  it	  surely	  has	  assisted	  me	  in	  bringing	  
peace	  and	  sanity	  within	  this	  region.	  Most	  times	  we	  have	  meetings	  between	  the	  DPC	  
and	  the	  Nyakach	  DPC,	  we	  bring	  them	  together	  and	  I	  work	  with	  Mercy	  Corps	  on	  this.	  
Mercy	  Corps	  has	  taken	  us	  for	  trainings,	  and	  also	  to	  facilitate	  meetings.	  For	  example	  
before	  the	  elections	  when	  people	  expected	  fire	  to	  outbreak,	  on	  two	  or	  three	  occasions	  
we brought	  the	  communities	  together,	  and	  Mercy	  Corps	  provided	  a	  facilitator	  for	  
sensitization.	  They	  also	  supported	  peace	  barazas,	  sporting	  activities	  and	  gave	  t-­shirts	  
with	  peace	  messages	  to	  all	  three	  communities	  in	  the	  district.
Likewise,	  the	  Sigowet	  DPC	  reported	  that	  they	  have	  been	  able	  to	  work	  closely	  with	  the	  DC	  
in	  order	  to	  stop	  the	  escalation	  of	  conflict	  caused	  by	  cattle	  raiding	  across	  the	  border:
One	  time	  some	  animals	  were	  stolen	  from	  Nyakach,	  and	  some	  people	  came	  and	  
torched	  one	  house,	  and	  people	  wanted	  to	  fight.	  But	  they	  went	  to	  the	  peace	  committee	  
19
and	  complained	  and	  the	  peace	  committee	  told	  them	  not	  to	  fight	  and	  to	  rely	  on	  the	  
police/law.	  	  So	  they	  waited	  and	  the	  DC	  came	  and	  addressed	  it	  and	  they	  calmed	  down.	  	  
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  training	  300	  people	  in	  conflict	  mitigation	  and	  resolution	  skills,	  
and	  over	  exceeded	  this	  target	  for	  a	  total	  of	  330	  participants.	  	  	  During	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  
39	  disputed	  were	  recorded	  as	  having	  been	  resolved	  by	  the	  program	  participants,	  
exceeding	  the	  target	  of	  32.	  	  With	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  winding	  down,	  concern	  was	  
repeatedly	  expressed	  regarding	  the	  continued	  support of	  the	  peace	  actors	  to	  continue	  
address	  the	  inter-­‐communal	  conflict.	  	  While	  some	  of	  the	  DPCs	  felt	  that	  the	  ending	  of	  the	  
LEAP	  II	  program	  would	  severely	  curtail	  their	  ability	  to	  continue	  addressing	  conflicts	  in	  
their	  communities,	  a	  number	  felt	  that	  the	  training	  and	  capacity	  building	  they	  had	  received	  
would	  enable	  them	  to	  continue	  to	  perform	  their	  duties,	  although	  they	  would	  be	  limited	  in	  
terms	  of	  logistics	  and	  quick	  response.	  	  A	  participant	  in	  the	  Sigowet	  DPC	  stated:
Last	  Friday	  we	  had	  another	  issue	  –	  some	  goats	  were	  stolen,	  and	  the	  peace	  actor	  went	  
in	  and	  negotiated	  and	  returned	  the	  goats.	  So	  they	  are	  been	  accepted	  at	  the	  
community	  level,	  and	  wherever	  they	  talk	  they	  are	  being	  heard.	  	  
Recommendation	  2:	   USAID	  should	  work	  closely	  at	  the	  County	  level	  to	  support	  greater	  
integration	  between	  the	  District	  and	  the	  County	  level.	  	   The	  district	  level	  authorities	  were	  
an	  important	  part	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program.	  However,	  their	  status	  is	  unclear	  in	  the	  new	  
County	  government.	  	  Unless	  their	  relationship	  with	  the	  County	  is	  clarified,	  there	  is	  risk	  
that at	  best,	  the	  training	  and	  support	  to	  the	  district	  level	  could	  be	  lost,	  or	  at	  worst	  the	  lack	  
of	  clarity	  can	  cause	  conflict.	  
Result	  1.4	  	  32-­‐40	  district	  dialogue	  forums	  conducted	  that	  bring	  groups	  together	  to	  discuss	  
and	  resolve	  joint	  problems.
One	  of	  the	  key	  activities	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  was	  to	  bring	  communities	  together	  in	  
dialogue	  fora	  in	  order	  to	  address	  issues	  that	  had	  driven	  the	  2008	  PEV	  and	  could
potentially	  drive	  inter-­‐communal	  conflict	  in	  the	  lead	  up	  to	  the	  2013	  elections.	  	  The	  
program	  had	  targeted	  having	  32	  events,	  and	  over	  exceeded	  this	  target	  by	  three	  events	  for	  
a	  total	  of	  35	  events.	  	  Focus	  group	  participants	  and	  key	  interview	  informants	  all	  reported	  
that	  they	  had	  participated	  in	  a	  number	  of	  dialogues	  at	  various	  levels,	  whether	  at	  the	  
county,	  district	  or	  sub-­‐location	  level.	  	  The	  dialogues	  that	  were	  held	  in	  the	  local	  
communities	  were	  reported	  to	  have	  attracted	  a	  broader	  spectrum	  of	  participants,	  than	  
those	  held	  in	  the	  towns	  in	  hotel	  venues.	  	  Many	  of	  the	  dialogues,	  especially	  those	  at	  the	  
border	  areas,	  addressed	  issues	  related	  to	  cattle	  raiding,	  which	  can	  sometimes	  escalate	  into	  
larger	  inter-­‐communal	  conflicts	  if	  not	  adequately	  addressed	  by	  the	  authorities.	  	  
People	  do	  listen	  because	  there	  were	  some	  incidents	  when	  cows	  were	  stolen	  from	  
Nyakach,	  and	  found	  hidden	  in	  the	  bush	  near	  my	  neighbor	  and	  the	  youth	  from	  that	  
community	  were	  arrested	  and	  the	  people	  wanted	  to	  kill	  them.	  The	  people	  from	  Kericho	  
needed	  to	  revenge.	  We	  had	  a	  dialogue	  with	  the	  OCS	  and	  the	  Chief	  and	  the	  people	  
cooperated	  and	  they	  didn’t	  take	  revenge.	  If	  Mercy	  Corps	  had	  not	  trained	  the	  peace	  
actors	  on	  how	  to	  resolve	  conflict,	  the	  conflict	  could	  have	  escalated.	  Sigowet	  DPC
20
The	  community	  forums	  attracted	  much	  larger	  crowds	  than	  were	  anticipated	  in	  the	  
program	  planning.	  While	  the	  project	  had	  targeted	  240	  attendees	  at	  the	  events,	  the	  project	  
recorded	  over	  990	  actual	  attendees.	  	  In	  addition,	  there	  were	  a	  number	  of	  joint	  activities	  
with	  other	  organizations,	  which	  also	  attracted	  much	  larger	  numbers.	  	  
In	  the	  end	  of	  project	  survey,	  33%	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  reported	  that	  they	  had	  attended	  
three	  or	  more	  peace	  events,	  as	  compared	  to	  21%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP.	  	  Only	  4%	  of	  LEAP	  
participants	  and	  8%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  stated	  that	  they	  had	  not	  attended	  any	  peace	  
event	  (see	  Table	  2	  below	  for	  the	  breakdown	  of	  attendance	  at	  peace	  events,	  as	  well	  as	  the	  
different	  types	  of	  events	  that	  the	  respondents	  attended).	  	  It	  is	  interesting	  to	  note	  that	  90%	  
of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  reported	  that	  they	  were	  either	  a	  facilitator	  or	  moderator	  in	  the	  
events,	  which	  indicates	  they may	  have	  misunderstood	  the	  question.	  
Table	  3	  Attendance	  at	  peace	  events
Response Participants Non-­‐participants
>4 10% 8%
3	  to	  4 23% 12%
1	  to	  2 63% 72%
Number	  of	  Peace	  events
0 4% 8%
Peace	  Dialogue 28% 28%
Peace	  Campaigns 33% 30%
Civic	  Education 33% 28% Type	  of	  Peace	  events
Peace	  Tournaments 5% 13%
Event	  Participation 7% 4%
Leader/Organization 7% 4%
Facilitator/Moderator 77% 90%
Role	  at	  Peace	  Events
PC	  Member 9% 2%
In	  all	  areas,	  the	  dialogues	  were	  seen	  as	  critical	  activities	  in	  addressing	  issues	  in	  the	  lead	  up	  
to	  the	  elections.	  	  The	  facilitation	  by	  Mercy	  Corps	  in	  terms	  of	  logistical	  support,	  as	  well	  as	  
the	  training	  provided	  to	  the	  different	  participants	  was	  vital	  for	  the	  dialogues	  to	  be	  
effective.	  	  Pastor	  Abednego	  Lwandanyi,	  the	  DPC	  chair	  Trans	  Nzoia	  East	  gave	  the	  example	  
of	  Kabolet	  and	  Munyaka	  in	  his	  area:
In	  Kabolet	  and	  Munyaka	  there	  is	  a	  marginalized	  group	  of	  people	  who	  live	  there.	  They	  
were	  often	  used	  as	  a	  go-­between	  by	  Pokot	  to	  go	  into	  people’s	  homes	  and	  steal	  cattle.	  
In	  2008	  over	  19	  people	  were	  shot	  dead	  in	  this	  area,	  including	  pastors.	  Many	  houses	  
and	  shops	  were	  burnt	  down,	  women	  were	  raped,	  over	  3000	  animals	  taken.	  Mercy	  
Corps	  supported	  us	  to	  facilitate	  several	  dialogues	  in	  the	  area	  to	  discuss	  the	  issues	  
faced	  by	  the	  community	  there.
Many	  of	  the	  DPCs	  reported	  that	  they	  plan	  to	  continue	  the	  dialogues	  without	  Mercy	  Corps	  
support,	  although	  it	  will	  be	  difficult.	  	  
Lessons	  Learnt	  2:	  	  Dialogues	  and	  trainings	  should,	  as	  much	  as	  possible,	  be	  held	  at	  the	  local	  
level	  rather	  than	  in	  hotels	  or	  in	  the	  main	  town.	  This	  allows	  for	  wider	  participation	  and	  
more	  ownership	  of	  the	  process.
21
Result	  1.5	  Early	  warning	  and	  response	  systems	  established	  in	  8	  districts	  
During	  the	  main	  part	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  according	  to	  the	  respondents	  in	  focus	  groups	  
and	  interviews,	  the	  main	  early	  warning	  activities	  were	  primarily	  training	  the	  peace	  
committees	  and	  other	  leaders	  in	  early	  warning	  and	  early	  response	  from	  the	  8-­‐targeted
districts.	  	  	  	  During	  this	  period,	  consultations	  were	  held	  with	  key	  stakeholders	  including	  the	  
NSC,	  CEWARN	  and	  partner	  CSOs	  in	  the	  establishment	  of	  a	  credible	  local	  system,	  building	  
upon	  the	  NSC’s	  national	  EWER	  system,	  including	  the	  SMS	  #108	  platform.	  	  In	  May	  2011,	  
187	  people	  from	  across	  the	  8	  districts	  were	  trained	  in	  conflict	  prevention	  and	  in	  the	  NSC	  
EWER	  system.	  	  Members	  of	  the	  DPC	  who	  participated	  in	  the	  Wajir	  exchange	  trip	  were	  also	  
able	  to	  see	  how	  an	  effective	  EWER	  system	  was	  operating	  in	  northern	  Kenya.
During	  the	  extension	  period,	  the	  project	  continued	  to strengthen	  the	  community-­‐based	  
early	  warning-­‐early	  response	  (EWER)	  system,	  expanding	  it	  to	  covering	  all	  17	  districts	  (the	  
entire	  Trans	  Nzoia	  county,	  Bomet,	  greater	  Nandi	  and	  Nakuru	  Counties).	  	  	  In	  addition	  it	  
added	  the	  component	  of	  working	  with	  other	  organizations	  on	  the	  country-­‐wide	  Uchaguzi	  
platform	  (See	  Result	  1.2	  in	  Section	  4	  below	  for	  more	  discussion	  on	  the	  EWER	  program	  
during	  the	  cost-­‐extension).
Result	  1.6	  District	  and	  provincial	  leaders	  increase	  interaction	  through	  multi-­‐district	  and	  
regional	  forums.	  
The	  2010	  baseline	  survey	  found	  that	  48%	  of	  DPC	  members	  reported	  that	  they	  had	  
interacted	  with	  the	  provincial	  leaders	  at	  least	  three	  or	  more	  times	  in	  the	  past	  six	  months,	  
and	  33%	  had	  interacted	  with	  them	  1-­‐2	  times.	  	  In	  the	  EOP	  survey,	  over	  53%	  of	  DPC	  
members	  reported	  they	  had	  interacted	  with	  the	  provincial	  leaders	  three	  or	  more	  times	  in	  
the	  past	  six	  months,	  while	  30%	  said	  they	  had	  met	  them	  1-­‐2	  times.	  	  This	  shows	  a	  10.4%	  
change	  for	  more	  than	  three	  times,	  and	  a 1%	  decrease	  for	  1-­‐2	  times	  (see	  Figure	  11).	  	  
However,	  it	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  the	  evaluation	  survey	  included	  areas	  that	  had	  been	  
added	  during	  the	  cost-­‐extension	  and	  therefore did	  not	  participate	  in the	  capacity	  building	  
activities	  during	  the	  main	  period	  of	  the	  program,	  which	  may	  have	  skewed	  this	  result.
Figure	  11	  Interaction	  between	  district	  leaders
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
>4	   3	  to	  4	   1	  to	  2	   0	  
Met	  PC	  Member	  
Met	  NSC	  Official	  
Met	  Provincial	  Leader	  
22
In	  the	  focus	  group	  discussion	  as	  well	  as	  the	  key	  informant	  interviews,	  the	  networking	  and	  
relationships	  built	  between	  the	  various	  levels of	  leadership, from	  the	  sub-­‐location	  to	  the	  
provincial	  level,	  was	  reported	  as	  being	  a	  critical	  part	  of	  maintaining	  peace	  in	  the	  lead	  up	  to	  
the	  elections.	  	  In	  addition,	  the	  links	  across	  districts,	  including	  the	  districts	  that	  were	  not	  
formally	  part	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  (for	  example	  Kisumu), were	  also	  reported	  as	  being	  
very	  critical,	  especially	  when	  dealing	  with	  issues	  at	  the	  border	  areas.	  	  
Mercy	  Corps	  has	  trained	  us	  to	  manage	  the	  conflict,	  but	  also	  there	  was	  the	  networking	  
to	  be	  very	  strong.	  When	  they	  call	  us	  in	  together	  for	  training,	  you	  would	  meet	  the	  
different	  people	  from	  different	  districts	  so	  that	  we	  now	  have	  a	  network	  and	  now	  we	  
know	  each	  other	  can	  call	  each	  other.	  Mary	  Njoki,	  Chairperson,	  Warange	  DPC
Objective	  2:	  Sponsor	  community	  dialogues	  and	  implement	  joint	  development	  projects	  that	  
build	  bridges	  among	  divided	  communities	  and	  demonstrate	  tangible	  benefits	  to	  cooperation	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  implemented	  a	  number	  of	  different	  types	  of	  projects	  that	  focused	  
upon	  building	  relationships	  and	  trust	  between	  the	  communities	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  These	  
included	  community	  connector	  projects,	  cash	  for	  work	  (C4W)	  projects	  and	  income	  
generating	  projects	  (IGA).	  In	  the	  cost	  extension	  the	  project	  also	  included	  a	  number	  of	  
quick	  impact	  projects	  (QIP).	  
While	  the	  community	  connector	  and	  C4W	  projects	  were	  designed	  primarily	  with	  peace	  
building	  in	  mind,	  the	  IGA	  programs	  also	  included	  an	  economic	  empowerment	  aspect	  as	  
well.	  	  Some	  of	  the	  C4W	  groups	  also	  pooled	  the	  cash	  they	  received	  in	  order	  to	  purchase	  
assets	  to	  strengthen	  the	  groups’	  income	  generating	  capacity.	  	  
Result	  2.1	  64	  communities	  engage	  in	  dialogue	  to	  promote	  reconciliation	  and	  identify	  
projects	  for	  implementation	  
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  80	  events	  related	  to	  reconciliation	  during	  the	  first	  two	  years	  of	  
the	  program,	  and	  was	  able	  to	  exceed	  this	  target	  by	  four	  additional	  events.	  	  	  At	  the	  
reconciliation	  events,	  the	  project	  had	  targeted	  2400	  participants,	  but	  recorded	  over	  4435	  
attendees.	  	  Many	  more	  people	  attended	  the	  events	  than	  was	  anticipated in	  the	  design	  of	  
the	  program,	  indicating	  that	  the	  targeted	  communities	  were	  determined	  to	  have	  peace.	  
The	  LEAP	  team	  designed	  the	  timing	  of	  the	  events	  to	  be	  community-­‐friendly,	  for	  example,	  
many	  were	  planned	  to	  happen	  in	  the	  evenings	  when	  people	  were	  less	  busy.	  	  However,	  the	  
high	  levels	  of	  unemployment	  may	  have	  also	  contributed	  to	  the	  large	  numbers	  of	  
participants,	  as	  the	  events	  gave	  the	  community	  a	  venue	  for	  discussing	  the	  difficulties	  they	  
were	  facing.	  A	  member	  of	  the	  Molo	  DPC	  stated:
Every	  week	  we	  have	  had	  dialogues	  –	  on	  Friday	  we	  have	  one	  at	  another	  place,	  last	  week	  
we	  were	  in	  two	  places.	  It	  depends	  on	  the	  sub-­location which	  communities	  are	  involved.	  	  
Also	  Molo	  is	  a	  cosmopolitan	  area,	  no	  one	  place	  has	  only	  one	  community.	  	  In	  most	  places	  
you	  have	  very	  many	  different	  ethnic	  groups	  so	  you	  include	  all	  the	  communities.	  
23
Result	  2.2a	  64	  community	  and	  district	  projects	  are	  implemented	  that	  demonstrate	  tangible	  
benefits	  to	  cooperation.	  
The	  project	  implemented	  64	  joint	  reconstruction	  projects,	  meeting	  the	  project	  target.	  The	  
community	  connector	  projects	  were	  the	  direct	  result	  of	  community	  dialogues;	  the	  
communities	  the	  consultant	  met	  had	  a	  great	  sense	  of	  pride	  and	  accomplishment	  in	  the	  
community	  projects.	  	  These	  projects	  took	  on	  symbolic	  meaning	  for	  the	  communities,	  
representing	  their	  joint	  collaboration	  and	  work	  in	  implementing	  the	  activity.	  	  In	  
particular,	  the	  connector	  bridges	  were	  mentioned	  as	  having	  deep	  symbolic	  meaning	  for	  
communities	  who	  had	  previously	  been	  in	  conflict.
Figure	  12	  Community	  Connector	  Bridge,	  Sachangwan
At	  a	  place	  called	  Sachangwan	  a	  bridge	  was	  removed	  during	  the	  clashes	  and	  later	  it	  
was	  rebuilt	  with	  support	  from	  Mercy	  Corps.	  So	  when	  the	  bridge	  was	  removed,	  the	  
community	  from	  one	  side	  could	  not	  move	  to	  the	  other	  side	  of	  the	  river.	  Now	  that	  the
bridge	  is	  there,	  the	  two	  communities	  can	  interact	  and	  buy	  and	  sell	  from	  each	  other.	  	  
That	  was	  a	  very	  successful	  project	  and	  people	  were	  very	  happy	  with	  it.	  The	  DPC	  
mobilized	  and	  involved	  the	  youth	  from	  both	  sides	  to	  provide	  the	  manpower	  for	  the	  
bridge.	  Molo	  DPC	  focus	  group
Lessons	  Learnt	  3:	  Community	  connector	  projects,	  especially	  those	  that	  build	  a	  visible	  
structure,	  such	  as	  bridges,	  can	  be	  symbolic	  representations	  of	  reconciliation	  processes.
Result	  2.2b	  Community	  members	  show	  increased	  willingness	  to	  cooperate	  across	  conflict	  
lines.	  
Across	  the	  board,	  in	  both	  the	  focus	  group	  discussion	  and	  the	  interviews,	  it	  was	  felt	  that	  as	  
a	  result	  of	  the	  LEAP	  program,	  there	  was	  greater	  inter-­‐ethnic	  cooperation	  in	  the	  targeted	  
communities.	  However,	  many	  felt	  that	  while	  there	  was	  greater	  cooperation,	  the	  deeper	  
issues	  between	  the	  communities	  had	  not	  yet	  been	  resolved,	  and	  there	  was	  potential	  for	  
24
these	  issues	  to	  re-­‐emerge	  in	  times	  of	  tension.	  	  So,	  while	  they	  felt	  that	  there	  was	  currently	  a
relative	  peace,	  they	  felt	  that	  it	  was	  now	  time	  to	  address	  the	  deeper	  reconciliation	  issues	  
between	  the	  communities.
People	  have	  not	  yet	  been	  completely	  reconciled.	  So	  there	  is	  something	  we	  have	  not	  yet	  
accomplished.	  For	  example	  my	  father	  and	  my	  brother	  were	  killed	  during	  the	  PEV.	  
People	  are	  still	  bitter,	  and	  we	  have	  not	  had	  time	  to	  reconcile	  these	  issues.	  Now	  we	  
have	  peace,	  but	  now	  we	  need	  to	  have	  reconciliation.	  We	  have	  Kikuyu	  and	  Kalenjin	  
who	  are	  still	  fighting	  –	  but	  we	  need	  to	  help	  them	  come	  together	  and	  bring	  the	  issues	  
out	  between	  them.	  	  	  Trans	  Nzoia	  DPC
In	  the	  end	  of project	  evaluation	  survey,	  the	  respondents	  were	  asked	  a	  series	  of	  questions	  
regarding	  their	  level	  of	  trust	  with	  others	  of	  different	  ethnic	  communities.	  	  In	  terms	  of	  joint	  
activities,	  they	  were	  asked	  whether	  they	  had	  engaged	  in	  various	  activities	  during	  the	  
previous	  three	  months.	  	  Overall	  the	  survey	  found	  that	  interactions	  between	  the	  ethnic	  
communities	  were	  common,	  with	  the	  highest	  number of	  interactions	  being	  in	  the	  market	  
and	  trade	  activities,	  the	  lowest	  in	  politics	  and	  community	  activities.2 	  	  Interestingly,	  in	  the	  
2010	  baseline	  survey,	  the	  Kisii	  community	  was	  listed	  as	  the	  community	  that	  most	  other	  
communities	  interacted	  with,	  while	  in	  the	  2013	  survey,	  the	  Kalinjin	  were	  rated	  higher (see	  
Figure	  13	  below).	  	  Also,	  in	  2010,	  the	  respondents	  listed	  conflict	  levels	  with	  other	  
community	  members	  as	  being	  higher	  (as	  much	  as	  20%	  with	  Kisii,	  and	  10%	  with	  Luhya),	  in	  
the	  2013	  survey,	  levels	  of	  conflict	  with	  other	  ethnic	  communities	  were	  all	  rated	  as	  being	  
lower	  than	  5%.	  
Figure	  13	  Interaction	  across	  Ethnic	  Lines
Respondent	  were	  also	  asked	  to	  rate	  how	  much	  they	  trusted	  members	  of	  other	  ethnic	  
communities	  (see	  Figure	  14	  below).	  	  In	  the	  baseline	  survey	  in	  2010,	  Kalenjin	  were	  rated	  
the	  lowest	  with	  only	  60%	  of	  respondents	  stating	  they	  trust	  them	  “to	  a	  great	  extent”	  or	  “to	  
some	  extent”	  combined.	  	  In	  the	  EOP	  survey,	  60%	  stated	  they	  trusted	  the	  Kalengin	  “to	  some	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   2
 The community activities mentioned here would be events such as funerals, marriages etc.
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
80	  
90	  
100	  
Market/Trade	  
Social	  
Farming	  
￾Poli9cs	  
Work	  	  
Community	  
Group	  	  
￾Conflict	  
Kalenjin	  
Kikuyu	  
Kisii	  
Luhya	  
Luo	  
InteracOon	  Across	  Ethnic	  Divide
25
extent”,	  while	  33%	  stated	  they	  trusted	  them	  “to	  a	  great	  extent.”	  	  The	  highest	  levels	  of	  trust	  
were	  for	  the	  Luhya	  community	  at	  79%.	  	  	  In	  the	  2013	  evaluation	  survey,	  the	  Kalenjin	  were	  
rated	  the	  highest	  levels	  of	  trust,	  with	  60%	  stating	  that	  they	  trust	  them	  to	  some	  extent,	  and	  
33%	  stating	  that	  they	  trust	  them	  to	  a	  great	  extent.	  	  The	  Luhya	  community,	  however,	  was	  
rated	  as	  lowest	  in	  the	  2013	  survey	  as	  compared	  with	  the	  other	  ethnic	  communities.
Figure	  14	  Trust	  between	  ethnic	  communities
The	  respondents	  were	  asked	  to	  rate	  how	  comfortable	  they	  would	  feel	  if	  someone	  from	  the	  
other	  ethnic	  groups	  were	  contesting	  for	  elective	  post	  in	  their	  communities	  (see	  Figure	  16).	  	  
Again,	  the	  Kalenjin	  community	  scored	  higher	  than	  the	  other	  communities,	  with	  over	  95%	  
saying	  they	  would	  be	  comfortable	  or	  very	  comfortable	  if	  a	  member	  of	  the	  Kalenjin	  was	  
contesting	  for	  elective	  post	  in	  their	  communities.	  	  This	  could	  reflect	  that	  the	  Rift	  Valley	  is	  
the	  traditional	  homeland	  of	  the	  Kalinjin	  community	  and	  they	  are	  the	  dominant	  
community.	  	  In	  addition,	  they	  made	  up	  the	  majority	  of	  the	  respondents	  to	  the	  survey.	  	  
However,	  survey	  respondents	  were	  told	  NOT	  to	  rate	  their	  own	  ethnic	  group,	  so	  this	  
should	  not	  have	  changed	  the	  percentages.	  The	  lowest	  tolerance	  was	  for	  the	  Luo	  
community,	  with	  less	  than	  5%	  stating	  that	  they	  would	  feel	  very	  uncomfortable	  if	  a	  Luo
were	  to	  run	  for	  politics	  in	  their	  community	  (see	  Figure	  15	  below).	  This	  could	  have	  
reflected	  the	  political	  climate	  at	  the	  time	  of	  the	  survey,	  which	  was	  shortly	  after	  the	  2013	  
elections,	  which	  was	  contested	  by	  Riala	  Odinga.	  However,	  they	  did	  not	  rate	  much	  lower	  
than	  the	  Luhya	  or	  Kikuyu.
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
￾Kalenjin	   Kikuyu	   Kisii	   Luhya	  
Luo	  
To	  a	  great	  extent	  
To	  some	  extent	  
To	  a	  small	  extent	  
Not	  at	  all	  
Trust	  Across	  Ethnic	  Lines
26
Figure	  15	  Tolerance	  in	  politics
The	  2013	  survey	  asked	  respondents	  whether	  they	  felt	  that	  members	  of	  other	  communities	  
excluded	  them	  from	  participation	  in	  a	  variety	  of	  activities	  (see	  Figure	  16).	  	  A	  similar	  
question	  was	  asked	  in	  the	  2010	  baseline	  survey,	  with	  the	  Kikuyu	  feeling	  the	  most	  
excluded	  by	  the	  Kalenjin	  across	  the	  board.	  	  In	  the	  2013	  survey,	  respondents	  felt	  the	  
Kikuyu	  excluded	  them	  most	  in	  education,	  and	  the	  Kisii	  in	  health	  activities.	  	  	  However,	  
there	  were	  no	  strong	  discernible patterns.
Figure	  16 Exclusion	  by	  other	  ethnic	  groups
Respondents	  were	  asked	  to	  rate	  the	  level	  of	  interest	  that	  members	  of	  other	  ethnic	  
communities	  had	  regarding	  sustainable	  peace.	  	  In	  the	  2010	  baseline	  the	  non-­‐Kalenjin	  
respondents	  rated	  the	  Kalenjin	  as	  the	  least	  interested	  in	  peace.	  	  In	  the	  2013	  survey,	  the	  
Kalenjin	  were	  rated	  as	  the	  highest	  (69%	  being	  very	  interested,	  and	  28%	  being	  somewhat	  
interested),	  while	  the	  Luhya	  were	  rated	  as	  being	  least	  interested	  (see	  figure	  17	  below).	  	  
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
￾Kalenjin	   Kikuyu	   Kisii	   Luhya	  
Luo	  
Very	  Comfortable	  
Comfortable	  
Uncomfortable	  
Very	  Unconfortable	  
Don't	  Know	  
0	  
2	  
4	  
6	  
8	  
10	  
12	  
14	  
16	  
Educa9on	  
Health	  
Transport	   Celebra9ons	  
Loans	  
Kalenjin	  
Kikuyu	  
Kisii	  
Luhya	  
Luo	  
27
Figure	  17	  Interest	  in	  sustainable	  peace	  by	  ethnic	  group
Recommendation	  3:	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  address	  the	  deep	  divisions	  between	  ethnic	  
communities	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  Although	  the	  elections	  were	  peaceful	  and	  the	  survey	  
results	  show	  an	  increase	  in	  tolerance,	  in	  most	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups	  it	  was	  
mentioned	  that	  the	  underlying	  tensions	  have	  not	  been	  resolved	  and	  could	  erupt	  again
given	  the	  right	  political	  context.	  
Result	  2.3	  Joint	  monitoring	  teams	  are	  established	  for	  all	  projects.	  
For	  each	  of	  the	  64	  community	  connector	  projects,	  a	  joint	  monitoring	  team	  was	  established	  
and	  trained	  by	  Mercy	  Corps	  from	  members	  of	  the	  community.	  	  	  During	  the	  focus	  group	  
discussions,	  a	  number	  of	  participants	  mentioned	  their	  role	  in	  the	  joint	  monitoring	  
programs,	  and	  the	  importance	  of	  the	  training	  received.	  	  This	  strategy	  also	  helped	  to	  build	  
community	  ownership	  for	  the	  projects.	  	  Albert	  Githuka,	  the	  Chair	  of	  the	  Kikuyu	  Elders	  
Peace	  Initiative	  (KEPI)	  stated:
Mercy	  Corps	  has	  been	  able	  to	  encourage	  community	  participation	  in	  the	  program,
which	  is	  very	  crucial	  for	  peace.	  They	  didn’t	  bring	  ready-­made	  projects,	  or	  their	  own	  
agenda	  to	  the	  table.	  And	  because	  of	  that	  approach,	  people	  owned	  the	  program	  and	  
they	  saw	  it	  was	  their	  responsibility	  to	  bring	  peace.	  
Objective	  3:	  Support	  youth	  integration	  and	  address	  a	  key	  cause	  of	  violence	  through	  youth	  
leadership	  training	  and	  income	  generation	  activities	  
The	  third	  objective	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  focused	  on	  working	  with	  youth,	  who	  had	  been	  
widely	  utilized	  to	  perpetrate	  violence	  during	  the	  2008	  post	  election	  violence,	  between	  
communities.	  	  This	  objective	  was	  dropped	  in	  the	  cost	  extension	  because	  of	  the	  Yes	  Youth	  
Can	  (YYC)	  program	  that	  Mercy	  Corps	  began	  to	  implement	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley in	  March	  2011.	  
In	  Objective	  3,	  Mercy	  Corps	  worked	  closely	  with	  a	  number	  of	  location	  partners,	  including	  
the	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre	  (KYC)	  in	  Kericho,	  the	  Wareng	  Youth	  Initiative	  (WYI)	  in	  Eldoret,	  
and	  the	  Peace	  and	  Development	  Forum	  in	  Nakuru.	  	  These	  local	  partners	  worked	  closely	  
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
80	  
￾Kalenjin	   Kikuyu	   Kisii	   Luhya	  
Luo	  
Very	  Interested	  
Somewhat	  Interested	  
Somewhat	  Disinterested	  
Very	  Disinterested	  
Don't	  Know	  
28
with	  the	  youth	  self-­‐help	  groups	  (YSHG)	  in	  order	  to	  strengthen	  their	  capacity	  and	  manage	  
the	  cash	  for	  work	  and	  income	  generating	  activities.
Result	  3.1	  Organizational	  capacity	  of	  local	  partner	  and	  YSHGs	  strengthened	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  sought	  not	  only	  to	  build	  the	  capacity	  of	  the	  YSHGs,	  but	  also	  the	  
capacity	  of	  the	  local	  implementing	  partners.	  	  At	  the	  beginning	  of	  the	  program,	  an	  
organizational	  capacity	  assessment	  was	  done	  with	  each	  implementing	  partner,	  and	  a	  
capacity	  building	  strategy	  was	  developed	  and	  implemented.	  Unfortunately,	  there	  was	  no	  
follow-­‐up	  capacity	  assessment	  of	  the	  local	  partners,	  and	  therefore	  it	  is	  difficult	  to	  
quantitatively	  measure	  their	  improvement	  in	  each	  area.	  	  	  
However,	  the	  consultant	  was	  able	  to	  meet	  with	  all	  three	  implementing	  partners,	  and	  they	  
all	  reported	  that	  they	  felt	  their	  capacity	  had	  greatly	  improved	  through	  their	  partnership	  
with	  Mercy	  Corps.	  	  The	  areas	  of	  improvement	  mentioned	  were	  in	  financial	  management,	  
policy	  and	  strategy,	  human	  resources,	  monitoring	  and	  evaluation.	  	  In	  addition,	  the	  Wareng	  
Youth	  Initiative	  members	  stated	  that	  they	  had	  learned	  more	  about	  the	  reform	  process	  in	  
Kenya,	  which	  helped	  them	  in	  their	  peace	  building	  work.
The	  local	  partners	  worked	  closely	  with	  the	  YSHGs,	  building	  their	  capacities	  and	  managing	  
the	  cash	  for	  work	  and	  income	  generating	  activities.	  	  As	  the	  local	  partners	  received	  capacity	  
building	  training	  from	  Mercy	  Corps,	  they	  were	  then	  able	  to	  cascade	  the	  training	  down	  to	  
the	  youth	  groups	  that	  they	  were	  managing.	  	  However,	  there	  were	  various	  challenges
working	  with	  the	  local	  youth	  groups,	  particularly	  the	  literacy	  levels	  and	  capacity.	  As	  
Daniel	  Ronoh	  of	  the	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre	  reported:
One	  challenge	  in	  the	  project	  in	  proposal	  writing	  was	  that	  we	  discovered	  that	  literacy	  
levels	  were	  low	  amongst	  the	  youth,	  especially	  in	  Kipkelion.	  So	  despite	  the	  trainings	  in	  
proposal	  writing,	  they	  were	  not	  able	  to	  conceptualize	  the	  project.	  Only	  one	  or	  two	  in	  
each	  group	  were	  able	  to	  read	  and	  write.	  Many	  youth	  still	  uneducated	  and	  illiterate	  in	  
the	  rural	  areas,	  we	  had	  to	  adapt	  the	  curriculum	  to	  suit	  the	  different	  locations.	  (Daniel	  
Ronoh,	  KYC)
One	  of	  the	  planned	  indicators	  in	  the	  PMP	  was	  measuring	  the	  change	  in	  contributions	  
raised	  by	  partners	  and	  YSHGs.	  However,	  this	  was	  difficult	  as	  there	  was	  no	  baseline	  
regarding	  the	  levels	  of	  funding	  for	  each	  group.	  	  	  In	  the	  meetings	  with	  the	  local	  partners	  
and	  some	  of	  the	  YSHGs,	  it	  was	  clear	  that	  they	  had	  been	  able	  to	  increase	  their	  overall	  
income.
The	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre	  had	  been sourcing	  funding	  for	  their	  health	  related	  activities	  
through	  PEPFAR,	  AMREF	  and	  the	  government	  (NAC-­‐TOA)	  before	  their	  partnership	  with	  
Mercy	  Corps.	  	  However,	  through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  they	  were	  able	  to	  expand	  their	  
activities	  to	  include	  peace	  building,	  and	  increase	  their	  funding	  directly	  related	  to	  this	  new	  
sector.	  	  Their	  first	  grant	  from	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  was	  to	  implement	  a	  90,000	  KSH	  cash-­‐
for-­‐work	  project	  with	  the	  youth	  in	  their	  organization	  in	  2010.	  They	  then	  established	  an	  
agreement	  with	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  became	  a	  local	  implementing	  organization	  for	  the	  LEAP	  
II	  program,	  managing	  10	  C4W	  and	  10	  IGA	  programs	  with	  YSHG	  in	  the	  Kericho	  area.
Through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  the	  Wareng	  Youth	  Initiative	  transitioned	  from	  being	  a	  
Community	  Based	  Organization	  (CBO)	  to	  a	  Non-­‐Government	  Organization	  managing	  other	  
29
YSHGs.	  	  Through	  the	  program,	  they	  supported	  25	  groups	  in	  5	  districts	  within	  3	  counties	  
(15	  in	  Uasin	  Gishu,	  5	  in	  Elgeyo	  Marakwet,	  and	  5	  in	  Nandi	  County).	  	  They	  reported	  that	  
they	  have	  also	  been	  able	  to	  source	  additional	  funding	  from	  Media	  Focus	  and	  Kenya	  
Transition	  Initiative	  (KTI).	  
The	  Peace	  and	  Development	  forum	  (PDF)	  was	  established	  in	  October	  2010	  with	  the	  goal	  
of	  working	  closely	  with	  the	  youth.	  Their	  first	  grant	  was	  with	  Mercy	  Corps.	  	  They	  reported	  
that	  as	  a	  result	  of	  their	  work	  on	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  their	  capacity	  has	  increased	  and	  they	  
were	  able	  to	  access	  funding	  from	  Chemonics	  as	  well	  as	  the	  National	  Steering	  Committee
(NSC).	  	  The	  PDF	  was	  not	  included	  in	  the	  LEAP	  II	  cost	  extension	  because	  of	  the	  limits	  of	  
funding	  and	  the	  decision	  not	  to	  work	  directly	  with	  the	  youth.	  
It	  was	  difficult	  to	  find	  information	  regarding	  the	  fundraising	  of	  the	  YSHGs,	  with	  the	  
exception	  of	  the eight	  groups	  that	  the	  consultant	  was	  able	  to	  visit	  in	  May	  2013	  (see	  Annex	  
4	  for	  a	  list	  of	  projects	  visited).	  	  Of	  the	  eight	  groups,	  three	  (Kapsoya	  Border	  Youth	  Group,	  
Kesses	  Youth,	  and	  Kichawir	  Upendo)	  reported	  having	  been	  able	  to	  access	  additional	  
funding	  from	  the	  government	  and	  other	  organizations	  (i.e.	  CRS).	  	  
The	  Kesses	  youth	  group	  was	  particularly	  successful	  after	  receiving	  an	  initial	  IGA	  grant	  
from	  LEAP	  II	  for	  78,000	  KSH	  (equivalent	  at	  that	  period	  to	  $1000	  USD)	  for	  the	  purchase	  of	  
150	  chairs	  and	  utensils	  to	  rent	  out	  to	  local	  communities	  for	  functions	  and	  celebrations.	  
They	  have	  since	  been	  able	  to	  generate	  additional	  funds	  to	  purchase	  a	  quarter	  acre	  plot,	  
and	  they	  have	  purchased	  an	  additional	  50	  chairs.	  In	  addition,	  they	  received	  a	  loan	  from	  
the	  Ministry	  of	  Youth,	  as	  well	  as	  a	  loan	  for	  two	  green	  houses	  for	  tomato	  production	  from	  
AMERAN.	  	  They	  have	  additional	  plans	  to	  purchase	  a	  100-­‐seater	  tent	  and	  build	  houses	  for	  
rent	  on	  their	  quarter	  acre	  plot.	  A	  member	  of	  the	  Kesses	  group	  stated:
The	  IGA	  project	  from	  Mercy	  Corps	  was	  the	  seed	  for	  all	  our	  other activities;	  we	  have	  
received	  a	  grant	  and	  loans	  from	  the	  Ministry	  of	  Youth	  and	  now	  have	  many	  different	  
activities	  and	  are	  a	  role	  model	  for	  other	  youth.
Figure	  18	  Kesses	  Youth	  Group	  greenhouses
30
Recommendation	  4:	  	  Follow-­‐up	  Organizational	  Capacity	  Assessments	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  
partners	  should	  be	  included	  in	  any	  future	  work	  with	  these	  partners,	  or	  in	  the	  USAID	  peace	  
building	  evaluation,	  using	  the	  LEAP	  II	  assessments	  as	  a	  baseline.
Result	  3.2	  Young	  people	  gain	  new	  skills	  that	  help	  them	  earn	  an	  income	  and	  address	  daily	  
challenges	  
A	  key	  focus	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  was	  in	  building	  the	  economic	  empowerment	  capacity	  
of	  the	  YSHGs	  through	  trainings	  and	  workshops.	  	  All	  groups	  visited	  mentioned	  the	  
numerous	  training	  sessions	  they	  had	  received	  from	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  the	  local	  
implementing	  partners	  though out	  the	  program,	  notably	  the	  financial	  literacy	  training	  and	  
the	  entrepreneurship	  training.	  In	  particular	  the	  financial	  literacy	  training	  was	  reported	  to	  
instill	  in them	  with	  the	  confidence	  to	  access	  additional	  funding	  and	  even	  take	  loans,	  which	  
they	  had	  feared	  to	  do	  earlier.	  	  As	  a	  member	  of	  Kesses	  Youth	  stated:
We	  used	  to	  fear	  loans,	  but	  with	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  financial	  literacy	  training	  we	  learned	  
how	  to	  take	  risks	  and	  how	  to	  manage	  the	  loans.	  
Youth	  from	  Uasin	  Gishu	  also	  stated	  that	  as	  a	  result	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  they	  were	  more	  
aware	  of	  the	  funding	  available	  from	  the	  government,	  and	  that	  government	  funding	  was	  
more	  accessible	  to	  them	  than	  in	  the	  past:
Mercy	  Corps	  also	  made	  the	  government	  wake	  up	  to	  assist	  the	  youth,	  they	  ashamed	  the	  
government	  and	  now	  they	  are	  coming	  in	  to	  see	  how	  they	  can	  support	  the	  youth.	  
Before	  the	  MC	  came	  to	  assist	  the	  groups,	  the	  youth	  were	  not	  willing	  to	  come	  together,	  
but	  now	  they	  are	  very	  interested	  to	  come	  together	  and	  assist	  the	  youth	  and	  the	  
tournaments	  –	  young	  ladies	  and	  men	  come	  together	  and	  have	  discussions	  and	  work	  
together.
The	  project	  had	  planned	  to	  train	  480	  young	  people	  in	  leadership,	  consensus	  building	  and	  
economic	  skills,	  and	  met	  this	  target	  by	  training	  481	  youth.	   Most	  of	  the	  groups	  reported	  
having	  gained	  important	  skills,	  especially	  in	  financial	  literacy	  and	  management	  that	  they	  
use	  both	  as	  a	  group	  as	  well	  as	  in	  their	  own	  individual	  income	  generating	  projects.	  They	  
also	  reported	  an	  increase	  in	  government	  support	  to	  youth	  as	  a	  result	  of	  the	  project.	  	  
In	  the	  2013	  survey,	  youth	  were	  asked	  how	  many	  times	  they	  had	  organized	  collective	  
action	  for	  any	  community	  cause.	  	  Twenty-­‐nine	  percent	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  reported	  
involvement	  in	  3-­‐5	  activities	  compared	  with	  12%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants.	  However,	  
more	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  reported	  participation	  in	  1-­‐2	  activities	  than	  LEAP	  
participants	  (see	  Figure	  20).
31
Figure	  19	  Youth	  participation	  in	  community	  action
In	  an	  August	  2012	  survey,	  youth	  were	  asked	  how	  they	  expected	  their	  economic	  condition	  
would	  be	  in	  twelve	  months.	  	  Of	  those	  surveyed,	  77%	  expected	  their	  condition	  to	  be	  better,	  
19.9%	  expected	  it	  to	  be	  the	  same,	  and	  2.9%	  thought	  it	  would	  get	  worse.3	  	  In	  the	  2013	  end	  
of	  project	  survey,	  a	  similar	  question	  was	  asked,	  with	  marginally	  better	  results.	  	  In	  
addition,	  the	  data	  was	  disaggregated	  by	  those	  who	  participated	  in	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  
and	  those	  who	  did	  not.	  Of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  participants,	  86.2%	  expected	  their	  condition	  to	  be	  
better,	  while	  12.9%	  expected	  it	  to	  be	  the	  same.	  The	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  were	  similar,	  
although	  1.9%	  expected	  their	  condition	  to	  be	  worse,	  10.6%	  expected	  it	  to	  be	  the	  same,	  and	  
86%	  expected	  it	  to	  be	  better	  (see	  Table	  4).	  	  	  This	  shows	  a	  10.7%	  increase	  over	  the	  one	  
year	  from	  the	  August	  2012	  survey	  to	  the	  end	  of	  project	  survey.
Table	  4	  Anticipated	  economic	  condition	  in	  twelve	  months
Response LEAP	  II	  Participants Non-­‐LEAP	  participants
Worse 0 1.9%
Same 12.9% 10.6%
Better 86.2% 86%
I	  don't	  know 0.9% 1.4%
Total 100 100
Result	  3.3a	  Youth	  implement	  at	  least	  40	  C4W	  activities	  that	  promote	  community	  
development.	  
Forty	  C4W	  activities	  were	  planned	  and	  implemented	  during	  the	  first	  year	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  
program,	  which	  focused	  on	  implementing	  an	  activity	  that	  promoted	  positive	  relationship	  
between	  ethnic	  communities	  and	  also	  promoted	  community	  development. 	  The	  project	  
had	  anticipated	  having	  600	  youth	  participate	  in	  the	  C4W	  activities,	  but	  over	  exceeded	  this	  
target	  with	  800	  participants.
The	  consultant	  was	  able	  to	  visit	  three	  groups	  that	  had	  implemented	  a	  C4W	  project:	  the	  
Mukinyai-­‐Borop	  Connection	  Bridge	  in	  Nakuru,	  the	  Kichawir	  Upendo	  Group	  in	  Kericho,	  and	  
the	  Kapsoya	  Border	  Youth	  Group	  in	  Uasin	  Gishu.	  	  	  In	  addition,	  she	  was	  able	  to	  meet	  youth	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   3
 This survey was done at the end of the LEAP II program, and focused primarily upon youth. 
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
>5	   3	  to	  5	   1	  to	  2	   0	  
%Par9cipant	  
%Non-­‐par9cipant	  
32
in	  Molo,	  Uasin	  Gishu,	  Nandi	  and	  Trans	  Nzoia,	  where	  additional	  C4W	  activities	  were	  
mentioned.	  	  	  
The	  composition	  of	  most	  of	  the	  groups	  implementing	  the	  C4W	  projects	  were	  inter-­‐ethnic,	  
although	  a	  few	  were	  mentioned	  which	  involved	  only	  one	  ethnic	  group	  due	  to	  the	  ethnic	  
composition	  of	  their	  community.	  However,	  they	  reported	  that	  they	  still	  sought	  to	  engage	  
with	  youth	  from	  other	  communities	  in	  their	  activities.	  	  Some	  of	  the	  groups	  decided	  to	  
donate	  a	  portion	  of	  the	  C4W	  individual	  income	  to	  their	  group	  and	  use	  it	  as	  a	  seed	  fund	  for	  
additional	  activities,	  while	  others	  used	  the	  income	  for	  their	  individual	  needs.
Result	  3.3b	  Youth	  feel	  like	  they	  are	  making	  a	  positive	  contribution	  to	  their	  communities.	  
In	  the	  2010	  baseline	  survey,	  17%	  of	  respondents	  believed	  that	  youth	  participated	  in	  crime	  
or	  violence	  most	  of	  the	  time	  (10%)	  or	  always	  (7%).	  	  In	  the	  2013	  end	  of	  project	  survey,	  the	  
perceptions	  of	  youth	  participation	  in	  violence	  decreased	  significantly,	  with	  less	  that	  2%	  
believing	  that	  youth	  participate	  in	  violence	  most	  of	  the	  time	  or	  always	  (see	  Figure	  20
below).	  	  Only	  35%	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  felt	  that	  youth	  participated	  in	  violence	  sometimes,	  
with	  even	  lower	  percentage	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  (24.5%).	  	  It	  is	  unclear	  why	  a	  higher	  
percentage	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  felt	  that	  youth	  participated	  more	  in	  violence	  than	  non-­‐
LEAP	  participants.
Figure	  20	  Perceptions	  of	  youth	  participation	  in	  violence
In	  the	  focus	  groups	  and	  interviews,	  the	  participants	  reported	  that	  the	  youth	  had	  taken	  an	  
active	  role	  in	  the	  communities	  and	  were	  seen	  in	  a	  much	  more	  positive	  light	  now	  than	  in	  
2010.	  	  Their	  involvement	  in	  community	  projects,	  C4W,	  as	  well	  as	  the	  EWER	  activities	  had	  
transformed	  the	  communities’	  perception	  of	  them	  as	  perpetrators	  of	  violence.	  In	  the	  youth	  
focus	  group	  in	  Molo,	  one	  participant	  stated:
Now	  young	  people	  being	  involved	  vibrantly	  in	  the	  programs,	  but	  previously	  the	  youth	  
were	  seen	  as	  the	  problems.	  But	  after	  seeing	  the	  initiative	  of	  the	  young	  people,	  it	  has	  
increased	  respect	  and	  trust	  of	  the	  young	  people	  in	  Molo.	  And	  now	  the	  community	  sees	  
them	  positively	  and	  they	  have	  been	  brought	  close.	  Now	  they	  make	  sure	  that	  youth	  are	  
0	  
5	  
10	  
15	  
20	  
25	  
30	  
35	  
40	  
45	  
50	  
Always	  
Most	  of	  
the	  9me	  
Some9mes	  
Rarely	  
Never	  
Don't	  Know	  
%Par9cipants	  
%Non-­‐Par9cipants	  
Youth	  ParOcipaOon	  in	  Violence
33
integrated	  into	  the	  DPCs,	  even	  before	  this	  was	  in	  the	  constitution.	  Previously	  youth	  
were	  seen	  as	  drunkards	  and	  hopeless	  people	  with	  no	  future.	  	  But	  now	  it	  is	  easier	  to	  
integrate	  into	  the	  committees	  and	  we	  are	  appreciated	  there.	  
As	  was	  found	  in	  the	  2010	  baseline,	  the	  main	  reason	  given	  for	  youth’s	  involvement	  in	  
violence	  or	  crime	  was	  the	  lack	  of	  livelihoods	  (see	  Figure	  21	  below).
Figure	  21	  Reasons	  for	  youth	  involvement	  in	  crime	  or	  violence.
The	  data	  was	  also	  analyzed	  using	  two	  additional	  statistical	  approaches	  in	  order	  to	  
examine	  propensity	  to	  violence.	  First,	  we	  used	  propensity	  score	  matching	  (PSM)	  in	  an	  
attempt	  to	  move	  towards	  assessing	  causal	  impacts	  of	  the	  program	  and;	  second,	  we	  used	  
multiple	  regression	  analysis	  to	  assess	  correlations	  between	  program	  interventions,	  the	  
intermediate	  and	  the	  long-­‐term	  outcomes.	  The	  regression	  analysis	  was	  done	  in	  two-­‐steps.	  
The	  first	  part	  analyzed	  the	  correlations	  of	  the	  program	  components’	  (Peace	  Dialogues,	  
Youth	  Multi-­‐Ethnic	  events	  etc.)	  with	  intermediate	  outcomes,	  such	  as	  interaction,	  trust	  and	  
security.	  The	  second	  part	  looked	  at	  correlations	  between	  intermediate	  outcomes	  and	  the	  
long-­‐term	  outcome	  (propensity	  for	  violence)	  (See	  table	  5	  for	  the	  regression	  table).
Propensity	  Score	  Matching constructs	  a	  statistical	  comparison	  group	  by	  modeling	  the	  
probability	  of	  participating	  in	  the	  program	  on	  the	  basis	  of	  observed	  characteristics	  that	  
are	  unaffected	  by	  the	  program.	  The	  method	  matches	  every	  participant	  with	  its	  closest	  
match	  among	  non-­‐participants	  based	  on	  observable	  characteristics	  not	  affected	  by	  the	  
program	  (such	  as	  gender,	  household	  location	  etc).	  The	  idea	  is	  if	  two	  individuals	  are	  (close	  
to)	  identical	  in	  every	  way	  except	  for	  their	  treatment	  status,	  then	  any	  difference	  in	  the	  
outcomes	  will	  be	  attributable	  to	  the	  program.	  As	  a	  precursor	  to	  the	  findings	  in	  this	  section,	  
it	  is	  important	  to	  note	  that	  we	  did	  not	  have	  enough	  pre-­‐program	  characteristics	  to	  match	  
on	  in	  order	  to	  make	  clear	  conclusions	  about	  the	  effect	  of	  the	  program.	  These	  findings	  
should	  therefore	  be	  treated	  as	  suggestive.
4
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   4
 There were two key limitations to this analysis. First, the lack of suitable variables to match on in the Propensity 
Score Matching made making causal interpretation problematic. Secondly, the regression analysis does not lend 
itself to causal interpretation. All we can say is that significant variables move together with the outcome variable.
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
80	  
Developing	  
Bad	  Behaviors	  
Follow	  
Tradi9on	  of	  
Conflict	  
Ins9gated	  by	  
Others	  
Lack	  of	  
Livelihood	  
Other	  
34
Findings:
• LEAP	  II	  participants	  that	  were	  matched	  to	  similar	  non-­‐participants	  had
significantly	  higher	  levels	  of	  trust.
• However,	  there	  were	  no	  significant	  difference	  between	  participants	  and	  non-­‐
participants	  with	  regards	  to	  interaction,	  security	  and	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
Table	  5:	  Analysis	  of	  Determinants	  of	  Youth	  Propensity	  Towards	  Political	  Violence	  
in	  the	  Rift	  Valley5
Behavioral Attitudinal
Full	  model-­‐Controlling	  for	  
ethnicity	  and	  location
Full	  model-­‐Controlling	  for	  
ethnicity	  and	  location
VARIABLES
Odds	  ratios	  
(p-­‐values)
Odds	  ratios
(p-­‐value)
Attended	  peace	  building	  meeting(s)(Yes=1) 0.63 0.54
(0.313) (0.334)
Training	  in	  conflict	  management	  (Yes=1) 5.16*** 0.27*
(0.001) (0.066)
Member	  of	  self-­‐help	  group	  (Yes=1) 0.37** 0.89
(0.043) (0.834)
Training	  from	  business	  rep	  (Yes=1) 2.67** 0.87
(0.049) (0.834)
Income 0.84 1.35*
(0.144) (0.052)
Rate	  relative	  economic	  condition 0.56*
(0.056)
Economic	  Optimism 1.46 0.58
(0.378) (0.293)
Interact	  with	  members	  of	  other	  ethnic	  groups 0.27*** 1.94
(0.000) (0.169)
Nationalism	  vs.	  tribalism 0.25** 0.11***
(0.011) (0.003)
Trust	  in	  members	  of	  other	  ethnic	  groups 0.74***
(0.008)
Gender	  (Male=1) 2.63** 2.64*
(0.020) (0.082)
Age	  group 1.28 0.88
(0.292) (0.707)
Education	  level 0.67*** 0.76
(0.007) (0.145)
Rural	  (Rural=1) 0.99 0.54
(0.991) (0.340)
Disputes	  (Yes=1) 3.21*** 0.48
(0.005) (0.209)
Constant 1.21 5.28
(0.879) (0.349)
Observations 421 406
pval	  in	  parentheses
***	  p<0.01,	  **	  p<0.05,	  *	  p<0.1
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   5
 This analysis was compiled by Ruben Grangaard from the EOP survey data
35
Results	  Step1:	  Regression	  Analysis	  of	  Intermediate	  outcomes	  (Youth	  only)
Multiple	  regression	  analysis	  was	  first	  carried	  out	  on	  the	  three	  main	  intermediate	  
outcomes;	  trust,	  interaction	  and	  security.	  The	  advantage	  of	  multivariate	  regression	  is	  that	  
we	  are	  able	  to	  isolate	  the	  effect	  of	  one	  variable’s	  effect	  on	  the	  outcome	  variable,	  while	  not	  
allowing	  for	  cofounding	  variables	  to	  interfere.	  
Findings:
• The	  existence	  of	  peace	  committees	  in	  the	  area	  of	  the	  respondent	  is	  correlated	  with	  
higher	  levels	  of	  trust	  and	  interaction.
• Higher	  levels	  of	  community	  action	  among	  youth	  are	  correlated	  with	  higher	  levels	  of	  
trust.
• Having	  attended	  peace	  training	  is	  associated	  with	  a	  lower	  probability	  of	  perceiving	  
insecurity	  as	  a	  threat	  to	  one’s	  livelihood.
• Unemployment	  is	  correlated	  with	  significantly	  lower	  levels	  of	  interaction.
• Multi-­‐ethnic	  youth	  events	  and	  civic	  education	  for	  peaceful	  election-­‐events	  are	  
correlated	  with	  higher	  probability	  of	  perceiving	  insecurity	  as	  a	  threat	  to	  one’s	  
livelihood.	  While	  this	  was	  opposite	  of	  the	  expected	  sign,	  this	  might	  reflect	  
successful	  targeting,	  i.e.	  these	  interventions	  were	  targeted	  to	  more	  insecure	  areas.
Results	  Step	  2:	  Regression	  Analysis	  of	  the	  Long-­term	  Outcome	  (Entire	  sample)
Step	  2	  involves	  a	  multiple	  regression	  model	  of	  the	  three	  intermediate	  outcomes	  against	  
the	  final	  outcome,	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
Findings:
• Trust	  is	  a	  highly	  significant	  predictor	  of	  lower	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
• Interaction	  is	  a	  highly	  significant	  predictor	  of	  lower	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
• Security	  is	  not	  a	  significant	  predictor	  of	  propensity	  towards	  violence.
Result	  3.4a	  Youth	  identify	  and	  implement	  at	  least	  40	  income-­‐generating	  activities.	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  also	  included	  forty	  income-­‐generating	  activities,	  which	  targeted
youth	  groups	  in	  the	  communities.	  As	  with	  the	  C4W	  activities,	  the	  IGAs	  had	  two	  main	  
objectives:	  a	  peace	  building	  objective	  of	  increasing	  interaction	  between	  ethnic	  groups,	  and	  
an	  economic	  empowerment	  objective	  of	  increasing	  the	  income	  of	  group	  members.	  	  The	  
local	  implementing	  partners	  worked	  closely	  with	  the	  youth	  groups	  to	  identify	  and	  develop	  
proposals	  for	  the	  activities.	  	  Forty	  projects	  were	  selected	  and	  implemented	  during	  the	  first	  
two	  years	  of	  the	  program.
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  200	  youth	  to	  participate	  in	  the	  IGA	  activities,	  but	  the	  records	  
showed	  that	  there	  were	  actually	  731	  youth	  involved.	  	  The	  involvement	  of	  the	  youth	  in	  the	  
IGAs	  was	  much	  higher	  than	  anticipated	  as	  the	  youth	  groups	  were	  larger	  (average	  of	  15-­‐20	  
people/group)	  and	  more	  members	  of	  the	  groups	  were	  involved.	  During	  program	  design	  it	  
was	  not	  anticipated	  that	  at	  most	  half	  of	  the	  group	  members	  would	  participate,	  but	  in	  most	  
cases	  all	  members	  of	  the	  group	  were	  involved	  in	  the	  IGAs.	  	  Overall,	  there	  was	  much	  higher	  
interest	  in	  the	  IGA	  activities	  than	  had	  been	  anticipated.
36
The	  consultant	  was	  able	  to	  visit	  five	  groups	  that	  had	  implemented	  IGA	  activities	  during	  
the	  first	  two	  years	  of	  the	  program	  including	  Kesses	  Youth	  Group,	  Kapsoya	  Border	  Youth	  
Group,	  West	  Indies	  Youth	  Group,	  Kichawir	  Upendo	  Group,	  and	  Hekima	  Development	  
Skills.	  	  	  Initially,	  the	  local	  implementing	  partner	  supporting	  Hekimia	  Development	  Skills	  
felt	  that	  the	  group	  was	  a	  failure	  because	  of	  leadership	  issues.	  However,	  the	  group	  was	  able	  
to	  overcome	  its	  leadership	  struggles,	  and	  had	  set	  up	  a	  successful	  business	  packaging	  and	  
selling	  Amaranth	  herbs	  in	  Nakuru	  town.	  	  The	  added	  value	  of	  the	  packaging	  enabled	  the	  
group	  to	  increase	  their	  income	  significantly,	  and	  six	  members	  of	  the	  group	  (from	  a	  total	  of	  
15	  members)	  had	  the	  potential	  of	  earning	  up	  to	  23,000KSH/month	  through	  the	  sales	  of	  
the	  product,	  with	  an	  additional	  700KSH	  (total	  3000	  KSH)	  given	  back	  into	  the	  group	  on	  a	  
monthly	  basis.
6
Figure	  22	  Member	  of	  Hekima	  Development	  Skills	  in	  kiosk	  selling	  Amaranth
The	  IGAs	  experienced	  a	  number	  of	  challenges	  in	  their	  implementation.	  The	  key	  challenge	  
mentioned	  by	  the	  local	  implementing	  partners	  as	  well	  as	  the	  youth	  groups	  themselves	  was	  
the	  issue	  of	  leadership	  within	  the	  group.	  	  Many	  of	  the	  groups	  had	  been	  formed	  as	  merry-­‐
go-­‐round	  savings	  groups	  with	  small	  amounts	  of	  funds	  being	  managed	  by	  the	  group	  on	  a	  
monthly	  basis.	  Some	  groups	  found	  that	  when	  the	  opportunity	  for	  a	  larger	  grant,	  up	  to	  the	  
equivalent	  of	  $1000	  USD,	  it	  caused	  some	  difficulties	  within	  the	  group	  especially	  with	  
regards	  to	  leadership.	  The	  transitory	  nature	  of	  urban	  youth	  made	  group	  cohesion	  
difficulty	  and	  it	  was	  challenging	  for	  groups	  in	  those	  areas	  to	  work	  with	  them	  on	  an	  
ongoing	  basis.	  	  Finally,	  it	  was	  mentioned	  that	  managing	  IGA	  activities	  in	  a	  group	  setting	  
had	  less	  economic	  impact	  than	  grants	  to	  individuals,	  and	  therefore	  the	  potential	  economic	  
empowerment	  was	  hampered	  by	  the	  peace-­‐building	  objective.	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   6
 It was not possible to get actual income of the participants, but the figures provided were based upon projections 
based upon the amount of product each participants received to sell on a quarterly basis.
37
One	  IGA	  group	  reported	  that	  their	  chairperson	  had	  successfully	  competed	  in	  the	  elections	  
and	  was	  now	  an	  MP	  for	  the	  area,	  something	  they	  took	  as	  a	  group	  accomplishment.	  
Lessons	  Learnt	  4:	  Adding	  finances	  to	  a	  successful	  group	  has	  the	  potential	  to	  create	  
internal	  problems,	  if	  not	  properly	  managed.
Lessons	  Learnt	  5:	  	  youth	  groups,	  particularly	  urban	  ones,	  are	  often	  transitory,	  as	  youth	  go	  
off	  for	  education	  and	  employment	  in	  other	  parts	  of	  the	  country.	  	  Planning	  activities	  with	  
the	  youth	  needs	  to	  take	  this	  transitory	  characteristic	  into	  account.
Lessons	  Learnt	  6:	  	  economic	  activities	  as	  a	  group	  are	  not	  always	  as	  economically	  
successful	  as	  individual	  projects,	  but	  have	  a	  higher	  potential	  for	  building	  community	  
connectors	  if	  the	  groups	  are	  ethnically	  mixed.
Result	  3.4b	  Private	  sector	  mentors	  support	  youth	  entrepreneurs	  
The	  project	  was	  to	  engage	  twenty	  private	  sector	  mentors	  to	  support	  the	  youth	  
entrepreneurs	  in	  their	  IGA	  activities.	  According	  to	  the	  eighth	  Quarterly	  report,	  27	  mentors	  
were	  engaged.7	  	  	  However,	  most	  of	  the	  youth	  in	  the	  focus	  groups	  could	  not	  identify	  any	  
mentors.	  It	  is	  likely	  that	  in	  the	  project	  activities	  the	  term	  “mentor”	  was	  not	  used,	  and	  
therefore	  they	  were	  unfamiliar	  with	  the	  concept.	  	  
The	  local	  implementing	  partners	  reported	  that	  it	  was	  difficult	  to	  identify	  and	  work	  with	  
the	  private	  sector,	  who	  only	  wanted	  to	  be	  mentors	  if	  they	  saw	  a	  financial	  incentive,	  for	  
example	  of	  the	  group	  would	  produce	  a	  product	  that	  the	  mentor	  could	  market	  or	  sell.	  	  	  It	  
was	  easier	  to	  get	  the	  local	  business	  people	  to	  attend	  forums	  and	  one-­‐off	  events	  to	  share	  
their	  expertise,	  but	  not	  to	  have	  them	  commit	  for	  any	  long-­‐term	  mentoring	  relationships.	  	  
Mentors	  from	  the	  NGO	  sector,	  such	  as	  Technoserv	  and	  Digital	  Opportunity	  Trust	  were	  
more	  willing	  to	  commit	  to	  longer	  term	  mentoring	  relationships.	  In	  addition,	  it	  was	  
mentioned	  in	  Nandi	  that	  the	  Tumaini	  Women	  Youth	  Group	  had	  been	  successful	  in	  setting	  
up	  a	  poultry	  business	  had	  been	  a	  mentor	  for	  a	  number	  of	  other	  youth	  groups	  in	  the	  
program.	  
Lessons	  Learnt	  7:	  Linking	  youth	  with	  private	  sector	  mentors	  is	  challenging	  if	  the	  potential	  
mentors	  do	  not	  see	  a	  tangible	  benefit	  to	  their	  business.	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  enlighten	  
the	  private	  sector	  on	  the	  importance	  of	  peace	  in	  their	  communities,	  and	  the	  potential	  that	  
youth	  have	  to	  contribute	  to	  this	  peace.
In	  the	  2013	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  survey,	  youth	  were	  asked	  to	  share	  their	  average	  
monthly	  income.	  	  The	  greatest	  difference	  in	  income	  between	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  
participants	  was	  found	  at	  the	  mid-­‐range	  of	  income	  generation:	  24%	  of	  LEAP	  II
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	   7 The	  LEAP	  II	  M&E	  Specialist	  provided	  the	  following	  list	  of	  mentors:	  DSTV,	  Ministry	  of	  Trade,	  Dorep	  Poultry,	  
Private	  Consultants,	  Kenya	  Bureau	  of	  Standards,	  other	  successful	  youth	  groups	  (i.e.	  Molo	  emerging	  for	  
Peace),	  Equity	  Bank,	  Ministry	  of	  Industrialization,	  Delamere	  Farm	  Ltd	  (Nakuru),	  Eldoret	  Chambers	  of	  
Commerce	  and	  Industry,	  Ministry	  of	  Agriculture	  –	  Agri-­‐business,	  Ministry	  of	  Youth,	  Youth	  Fund,	  Business	  
Services	  Development	  Centre,	  Jua	  Kali	  Association,	  ICIPE,	  Farmers	  Choice,	  Ministry	  of	  Fisheries,	  Ministry	  of	  
Trade,	  Africa	  Hunny,	  OptiPik	  Business	  Consultants,	  Municipal	  Council,	  Square	  deal	  (Tailoring),	  Christopher	  
Bee	  Limited	  (Eldoret)	  and	  VetsChik	  Limited.	  
38
participants	  reported	  an	  income	  of	  6001-­‐9000	  KSH	  per	  month,	  as	  compared	  with	  only	  
12%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants.	   At	  the	  higher	  income	  levels,	  the	  difference	  between	  the	  
LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  was	  negligible.	  Also	  of	  note,	  while	  19%	  of	  LEAP	  
participants	  were	  unable	  to	  give	  an	  estimate	  of	  income,	  35%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  
were	  unable	  do	  so,	  indicating	  a	  higher	  level	  of	  financial	  literacy	  for	  LEAP	  participants	  	  (see	  
Table	  6	  for	  a	  comparison	  of	  income	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  average	  monthly	  income).	  
Table	  6	  Youth	  average	  monthly	  income
Response LEAP	  II	  Participants Non-­‐LEAP	  Participants
N/A 19% 35%
Ksh	  0 5% 68%
Ksh	  1-­‐3,000 10% 8%
Ksh	  3,001-­‐6,000 13% 14%
Ksh	  6,001-­‐9,000 25% 12%
Ksh	  9,001-­‐15,000 13% 9%
Ksh	  15,001-­‐18,000 6% 6%
Ksh	  18,001-­‐21,000 2% 2%
Above	  Ksh	  21,000 8% 8%
Total 100 100
Result	  3.5	  8	  youth-­‐produced	  success	  stories	  published	  or	  aired	  on	  local	  media.	  
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  having	  eight	  public	  information	  campaigns	  to	  support	  the	  
peaceful	  resolution	  of	  conflicts	  in	  the	  first	  two	  years,	  but	  was	  able	  to	  over-­‐achieve	  this	  
target	  and	  held	  twelve.	  
4.	  Cost	  Extension	  Results
The	  project	  was	  initially	  planned	  to	  be	  two	  years,	  with	  an	  end	  date	  of	  June	  2012.	  However,	  
with	  the	  2013	  elections	  approaching	  it	  was	  granted	  a	  one-­‐year	  $1	  million	  cost-­‐extension	  
to	  address	  key	  issues	  in	  the	  run	  up	  to	  and	  during	  the	  election	  period.	  The	  goals	  and	  
objectives	  of	  the	  cost-­‐extension	  were	  narrowed	  down	  from	  the	  first	  two	  years,	  with	  an	  
overall	  goal	  of	  strengthening	  the	  capacity	  of	  local	  actors	  and	  institutions	  in	  targeted	  
counties	  to	  develop	  and	  advance	  sustainable	  peace,	  reconciliation	  and	  norms	  of	  
nonviolence	  based	  on	  justice,	  accountability	  and	  equality.	  The	  cost-­‐extension	  removed	  the	  
objective	  that	  focused	  on	  youth	  empowerment,	  but	  had	  a	  more	  concentrated	  focus	  on	  
EWER,	  in	  which	  the	  YYC	  youth	  bunges	  were	  incorporated.
The	  geographic	  focus	  of	  the	  cost	  extension	  was	  also	  shifted,	  with	  Elgeyo	  Marakwet	  
dropped,	  and	  Trans	  Nzoia	  and	  Bomet	  added.	  	  During	  the	  cost-­‐extension,	  the	  project	  was	  
implemented	  in	  19	  districts	  in	  six	  counties	  of	  the	  Rift	  Valley:
• Uasin	  Gishu	  County:	  Eldoret	  West,	  Eldoret	  East,	  Wareng,	  
• Nandi	  County:	  Nandi	  North,	  Nandi	  South	  (Aldai),	  Tinderet,	  Nandi	  E.,	  Nandi	  Central	  
• Trans	  Nzoia	  County:	  Kwanza,	  Trans	  Nzoia	  West,	  Trans	  Nzoia	  East
• Kericho	  County:	  Kericho	  West,	  Kericho	  East,	  Kericho	  Central,	  Kipkelion	  W	  
Kipkelion	  E
39
• Nakuru	  County:	  Nakuru,	  Molo,	  
• Bomet	  County:	  Sotik.
Due	  to	  the	  “hot-­‐spots”	  at	  the	  border	  areas,	  the	  project	  spilled	  over	  into	  the	  neighbouring	  
counties	  of	  Kisumu	  and	  Kisii,	  although	  they	  were	  not	  formally	  included	  in	  the	  program.	  
Figure	  23:	  Map	  of	  project	  area
Objective	  1:	  Strengthen	  transformational	  platforms	  that	  prevent	  and	  respond	  to	  local	  
conflicts	  that	  threaten	  to	  destabilize	  the	  region.	  
The	  cost-­‐extension	  built	  upon	  the	  gains	  made	  in	  the	  LEAP	  II	  in	  building	  the	  capacity	  of	  
local	  conflict	  mitigation	  actors	  including	  the	  peace	  committees,	  and	  by	  establishing	  an	  
early	  warning	  early	  response	  system	  (EWER).	  
Result	  1.1	  Reach	  of	  DPCs	  and	  LPCs	  extended	  to	  address	  emerging	  inter-­‐community	  tensions	  
In	  the	  cost-­‐extension,	  the	  project	  continued	  to	  work	  at	  a	  number	  of	  different	  levels	  with	  
the	  Peace	  Committees,	  from	  the	  local	  level	  (village	  peace	  committees)	  to	  Location	  peace	  
committees,	  to	  Divisional	  PC,	  and	  finally	  District	  Peace	  Committees.	  Some	  of	  the	  peace	  
committees	  were	  already	  established	  when	  the	  project	  started,	  while	  others	  were	  
established	  throughout	  the	  life	  of	  the	  project.
Not	  only	  did	  the	  program	  engage	  with	  the	  peace	  committees	  at	  various	  levels	  and	  the	  
youth,	  but	  they	  also	  engaged	  with	  other	  community	  structures	  such	  as	  elder’s	  groups	  (for	  
40
example	  the	  Nandi	  Kaburwo	  Council	  of	  Elders),	  women’s	  groups,	  and	  religious	  leaders.	  	  In	  
the	  household	  survey,	  respondents	  were	  generally	  confident	  in	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  
conflict	  actors	  across	  the	  board.	  	  Local	  politicians	  had	  the	  lowest	  rating	  of	  effectiveness	  by	  
the	  respondents,	  but	  still	  over	  60%	  viewed	  them	  as	  either	  effective	  or	  very	  effective,	  while	  
Religious	  leaders	  and	  Elders	  had	  the	  highest	  ratings	  of	  effectiveness	  (see	  Figure	  24	  for	  
respondent’s	  perceptions	  of	  conflict	  mitigation	  actors’	  effectiveness).	  	  
Figure	  24	  Perceptions	  of	  effectiveness	  of	  conflict	  mitigation	  actors
Result	  1.2	  Strengthened	  early	  warning/early	  response	  mechanisms	  
The	  cost-­‐extension	  had	  targeted	  the	  training	  of	  165	  women	  and	  335	  men	  in	  conflict	  
mitigation	  and	  conflict	  resolution	  skills.	  	  However,	  because	  of	  the	  use	  of	  the	  DPCs,	  LPCs	  
and	  the	  youth	  bunges	  as	  TOTs	  in	  their	  communities,	  the	  reach	  was	  much	  greater.	  In	  
addition	  the	  project	  worked	  in	  more	  districts	  than	  anticipated,	  because	  of	  the	  split	  of	  some	  
districts,	  but	  also	  because	  the	  project	  spilled	  over	  into	  neighboring	  districts	  (i.e.	  Kisii	  and	  
Kisumu),	  and	  joint	  trainings	  held	  with	  the	  DPCs	  and	  LPCs	  from	  these	  additional	  districts.	  	  
During	  the	  cost	  extension,	  over	  3799	  women	  trained	  and	  4928	  men	  trained	  by	  the	  end	  of	  
March	  2013.	  	  
Building	  upon	  the	  work	  started	  in	  the	  first	  two	  years	  of	  the	  program,	  there	  were	  two	  
complementary	  EWER	  systems	  in	  the	  cost	  extension,	  one	  was	  community	  based	  and	  was	  
largely	  driven	  by	  monitors	  at	  the	  community	  level,	  youth	  bunge	  bright	  spots,	  the	  
DPCs/LPCs	  and	  the	  LEAP	  staff.	  The	  second	  system	  was	  the	  Uchaguzi	  SMS	  platform,	  which	  
was	  implemented	  by	  a	  number	  of	  national	  and	  international	  organizations.	  	  	  During	  the	  
election	  period,	  two	  EWER	  hubs	  were	  established,	  one	  in	  Molo	  hosted	  by	  NRC,	  and	  the	  
second	  in	  Eldoret	  hosted	  by	  IOM.	  Three	  data	  officers	  and	  one	  data	  verifier	  (for	  a	  total	  of	  8	  
officers)	  were	  trained	  via	  Skype	  and	  stationed	  in	  each	  hub.	  These	  officers	  were	  
responsible	  for	  processing	  the	  alerts	  that	  were	  received	  through	  both	  community	  EWER	  
system	  as	  well	  as	  through	  the	  Uchaguzi	  SMS	  platform.	  
During	  the	  election	  period,	  the	  EWER	  hub	  was	  operational	  around	  the	  clock	  from	  
February	  31st	  to	  March	  9th.	  	  While	  it	  was	  anticipated	  that	  the	  data	  officers	  would	  rely	  upon	  
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
Elders	  
DPC	  
LPC	  
Women	  
Youth	  
Leaders	  
Local	  
Poli9cians	  
Religious	  
Leaders	  
Very	  effec9ve	  
Effec9ve	  
Not	  effec9ve	  
Don't	  Know	  
41
the	  Uchaguzi	  platform	  for	  alerts,	  over	  90%	  of	  the	  alerts	  came	  from	  the	  community	  
monitors	  and	  the	  youth	  bunge	  bright	  spots.	  	  The	  data	  officers	  kept	  in	  regular	  touch	  with	  
the	  monitors,	  with	  an	  average	  of	  50	  calls/day. 
Overall,	  the	  Uchaguzi	  SMS	  platform	  was	  not	  perceived	  as	  being	  as	  trustworthy	  as	  the	  
community	  EWER	  system.	  	  An	  early	  warning	  monitor,	  who	  worked	  on	  both	  systems	  in	  
Nakuru	  reported:
The	  Uchaguzi	  SMS	  system	  was	  not	  really	  seen.	  What	  the	  community	  regarded	  as	  
effective	  was	  direct	  call.	  The	  SMS	  took	  too	  long	  for	  response.	  But	  if	  you	  called	  there	  
was	  direct	  feedback.	  The	  SMS	  also	  was	  suppose	  to	  provide	  confidentiality	  –	  but	  when	  
someone	  wants	  to	  authenticate	  the	  information	  they	  need	  to	  get	  back	  to	  the	  person	  
who	  sent	  the	  SMS	  and	  so	  it	  was	  not	  seen	  to	  be	  really	  confidential.	  People	  assumed	  that	  
if	  you	  communicated	  with	  someone	  on	  phone	  action	  will	  be	  taken.	  With	  an	  SMS	  you	  
don’t	  know	  if	  who	  has	  received	  it	  or	  what	  action	  they	  will	  take.
The	  main	  challenges	  with	  the	  Uchaguzi	  platform	  was	  the	  lack	  of	  segregation	  of	  
information	  by	  region,	  which	  meant	  the	  data	  officers	  had	  to	  sift	  through	  the	  information	  to	  
get	  the	  relevant	  information	  for	  their	  region.	  	  	  As	  a	  result,	  a	  lot	  of	  the	  information	  that	  was	  
sent	  to	  all	  the	  hubs	  was	  irrelevant	  to	  the	  districts	  and	  resulted	  in	  irrelevant	  information	  
overload.	  In	  addition,	  there	  was	  a	  24-­‐hour	  delay	  between	  when	  alerts	  were	  sent	  and	  when	  
the	  data	  officers	  in	  the	  hubs	  received	  them.	  While	  the	  information	  from	  the	  monitors	  was	  
verified	  and	  acted	  upon	  immediately,	  the	  information	  from	  the	  SMS	  platform	  was	  received	  
too	  late	  to	  be	  responded	  to	  in	  a	  timely	  manner.	  	  Finally,	  the	  SMS	  platform	  was	  less	  
sustainable	  than	  the	  community	  early	  warning	  system.	  	  	  The	  Uchaguzi	  platform	  scaled
down	  on	  March	  9th,	  2013,	  but	  in	  the	  focus	  group	  discussions	  with	  the	  DPCs	  and	  LPCs,	  as	  
well	  as	  with	  some	  of	  the	  EWER	  monitors,	  it	  was	  reported	  that	  those	  trained	  in	  the	  
communities	  continue	  to	  share	  early	  warning	  information	  with	  the	  relevant	  authorities.	  	  	  
In	  terms	  of	  capacity	  building,	  almost	  all	  participants	  in	  the	  focus	  group	  discussions	  as	  well	  
as	  the	  government	  and	  police	  interviews	  reported	  that	  they	  had	  gained	  new	  skills	  and	  a	  
greater	  understanding	  about	  early	  warning	  and	  how	  to	  respond	  to	  conflict	  in	  their	  
communities.	  	  	  Central	  to	  the	  community	  EWER	  system	  were	  the	  relationships	  and	  trust	  
that	  was	  built	  between	  the	  local	  administration	  (DCs,	  police,	  etc)	  and	  the	  communities.
Although	  for	  the	  most	  part	  the	  elections	  were	  peaceful,	  in	  some	  instances	  the	  EWER	  
structures	  prevented	  conflicts	  from	  escalating,	  for	  example	  along	  the	  Nandi/Kisumu	  
County	  boarder	  and	  in	  Molo.
Lessons	  Learnt	  8:	  Establishing	  trust	  and	  strong	  relationships	  is	  central	  to	  an	  effective	  
EWER	  system.
The	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  survey	  asked	  respondents	  if	  they	  were	  involved	  in	  EWER	  
activities,	  and	  what	  roles	  they	  played.	  	  Most	  mentioned	  that	  they	  played	  a	  role	  in	  
monitoring	  at	  the	  community	  level.	  	  Of	  note,	  there	  was	  little	  difference	  between	  the	  roles	  
played	  by	  LEAP	  participants	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants,	  with	  almost	  70%	  identifying	  
themselves	  as	  community	  monitors	  (see	  Figure	  25).
42
Figure	  25	  Role	  played	  in	  EWER
Objective	  2:	  Promote	  peaceful	  elections	  through	  education	  on	  the	  reform	  process	  and	  the	  
benefits	  of	  non-­‐violence	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  cost-­‐extension	  had	  a	  number	  of	  activities	  targeted	  at	  promoting	  peaceful	  
elections	  including	  civic	  education	  around	  the	  new	  constitution,	  peace	  caravans	  
promoting	  peaceful	  elections,	  and	  a	  door-­‐to-­‐door	  campaign	  by	  women	  in	  “hot	  spots”	  to	  
promote	  peaceful	  elections.	  Overall,	  the	  elections	  in	  March	  2013	  were	  primarily	  peaceful,	  
however	  it	  is	  difficult	  to	  attribute	  the	  peaceful	  nature	  of	  the	  elections	  primarily	  to	  the	  
LEAP	  II	  program,	  as	  there	  were	  a	  number	  of	  other	  critical	  factors	  contributing	  to	  the	  
stability,	  particularly	  the	  political	  coalition	  between	  the	  two	  major	  ethnic	  communities	  in	  
the	  Rift	  Valley;	  the	  Kikuyu	  and	  the	  Kalenjin.	  	  
In	  the	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  survey,	  respondents	  were	  asked	  whether	  there	  was	  
politically	  instigated	  violence	  in	  their	  communities	  in	  the	  past	  six	  months.	  Most	  of	  the	  
communities	  said	  no,	  with	  only	  significant	  political	  violence	  reported	  in	  Kericho.	  In	  Sotik,	  
Molo,	  Eldoret	  East	  and	  Buret	  very	  low	  levels	  of	  political	  violence	  were	  reported,	  with	  none	  
reported	  in	  the	  remaining	  districts	  (see	  Figure	  26	  below).
Figure	  26	  Politically	  instigated	  violence	  in	  communities
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
70	  
80	  
Monitoring	  
Transmigng	  
info	  to	  MC	  
Transmigng	  
info	  to	  DPC	  
Responding	  
to	  the	  EWM	  
Other	  
%Par9cipant	  
%Non-­‐par9cipant	  
Role	  in	  EWER
0	  
20	  
40	  
60	  
80	  
100	  
120	  
140	  
160	  
Buret	  
Eldoret	  East	  
Eldoret	  West	  
Keiyo	  North	  
Keiyo	  South	  
Kericho	  
Kericho	  East	  
Kericho	  West	  
Molo	  
Nakuru	  
Nandi	  
Nandi	  North	  
Nandi	  South	  
Rongai	  
Son9k	  
￾Tinderet	  
Transnzoia	  
East	  
Transnzoia	  
West	  
Wareng	  
Yes	  
No	  
PoliOcal	  Violence	  in	  Community
43
Lessons	  Learnt	  9:	  Establishing	  an	  Early	  Warning	  System	  needs	  to	  start	  at	  least	  a	  year
minimum	  in	  advance	  of	  elections	  in	  order	  to	  ensure	  the	  systems	  are	  fully	  functional	  and	  
relationships	  and	  trust	  are	  established. 	  Longer-­‐term	  projects	  will	  establish	  more	  
sustainable	  structures.
Lessons	  Learnt	  10:	  As	  a	  key	  part	  of	  community	  early	  warning	  systems	  is	  the	  relationships	  
between	  the	  administration	  and	  the	  community,	  ongoing	  training	  is	  needed	  to	  ensure	  that	  
as	  officials	  are	  transferred	  out	  their	  replacements	  are	  able	  to	  continue	  to	  support	  the	  
system.
Recommendation	  5:	  USAID	  and	  the	  other	  donors	  should	  begin	  planning	  for	  the	  
establishment	  of	  an	  effective	  and	  sustainable	  EWER	  system	  for	  the	  2017	  elections,	  
building	  upon	  the	  systems	  and	  results	  that	  have	  already	  been	  established.	  
Result	  2.1	  Electorate	  is	  more	  knowledgeable	  on	  reform	  efforts	  consistent	  with	  Agenda	  4	  of	  
the	  2008	  peace	  agreement.
One	  key	  anticipated	  result	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  extension	  was	  to	  educate	  the	  targeted	  
communities	  in	  the	  reform	  efforts	  of	  Agenda	  4	  of	  the	  2008	  peace	  agreement	  and	  the	  new	  
government	  structures	  within	  the	  2010	  constitution.	  	  The	  project	  had	  targeted	  civic	  
education	  for	  5000	  women	  and	  10,000	  men	  during	  the	  cost-­‐extension.	  The	  actual	  
numbers	  far	  exceeded	  this	  target,	  with	  over	  26,868	  women	  and	  13,726	  men	  having	  
received	  voter	  and	  civic	  education	  by	  the	  end	  of	  March	  2013.	  	  This	  much	  larger	  number	  
was	  attributed	  to	  the	  use	  of	  the	  peace	  caravans	  and	  targeting	  civic	  education	  in	  densely	  
populated	  areas	  during	  market	  days.	  	  The	  LEAP	  team	  also	  used	  the	  media	  and	  distributed	  
IEC	  materials	  and	  pamphlets	  to	  get	  out	  the	  civic	  education	  messages,	  although	  those	  
reached	  by	  these	  activities	  are	  not	  included	  in	  the	  figure	  above.
The	  baseline	  in	  2010,	  50%	  of	  respondents	  stated	  that	  they	  understood	  the	  reform	  agenda	  
very	  well	  or	  well.	  	  In	  the	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  survey,	  77%	  of	  respondents	  reported	  
that	  they	  understood	  the	  constitutional	  reforms	  well	  or	  very	  well	  (see	  Table	  7	  below).
Table	  7	  Level	  of	  understanding	  of	  constitutional	  reforms
Level	  of	  understanding Percent
Very	  well 32%
Well 45%
Somewhat 17%
Not	  at	  all 4%
Don't	  know 1%
Total 100.0
However,	  there	  was	  a	  significant	  difference	  between	  LEAP	  and	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  in	  
the	  2013	  survey	  when	  it	  came	  to	  their	  understanding	  of	  the	  constitutional	  reforms,	  with	  
45%	  of	  participants	  stating	  that	  they	  understood	  the	  reforms	  very	  well,	  as	  compared	  with	  
44
only	  22%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants.	  	  However,	  more	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  stated	  that	  
they	  understood	  the	  reforms	  well	  or	  somewhat	  (see	  Figure	  27	  below).
Figure	  27	  Understanding	  of	  Constitutional	  reforms	  by	  LEAP	  and	  non-­LEAP	  participants
When	  it	  came	  to	  questions	  on	  the	  details	  of	  the	  reforms,	  overall	  fewer	  respondents	  felt	  
that	  they	  understood	  the	  legal	  and	  institutional	  reforms	  very	  well,	  and	  again	  the	  LEAP	  
participants	  overall	  felt	  that	  they	  understood	  the	  reforms	  better	  than	  the	  non-­‐LEAP	  
participants	  (see	  figure	  28	  below).	  	  This	  could	  reflect	  the	  TOT	  methodology	  of	  the	  civic	  
education	  which	  training	  participants	  to	  train	  the	  community.	  
Figure	  28	  Understanding	  of	  legal	  and	  institutional	  reforms
Very	  well	   Well	   Somewhat	   Not	  at	  all	   Don't	  
know	  
%Participants	   45.5	   43.3	   9.5	   1.3	   0.3	  
%Non-­‐participants	   22.5	   46.2	   23.3	   6	   2.1	  
0	  
5	  
10	  
15	  
20	  
25	  
30	  
35	  
40	  
45	  
50	  
Percentage	  frequency	  
Participants/Non-­participants	  understanding	  of	  	  
Constitutional	  reforms	  
%Participants	  
%Non-­‐participants	  
Very	  
well	   Well	   Somew
hat	  
Not	  at	  
all	  
Don't	  
know	  
%Participants	   26.7	   51.1	   15.5	   3.7	   3	  
%Non-­‐participants	   16.4	   40.4	   24.4	   13.7	   5.1	  
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
Percentage	  frequency	  
Participants/Non-­participants	  understanding	  of	  legal	  	  
and	  Institutional	  reforms	  
%Participants	  
%Non-­‐participants	  
45
Overall,	  respondents	  reported	  that	  most	  people	  are	  now	  in	  support	  of	  the	  reform	  effects,	  
but	  that	  they	  lack	  the	  understanding	  about	  how	  it	  will	  happen,	  and	  are	  especially	  confused	  
as	  to	  how	  they	  see	  the	  leadership.	  	  All	  groups	  stated	  that	  a	  lot	  more	  Civic	  Education	  is	  
needed	  at	  all	  levels,	  from	  grassroots	  to	  top	  leadership.	  	  
Recommendation	  6:	  	  USAID	  and	  other	  donors	  need	  to	  prioritize	  Civic	  Education	  around	  
the	  Constitutional	  reforms	  at	  the	  grassroots	  level.	  As	  communities	  are	  empowered	  with	  
the	  knowledge	  regarding	  their	  constitutional	  rights,	  they	  will	  be	  able	  the	  challenge	  (and	  
educate)	  the	  political	  leadership	  who	  were	  reported	  to	  be	  confused	  regarding	  the	  
constitutional	  reforms.	  
Result	  2.2	  Events	  and	  information	  campaigns	  to	  promote	  non-­‐violence,	  especially	  around	  
the	  elections.
Through	  the	  various	  peace	  caravans,	  the	  celebration	  of	  Peace	  Day	  in	  September,	  and	  other	  
election	  related	  activities,	  the	  LEAP	  project	  promoted	  non-­‐violence	  within	  the	  19	  districts	  
in	  the	  six Counties.	  	   The	  original	  target	  of	  the	  cost-­‐extension	  was	  to	  reach	  1065	  women	  
and	  2135	  men	  with	  the	  non-­‐violence	  messaging.	  However,	  the	  LEAP	  project	  greatly	  over	  
exceeded	  this	  number,	  with	  3314	  women	  and	  3018	  men	  reached	  by	  the	  peace	  messages.	  	  
In	  particular,	  the	  World	  Peace	  Day	  celebrations,	  which	  were	  done	  in	  collaboration	  with	  a	  
number	  of	  other	  national	  and	  international	  organizations	  reached	  a	  very	  large	  number	  of	  
community	  members. 	  	  The	  LEAP	  extension	  had	  targeted	  100	  events	  between	  conflicting	  
communities.	  	  This	  was	  exceeded	  by	  11	  events	  during	  the	  project	  with	  111	  community	  
dialogues	  being	  held	  in	  the	  main	  ‘hot	  spots.’
It	  was	  difficult	  to	  measure	  the	  change	  in	  community	  understanding	  regarding	  the	  
detrimental	  effects	  of	  conflict	  to	  the	  development	  of	  their	  communities,	  although	  a	  
number	  of	  survey	  questions	  sought	  to	  get	  at	  this	  information.	  	  In	  the	  baseline	  survey,	  36%	  
of	  respondents	  said	  they	  had	  been	  prevented	  from	  investing	  in	  their	  livelihoods	  because	  
of	  insecurity.	  	  The	  most	  affected	  groups	  were	  the	  Kikuyu	  (54%),	  Kisii	  (46%)	  and	  Luo	  
(44%).	  	  In	  the	  end	  of	  project	  evaluation	  survey,	  only	  16.3%	  of	  respondents	  stated	  that	  
insecurity	  had	  prevented	  them	  from	  investing	  in	  their	  livelihoods.	  	  Also	  of	  interest,	  a
higher	  percentage	  of	  Luo	  community	  members	  reported	  that	  insecurity	  had	  prevented	  
them	  from	  investing	  in	  their	  livelihoods	  than	  the	  other	  communities,	  and	  overall,	  women	  
reported	  a	  greater	  impact	  of	  insecurity	  on	  their	  livelihoods	  than	  men	  (see	  Figure	  29
below)
Figure	  29	  Impact	  of	  insecurity	  in	  investment	  in	  livelihoods
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
￾Kalenjin	   Kikuyu	   Kisii	   Luhya	  
Luo	  
Male	  	  
Female	  
46
Respondents	  were	  also	  asked	  if	  they	  avoided	  any	  areas	  because	  of	  insecurity	  in	  the	  past	  
three	  months.	  In	  the	  baseline	  survey,	  the	  activity/location	  most	  avoided	  because	  of	  
insecurity	  was	  visiting	  friends	  or	  relatives.	  	  The	  end	  of	  project	  survey	  found	  that	  the	  most	  
avoided	  place	  was	  the	  market,	  more	  women	  reported	  avoiding	  areas	  because	  of	  insecurity	  
than	  men (see	  Figure	  28	  below).
Figure	  28	  Areas	  avoided	  because	  of	  insecurity
Lessons	  Learnt	  11:	  Large	  functions	  reach	  a	  much	  larger	  audience	  with	  peace	  messages.	  
However	  it	  is	  difficult	  to	  measure	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  large	  venues	  where	  many	  
different	  activities	  are	  ongoing.
Result	  2.3	  Stories	  about	  reconciliation	  documented	  and	  disseminated	  through	  Talking	  Circles
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  20	  media	  stories	  during	  the	  cost-­‐extension	  period,	  and	  by	  the	  
time	  of	  the	  evaluation	  32	  stories	  had	  been	  disseminated,	  over	  exceeding	  the	  target	  by	  12
stories.	   Table	  8	  outlines	  the	  different	  stories	  generated	  during	  the	  cost-­‐extension,	  the	  
Media	  houses	  involved,	  and	  the	  medium	  used	  to	  disseminate	  the	  stories.
Table	  8	  Media	  stories	  during	  the	  LEAP	  II	  cost-­extension	  period
Story Media	  House Medium #	  of	  Stories	  
Biblia	  Husema	  Broadcasting Radio 3
Fish	  Fm Radio 3
1. Stories	  generated	  from	  
talking	  circles
Kass	  Fm Radio 3
BHB Radio 2
Fish	  Fm Radio 2
2. Peace	  messages	  before	  
supreme	  court	  ruling
Kass	  Fm Radio 2
3. Stories	  generated	  from	  
LEAP	  Journalists	  field	  visit
Kass	  Fm
Kass	  Tv
Biblia	  Husema
The	  People	  Daily
K24
Standard	  Newspaper
The	  Star
Radio
Tv
Radio
Newspaper
Tv
Newspaper
Newspaper
3
3
2
2
2
1
4
TOTAL 32
0	  
2	  
4	  
6	  
8	  
10	  
12	  
14	  
16	  
Market	  
Water	  
Field/Farm	  
Animals	  
Income	  
Genera9ng	  
School	  
Medical	  
care	  
Visi9ng	  
friends	  
%Male	  
%Female	  
47
Result	  2.4	  Quick	  impact	  projects	  foster	  cooperation	  during	  the	  election	  season.
The	  cost-­‐extension	  had	  planned	  to	  implement	  a	  number	  of	  quick	  impact	  projects	  (QIPs)	  in	  
order	  to	  foster	  greater	  cooperation	  across	  ethnic	  lines	  during	  the	  election	  period.	  	  
However,	  because	  of	  delays	  in	  the	  submission	  of	  environmental	  assessments,	  only	  24	  of	  
the	  planned	  42	  projects	  were	  implemented.	  See	  Table	  9	  for	  a	  breakdown	  of	  the	  projects	  
approved	  and	  implemented,	  and	  those	  not	  implemented.
Table	  9	  Quick	  impact	  projects	  planned	  and	  implemented
17	  approved	  and	  implemented Most	  of	  these	  involved	  purchase	  of	  tents	  and	  chairs.
7	  Approved	  and	  not	  
implemented
These	  projects	  involved	  livestock	  raring	  and	  horticulture.	  
This	  by	  extension	  would	  have	  meant	  use	  of	  pesticides	  and	  
other	  agricultural	  chemicals	  and	  required	  additional	  
environmental	  procedures	  that	  the	  intended	  beneficiaries	  did	  
not	  have	  the	  technology	  nor	  capacity	  to	  mitigate	  the	  use	  of	  the	  
chemicals.	  In	  addition,	  the	  environmental	  requirements	  were	  
too	  costly.
18	  not	  approved Most	  were	  road	  and	  bridge	  reconstruction	  project.	  They	  
required	  design	  drawings	  and	  inputs	  of	  experts	  that	  would	  
was	  too	  expensive	  given	  the	  budget.	  The	  ministry	  of	  roads	  had	  
provided	  designs	  for	  the	  projects;	  however	  they	  were	  generic	  
and	  not	  detailed	  enough	  as	  per	  USAID	  requirements.
The	  project	  had	  targeted	  involving	  2000	  women	  and	  4000	  men	  in	  the	  quick	  impact	  
projects.	  While	  500	  women	  and	  1000	  men	  had	  participated	  in	  the	  process	  of	  identifying	  
the	  projects,	  and	  in	  training	  as	  project	  monitors,	  by	  the	  end	  of	  the	  project	  only	  2400	  
participants	  had	  participated	  in	  the	  QIP,	  because	  of	  the	  reduction	  of	  the	  number	  of	  
projects	  implemented.	  
When	  the	  consultant	  was	  undertaking	  the	  qualitative	  data	  collection	  in	  May	  2013,	  none	  of	  
the	  projects	  had	  been	  implemented,	  and	  the	  project	  team	  has	  just	  heard	  back	  on	  the	  
environmental	  assessments	  and	  was	  in	  the	  process	  of	  sharing	  the	  results	  with	  the	  
communities.	  There	  was	  a	  high	  level	  of	  disappointment	  by	  the	  communities	  that	  had	  not	  
had	  their	  activities	  approved,	  and	  it	  had	  the	  potential	  to	  undermine	  the	  trust	  built	  
between	  the	  LEAP	  staff	  and	  the	  targeted	  communities.	  	  
Lessons	  Learnt	  12:	  Quick	  Impact	  Projects	  should	  have	  been	  prioritized	  at	  the	  beginning	  of	  
the	  cost-­‐extension,	  rather	  than	  left	  to	  the	  end	  of	  the	  project	  cycle.
Lessons	  Learnt	  13:	  it	  would	  have	  been	  more	  effective	  to	  submit	  the	  environmental	  
assessments	  on	  a	  rolling	  basis,	  rather	  than	  as	  one	  large	  group	  of	  projects	  for	  approval	  at	  
one	  time.
Recommendation	  7:	  Mercy	  Corps	  or	  USAID	  should	  seek	  for	  mechanisms	  to	  support	  the	  
community	  activities	  that	  were	  developed	  in	  order	  to	  maintain	  the	  trust	  that	  the	  
communities	  had	  established	  through	  the	  process	  of	  development	  of	  the	  QIPs.	  	  This	  could	  
be	  through	  other	  funding	  mechanisms	  such	  as	  KTI	  or	  future	  programming.	  
48
The	  cost-­‐extension	  sought	  to	  increase	  engagement	  in	  going	  activities	  between	  members	  of	  
other	  communities.	  Because	  of	  the	  reduction	  of	  the	  number	  of	  QIPs,	  there	  were	  fewer	  
opportunities	  for	  inter-­‐ethnic	  engagement.	  	  However,	  the	  2013	  end	  of	  project	  survey	  
found	  that	  a	  larger	  percentage	  of	  LEAP	  participants	  were	  aware	  of	  youth	  multi-­‐ethnic	  
activities	  than	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants,	  with	  73%	  reporting	  at	  least	  one	  or	  more	  activity,	  as	  
compared	  with	  55%	  of	  non-­‐LEAP	  participants	  (see	  Figure	  28	  below)
Figure	  30	  Multi-­ethnic	  youth	  activities	  in	  communities
0	  
10	  
20	  
30	  
40	  
50	  
60	  
>5	   3	  to	  5	   1	  to	  2	   0	  
%Par9cipant	  
%Non-­‐par9cipant	  
Youth	  MulO-­‐Ethnic	  AcOviOes
49
5.	  Synthesis
Overall,	  respondents	  in	  the	  qualitative	  research	  reported	  that	  there	  have	  been	  generally	  
peaceful	  elections	  in	  all	  areas,	  although	  it	  was	  difficult	  to	  attribute	  the	  peaceful	  nature	  of	  
the	  elections	  directly	  to	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  and	  cost-­‐extension.	  Other	  factors	  were	  
reported	  as	  being	  equally	  important,	  particularly	  the	  coalition	  between	  the	  two	  political	  
parties,	  which	  was	  seen	  as	  a	  coalition	  between	  the	  two	  dominant	  ethnic	  groups	  in	  the	  Rift	  
Valley,	  the	  Kalinjin	  and	  Kikuyu.	  	  Some	  respondents	  reported	  that	  if	  there	  had	  been	  no	  
coalition,	  there	  would	  have	  been	  significantly	  more	  violence.	  However,	  almost	  all	  
participants	  stated	  that	  they	  were	  much	  better	  prepared	  this	  time	  to	  address	  the	  potential
violence	  and	  would	  not	  have	  been	  caught	  unawares	  had	  this	  happened.
While	  peace-­‐building	  and	  conflict	  mitigation	  structures	  were reported	  as	  having	  been	  
strengthened	  through	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  in	  the	  cost-­‐extension,	  and	  the	  elections	  passed	  
peacefully,	  most	  participants	  agreed	  that	  the	  root	  drivers	  of	  conflicts	  have	  not	  yet	  been	  
adequately	  addressed.	  For	  example	  the	  land	  issue,	  poverty	  and	  underemployment	  were	  all	  
cited	  as	  continuing	  drivers	  of	  conflict	  between	  the	  communities.	  
Among	  the	  various	  peace	  committees,	  administration	  and	  local	  communities	  there	  was	  a
demonstrably	  increased	  awareness	  on	  the	  causes	  of	  conflict	  in	  the	  communities,	  and	  
increased	  capacity	  to	  monitor	  it	  in	  a	  more	  systematic	  manner.	  In	  addition,	  the	  relationship	  
enabling	  response	  had	  been	  established	  in	  most	  communities	  visited.	  
Overall,	  there	  was	  a	  strong	  sense	  of	  ownership	  by	  the	  participants	  of	  the	  program,	  and	  
they	  expressed	  pride	  in	  what	  they	  felt	  they	  had	  accomplished	  throughout	  the	  life	  of	  the	  
LEAP	  II	  program.	  	  Youth	  in	  particular	  expressed	  that	  they	  felt	  empowered	  through	  the	  
program,	  and	  rather	  than	  being	  seeing	  as	  a	  problem,	  as	  they	  had	  been	  in	  2007/8,	  they	  now	  
felt	  to	  be	  key	  peace	  actors.	  	  The	  project	  was	  also	  successful	  in	  building	  trust	  between	  
different	  key	  actors,	  from	  the	  community	  level	  to	  the	  provincial	  levels.
There	  were	  mixed	  messages	  on	  the	  sustainability	  of	  the	  DPCs.	  	  Due	  to	  the	  new	  
government	  structure,	  their	  role	  in	  the	  future	  of	  the	  new	  County	  structure	  is	  unclear.	  Also,	  
some	  of	  the	  DPCs	  are	  very	  dependent	  upon	  Mercy	  Corps	  support,	  while	  others	  reported	  
that	  they	  would	  continue	  with	  support	  from	  the	  government	  or	  by	  setting	  up	  as	  CBOs.
Most	  of	  the	  projects	  visited	  had	  strong	  potential	  for	  sustainability,	  and	  the	  groups	  were	  
continuing	  on	  in	  their	  activities.	  The	  various	  trainings	  provided	  for	  the	  groups	  by	  Mercy	  
Corps	  as	  well	  as	  the	  local	  implementing	  partners	  were	  important	  for	  increased	  confidence	  
as	  a	  group	  expansion	  of	  their	  activities.	  
The	  EWER	  system	  was	  able	  to	  adequately	  monitor	  the	  2013	  elections,	  but	  the	  long-­‐term	  
sustainability	  of	  the	  system	  is	  not	  viable	  currently.	  The	  Uchaguzi	  platform	  was	  not	  
successful	  and	  suffered	  a	  number	  of	  challenges,	  and	  while	  the	  community	  EWER	  was	  
more	  effective,	  it	  is	  reliant	  upon	  both	  knowledge	  and	  the	  relationships.	  	  	  As	  leadership	  is	  
transferred	  out,	  they	  may	  lose	  those	  relationships,	  but	  the	  knowledge	  will	  remain.
50
Challenges
The	  project	  faced	  a	  number	  of	  challenges	  in	  the	  implementation	  of	  the	  program.	  The	  ones	  
mentioned	  most	  frequently	  was	  the	  fact	  that	  other	  organizations	  paid	  sitting	  fees	  for	  
attendance	  at	  workshops	  and	  conferences,	  which	  is	  against	  Mercy	  Corp	  policy.	  This	  made	  
attracting	  attendees	  to	  LEAP	  II	  activities	  challenging,	  especially	  if	  there	  was	  another	  
training	  or	  workshop	  at	  the	  same	  time.	  However,	  some	  participants	  stated	  that	  they	  would	  
attend	  the	  other	  workshop	  to	  receive	  the	  sitting	  fee,	  and	  then	  proceed	  to	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  
workshop	  to	  receive	  the	  training.	  	  
Another	  challenge	  was	  the	  changing	  government	  structure,	  which	  created	  uncertainty	  in	  
the	  communities	  and	  the	  government.	  For	  example,	  the	  Districts	  do	  not	  really	  exist	  within	  
the	  new	  County	  structure,	  and	  as	  a	  result	  the	  role	  of	  the	  DPCs	  is	  unclear	  in	  the	  new	  
government	  structure.	  	  Because	  of	  this,	  some	  County	  governments	  were	  reported	  to	  be
setting	  up	  their	  own,	  parallel,	  peace	  structures,	  duplicating	  the	  DPCs.
The	  Uchaguzi	  platform	  faced	  a	  number	  of	  challenges	  in	  its	  implementation,	  including	  the	  
inability	  to	  send	  alerts	  to	  the	  specified	  region,	  and	  overwhelming	  the	  data	  officers	  with	  
excessive	  information.	  In	  addition,	  the	  24-­‐hour	  delay	  in	  sending	  in	  alerts	  made	  the	  
information	  generated	  useless	  for	  early	  response.
In	  the	  C4W	  and	  IGA	  projects,	  the	  groups	  faced	  a	  number	  of	  challenges	  particularly	  around	  
group	  cohesion	  and	  leadership.	  Some	  of	  the	  groups	  were	  able	  to	  overcome	  these	  
challenges,	  while	  others	  fell	  apart,	  especially	  when	  external	  finances	  were	  introduced	  into	  
the	  group.	  A	  number	  of	  examples	  were	  cited	  where	  the	  group	  leader	  took	  over	  the	  IGA	  as	  
his	  own	  private	  business,	  cutting	  out	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  group.	  	  However,	  where	  the	  leadership	  
was	  committed,	  there	  were	  excellent	  results.	  	  
With	  regards	  to	  the	  cost-­‐extension,	  the	  delay	  in	  the	  submission	  of	  environmental	  
assessments	  to	  USAID,	  and	  the	  more	  stringent	  environmental	  assessments	  of	  the	  QIP	  
projects,	  meant	  that	  only	  17	  of	  the	  planned	  42	  projects	  were	  implemented.	  	  The	  LEAP	  
team	  should	  have	  submitted	  the	  proposals	  much	  earlier,	  and	  if	  possible,	  should	  have	  not	  
submitted	  them	  all	  in	  one	  batch	  to	  the	  environmental	  officer.
Recommendation	  8:	  USAID	  should	  set	  one	  common	  policy	  regarding	  sitting	  fees	  for	  
trainings	  and	  workshops,	  preferably	  not	  allowing	  them.
Recommendation	  9:	  Peace	  building	  needs	  a	  much	  longer	  period	  to	  gain	  sustainable	  peace	  
in	  areas	  with	  historic	  grievances	  between	  communities.	  	  A	  two	  year	  program	  at	  best	  was	  
able	  to	  strengthen	  some	  of	  the	  structures	  needed,	  but	  to	  adequately	  address	  the	  deep	  
roots	  of	  the	  conflict,	  more	  time	  is	  necessary.
Recommendation	  10:	  Environmental	  assessments	  needs	  to	  be	  based	  on	  realistic	  on-­‐the-­‐
ground	  context	  and	  simplified	  for	  community	  based	  projects	  that	  are	  low-­‐risk.
Recommendation	  11:	  Consistency	  in	  application	  of	  USAID	  standards	  needs	  to	  be	  applied	  
(i.e.	  environmental).
51
Lessons	  Learnt
Lessons	  Learnt	  1:	  	  Cross-­‐site	  visits	  are	  an	  effective	  way	  for	  DPCs	  to	  learn	  from	  each	  other	  
and	  share	  challenges	  as	  well	  as	  strategies	  for	  overcoming	  them. ........................................18
Lessons	  Learnt	  2:	  	  Dialogues	  and	  trainings	  should,	  as	  much	  as	  possible,	  be	  held	  at	  the	  local	  
level	  rather	  than	  in	  hotels	  or	  in	  the	  main	  town.	  This	  allows	  for	  wider	  participation	  
and	  more	  ownership	  of	  the	  process. .................................................................................................20
Lessons	  Learnt	  3:	  Community	  connector	  projects,	  especially	  those	  that	  build	  a	  visible	  
structure,	  such	  as	  bridges,	  can	  be	  symbolic	  representations	  of	  reconciliation	  
processes. ......................................................................................................................................................23
Lessons	  Learnt	  4:	  Adding	  finances	  to	  a	  successful	  group	  has	  the	  potential	  to	  create	  
internal	  problems,	  if	  not	  properly	  managed. .................................................................................37
Lessons	  Learnt	  5:	  	  youth	  groups,	  particularly	  urban	  ones,	  are	  often	  transitory,	  as	  youth	  go	  
off	  for	  education	  and	  employment	  in	  other	  parts	  of	  the	  country.	  	  Planning	  activities	  
with	  the	  youth	  needs	  to	  take	  this	  transitory	  characteristic	  into	  account..........................37
Lessons	  Learnt	  6:	  	  economic	  activities	  as	  a	  group	  are	  not	  always	  as	  economically	  
successful	  as	  individual	  projects,	  but	  have	  a	  higher	  potential	  for	  building	  community	  
connectors	  if	  the	  groups	  are	  ethnically	  mixed. .............................................................................37
Lessons	  Learnt	  7:	  Linking	  youth	  with	  private	  sector	  mentors	  is	  challenging	  if	  the	  potential	  
mentors	  do	  not	  see	  a	  tangible	  benefit	  to	  their	  business.	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  
enlighten	  the	  private	  sector	  on	  the	  importance	  of	  peace	  in	  their	  communities,	  and	  the	  
potential	  that	  youth	  have	  to	  contribute	  to	  this	  peace................................................................37
Lessons	  Learnt	  8:	  Establishing	  trust	  and	  strong	  relationships	  is	  central	  to	  an	  effective	  
EWER	  system...............................................................................................................................................41
Lessons	  Learnt	  9:	  Establishing	  an	  Early	  Warning	  System	  needs	  to	  start	  at	  least	  a	  year	  
minimum	  in	  advance	  of	  elections	  in	  order	  to	  ensure	  the	  systems	  are	  fully	  functional	  
and	  relationships	  and	  trust	  are	  established.	  	  Longer-­‐term	  projects	  will	  establish	  more	  
sustainable	  structures..............................................................................................................................43
Lessons	  Learnt	  10:	  As	  a	  key	  part	  of	  community	  early	  warning	  systems	  is	  the	  relationships	  
between	  the	  administration	  and	  the	  community,	  ongoing	  training	  is	  needed	  to	  ensure	  
that	  as	  officials	  are	  transferred	  out	  their	  replacements	  are	  able	  to	  continue	  to	  support	  
the	  system. ....................................................................................................................................................43
Lessons	  Learnt	  11:	  Large	  functions	  reach	  a	  much	  larger	  audience	  with	  peace	  messages.	  
However	  it	  is	  difficult	  to	  measure	  the	  effectiveness	  of	  the	  large	  venues	  where	  many	  
different	  activities	  are	  ongoing. ...........................................................................................................46
Lessons	  Learnt	  12:	  Quick	  Impact	  Projects	  should	  have	  been	  prioritized	  at	  the	  beginning	  of	  
the	  cost-­‐extension,	  rather	  than	  left	  to	  the	  end	  of	  the	  project	  cycle......................................47
Lessons	  Learnt	  13:	  it	  would	  have	  been	  more	  effective	  to	  submit	  the	  environmental	  
assessments	  on	  a	  rolling	  basis,	  rather	  than	  as	  one	  large	  group	  of	  projects	  for	  approval	  
at	  one	  time. ...................................................................................................................................................47
52
Evaluator	  Comments
The	  LEAP	  II	  program,	  implemented	  by	  Mercy	  Corp	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley,	  was	  successful	  and	  
met	  its	  intended	  goals	  and	  objectives,	  for	  the	  most	  part	  over-­‐exceeding	  its	  intended	  
results.	  During	  the	  extension	  period,	  the	  inability	  to	  implement	  the	  majority	  of	  the	  quick	  
impact	  projects	  was	  a	  blot	  on	  the	  overall	  success	  of	  the	  program.	  	   The	  strength	  of	  the	  
Mercy	  Corps	  staff	  was	  in	  their	  commitment	  to	  the	  communities,	  their	  real	  and	  perceived	  
neutrality	  in	  the	  communities,	  and	  the	  levels	  of	  trust	  that	  they	  were	  able	  to	  build	  with	  and	  
between	  the	  participants.	  	  	  Dr.	  S.K	  Wanguru,	  the	  Nakuru	  Peace	  Monitor,	  summed	  up	  the	  
performance	  of	  the	  LEAP	  program	  as	  follows:
When	  MC	  started	  the	  LEAP	  project,	  there	  was	  a	  lot	  of	  perception	  from	  the	  ground	  
that	  they	  were	  supported	  by	  USAID	  to	  help	  ODM	  win	  the	  next	  election.	  Initially,	  it	  
seemed	  like	  the	  project	  was	  not	  well	  thought	  out,	  and	  the	  focus	  was	  not	  very	  clear.	  
But	  once	  they	  got	  on	  the	  ground,	  the	  clarity	  appeared	  because	  they	  were	  willing	  to	  
discuss	  and	  alter	  the	  direction	  of	  the	  program.	  The	  staff	  were	  very	  honest	  and	  humble	  
and	  asked	  for	  guidance.	  They	  shared	  reports	  with	  us	  and	  when	  funds	  were	  not	  coming	  
to	  the	  DPC,	  the	  little	  money	  they	  gave	  for	  seminars	  or	  workshops	  were	  very	  helpful	  
and	  complementary	  to	  other	  activities	  ongoing.	  They	  filled	  the	  gap	  that	  others	  didn’t	  
want	  to	  fill	  in.	  By	  2012	  they	  were	  very	  well	  known	  and	  knew	  who	  were	  the	  
troublemakers.
I	  greatly	  enjoyed	  working	  with	  the	  LEAP	  team	  in	  this	  evaluation,	  and	  found	  them	  to	  be	  a	  
deeply	  committed,	  engaged	  and	  fun	  group	  to	  work	  with.	  	  They	  were	  genuinely	  interested	  
in	  knowing	  how	  to	  improve	  programming	  in	  the	  future,	  and	  in	  spite	  of	  the	  evaluation	  
happening	  in	  the	  last	  few	  weeks	  of	  the	  program,	  when	  they	  were	  trying	  also	  to	  finalize	  a	  
number	  of	  activities,	  they	  willing	  shared	  information,	  their	  challenges	  and	  their	  successes.	  	  
Special	  mention	  goes	  to	  Josiah	  Mukoya	  who	  assisted	  in	  the	  development	  of	  the	  end	  of	  
project	  survey,	  managing	  the	  administration	  of	  the	  survey	  in	  the	  targeted	  communities,	  
supervised	  the	  entering	  of	  the	  data,	  and	  generated	  the	  analysis.	  	  Also	  special	  thanks	  to	  
Ruben	  Grangaard	  in	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  Washington	  DC	  office,	  who	  provide	  additional	  
analysis.	  	  The	  Chief	  of	  Party,	  Richard	  Onyancha,	  gave	  up	  a	  lot	  of	  his	  valuable	  time	  to	  travel	  
with	  me	  during	  the	  field	  research	  part	  of	  the	  evaluation.	  	  The	  field	  staff	  organized	  
meetings	  and	  focus	  group	  discussions	  with	  a	  wide	  range	  of	  community	  members	  and	  
government	  officials.
53
Annexes
Annex	  1:	  	  List	  of	  Recommendations
Recommendation	  1:	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  establish	  the	  peace	  committee	  structure	  
within	  the	  new	  governing	  structure.	  	  The	  LEAP	  program	  was	  able	  to	  lay	  a	  solid	  
structure	  at	  the	  various	  levels,	  from	  the	  DPC	  to	  the	  local	  level.	  However,	  with	  the	  new	  
County	  government,	  the	  roles	  of	  these	  various	  peace	  committees	  are	  unclear.	  	  USAID	  
should	  continue	  to	  work	  with	  the	  peace	  committees	  and	  the	  National	  Steering	  
Committee	  as	  they	  work	  through	  these	  issues. ............................................................................18
Recommendation	  2:	  	  USAID	  should	  work	  closely	  at	  the	  County	  level	  to	  support	  greater	  
integration	  between	  the	  District	  and	  the	  County	  level.	  	  	  The	  district	  level	  authorities	  
were	  an	  important	  part	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program.	  However,	  their	  status	  is	  unclear	  in	  
the	  new	  County	  government.	  	  Unless	  their	  relationship	  with	  the	  County	  is	  clarified,	  
there	  is	  risk	  that	  at	  best,	  the	  training	  and	  support	  to	  the	  district	  level	  could	  be	  lost,	  or	  
at	  worst	  the	  lack	  of	  clarity	  can	  cause	  conflict. ...............................................................................19
Recommendation	  3:	  	  More	  work	  is	  needed	  to	  address	  the	  deep	  divisions	  between	  ethnic	  
communities	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley.	  	  Although	  the	  elections	  were	  peaceful	  and	  the	  survey	  
results	  show	  an	  increase	  in	  tolerance,	  in	  most	  interviews	  and	  focus	  groups	  it	  was	  
mentioned	  that	  the	  underlying	  tensions	  have	  not	  been	  resolved	  and	  could	  erupt	  again	  
given	  the	  right	  political	  context...........................................................................................................27
Recommendation	  4:	  	  Follow-­‐up	  Organizational	  Capacity	  Assessments	  of	  the	  LEAP	  II	  
partners	  should	  be	  included	  in	  any	  future	  work	  with	  these	  partners,	  or	  in	  the	  USAID	  
peace	  building	  evaluation,	  using	  the	  LEAP	  II	  assessments	  as	  a	  baseline. .........................30
Recommendation	  5:	  USAID	  and	  the	  other	  donors	  should	  begin	  planning	  for	  the	  
establishment	  of	  an	  effective	  and	  sustainable	  EWER	  system	  for	  the	  2017	  elections,	  
building	  upon	  the	  systems	  and	  results	  that	  have	  already	  been	  established....................43
Recommendation	  6:	  	  USAID	  and	  other	  donors	  need	  to	  prioritize	  Civic	  Education	  around	  
the	  Constitutional	  reforms	  at	  the	  grassroots	  level.	  As	  communities	  are	  empowered	  
with	  the	  knowledge	  regarding	  their	  constitutional	  rights,	  they	  will	  be	  able	  the	  
challenge	  (and	  educate)	  the	  political	  leadership	  who	  were	  reported	  to	  be	  confused	  
regarding	  the	  constitutional	  reforms................................................................................................45
Recommendation	  7:	  Mercy	  Corps	  or	  USAID	  should	  seek	  for	  mechanisms	  to	  support	  the	  
community	  activities	  that	  were	  developed	  in	  order	  to	  maintain	  the	  trust	  that	  the	  
communities	  had	  established	  through	  the	  process	  of	  development	  of	  the	  QIPs.	  	  This	  
could	  be	  through	  other	  funding	  mechanisms	  such	  as	  KTI	  or	  future	  programming. ....47
Recommendation	  8:	  USAID	  should	  set	  one	  common	  policy	  regarding	  sitting	  fees	  for	  
trainings	  and	  workshops,	  preferably	  not	  allowing	  them. ........................................................50
54
Recommendation	  9:	  Peace	  building	  needs	  a	  much	  longer	  period	  to	  gain	  sustainable	  peace	  
in	  areas	  with	  historic	  grievances	  between	  communities.	  	  A	  two	  year	  program	  at	  best	  
was	  able	  to	  strengthen	  some	  of	  the	  structures	  needed,	  but	  to	  adequately	  address	  the	  
deep	  roots	  of	  the	  conflict,	  more	  time	  is	  necessary. .....................................................................50
Recommendation	  10:	  Environmental	  assessments	  needs	  to	  be	  based	  on	  realistic	  on-­‐the-­‐
ground	  context	  and	  simplified	  for	  community	  based	  projects	  that	  are	  low-­‐risk. .........50
Recommendation	  11:	  Consistency	  in	  application	  of	  USAID	  standards	  needs	  to	  be	  applied	  
(i.e.	  environmental)...................................................................................................................................50
55
Annex	  2:	  	  List	  of	  Interviews
Government:
• Joash	  Abongo	  –	  Assistant	  to	  the	  County	  Commissioner,	  Trans	  Nzoia	  County	  (May	  23,	  
13)
• Christopher	  Wanjao	  –	  DC	  for	  Eldoret	  W.	  District,	  Uasin	  Gisu	  County	  (May	  24,	  2013)
• Jamlik	  Mbuba,	  District	  Commissioner,	  Belgut	  (May	  28,	  2013)
• Chief	  Insp.	  David	  Apima	  –	  OCS	  Fort	  Ternan,	  Kepkelion	  W.	  Kericho	  County	  (May	  28,	  13)
• Dr.	  SK	  Wanguru	  –	  Nakuru	  County	  Peace	  Monitor,	  UNV	  with	  UNDP	  (May	  30,	  13)
• Dickson	  Mutia	  Koske	  –	  Nakuru	  District	  Youth	  Officer	  (May	  30,	  13)
• Rebecca	  Caroline	  Asami	  –	  Assistant	  District	  Youth	  Officer	  (May	  30,	  13)
• Julius	  Kavita	  –	  District	  Commissioner,	  Molo	  District	  (May	  29,	  13)
Partner	  Organizations:
• Daniel	  Ronoh	  –	  Program	  Manager,	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre	  (May	  28,	  2013)
• Chepchumba	  Rongei	  –	  Finance	  &	  Admin	  Officer	  Peace	  and	  Development	  Forum,	  
Nakuru	  (May	  28,	  2013)
• Lillian	  Bwire	  –	  Program	  Coordinator	  for	  Rural	  Women	  Peace	  Link	  (May	  30,	  2013)
• Isaac	  Sagala	  –	  Internews,	  Eldoret	  (May	  30,	  2013)
Mercy	  Corps	  Staff
• Ruth	  Chepkemoi	  –	  Kericho	  Program	  Assistant	  (May	  27,	  2013)
• Jean	  Opanda	  –	  Kericho	  Program	  Assistant	  (May	  27,	  2013)
• Caroline	  Lesan	  –	  Kericho	  Program	  Officer	  (May	  27,	  2013)
• Job	  Matseshe	  –	  Program	  Officer,	  Nakuru	  Office	  (May	  29,	  2013)
• Jane	  Kithuka	  –	  Peace	  and	  Media	  Campaign	  Coordinator	  LEAP	  (May	  30,	  2013)
• Patropa	  Okwemba	  Ambuko	  –	  Program	  Manager	  Uasin	  Gisu,	  Trans	  Nzoia	  &	  Nandi	  (May	  
30,	  2013)
• Mary	  Kakuvi	  –	  Program	  Manager	  for	  YYC	  (May	  31,	  2013)
56
Annex	  3:	  	  List	  of	  Focus	  group	  participants
Nandi	  Elders	  Focus	  Group	  9am,	  May	  22,	  13	  Kapsabet,	  Nandi	  County
• Charles	  Langat	  –	  Community	  Elder	  &	  Catholic	  Church
• Henry	  Sawe	  –	  Community	  Elder	  &	  retired	  teacher
• Marusin	  Kogo	  –	  Member	  of	  Nandi	  Kaburwo	  Council	  of	  Elders	  (treasurer).
• Josphat	  Sirma	  –	  Member	  of	  Kaburwo	  council	  of	  Elders	  	  (researcher),	  Chairman	  of	  
COBEN	  –	  Coalition	  for	  Peace	  Network,	  North	  Rift
• Augustine	  Kisorio	  –	  Executive	  Member	  (Kaburow),	  Member	  of	  Catholic	  Justice	  Peace	  
Commission	  (CJPC).
Nandi	  North	  DPC	  leaders	  &	  religious	  leaders,	  May	  22,	  13,	  Kapsabet,	  Nandi	  County
• Josiah	  Kilole	  –	  DPC	  Chair	  Nandi	  South.
• Rose	  Hoyt	  –	  DPC	  secretary	  Nandi	  South.
• David	  Mutai	  –	  DPC	  secretary	  Tenderet	  
• Milca	  Chumba	  –	  Nandi	  N.	  Secretary	  for	  DPC.	  	  
• Jane	  Korir	  –	  DPC	  treasurer	  Tenderet.	  
• Rev.	  Peter	  Rono	  –	  Peace	  Mediator	  and	  representing	  faith	  based	  organization.	  
Nandi	  Youth,	  May	  22,	  2013,	  Kapsabet
• Kipyego	  Obed	  –	  Nandi	  East.	  Peace	  Monitor
• Lilian	  Chelimo	  –	  Nandi	  North	  –	  chairman	  of	  Tumaini	  women	  youth	  group
• Charity	  Chepkorir	  –	  Nandi	  North	  District	  Peace	  monitor
• Jocye	  Chepkorir	  –	  Nandi	  East	  Peace	  Monitor.
• Rono	  Daniel	  –	  Tenderet	  District,	  Peace	  Monitor
• Paul	  Choge	  –	  Nandi	  N.	  district	  
Nandi	  Women	  leaders,	  May	  22,	  2013,	  Kapsabet
• Pauline	  Chelegat	  –	  Nandi	  South,	  Chemasei	  location,	  door	  to	  door	  mobilizer
• Rartha	  Rotich	  –	  Nandi	  East,	  Assistant	  Chief
• Clarice	  Marenya	  –	  Kibigori,	  Kisumu	  County
• Rose	  Akinyi	  Chan	  -­‐	  	  Kibigori-­‐Chemasi	  border.	  DPC	  member	  &	  village	  elder
• Joyce	  Wangoi	  Njuguna	  –	  Nandi	  East	  town,	  Kablemet
Trans	  Nzoia	  women	  May	  23,	  2013,	  Kitale
• Phoebe	  Baraza	  –	  Kiminini	  TNW	  door	  to	  door
• Stella	  Nyamosi	  –	  Cherengani	  TNE	  door	  to	  door	  peace	  mobililzer
• Wiliborada	  Khaoya	  –	  Saboati	  TNW	  door	  to	  door	  peace	  mobiizer
• Janet	  Wekesa	  –	  Saboati	  TNW,	  locational	  Chief.
• Rose	  Rono	  –	  TNE	  Cheregoni	  constituency
• Tekla	  Otwodi	  –	  Tiwani	  Location,	  Central	  division	  TN
Trans	  Nzoia	  DPC	  and	  Elders,	  May	  23,	  2013,	  Kitale
57
• Pastor	  Abendego	  Lwandanya	  –	  DPC	  Chair	  TNE	  &	  SDA	  pastor
• Jennifer	  Bunyasi	  –	  DPC	  for	  TNW
• Japheth	  Kiptoo	  –	  Youth	  monitor,	  Cherangany
Trans	  Nzoia	  Youth	  –	  May	  23,	  2013,	  Kitale
• Ben	  Makete	  –	  Saboeta	  constituency
• Peter	  Wanyama	  –	  Kwanza	  District
• Solomon	  Wanyonyi	  –	  Kimimi	  Constituency,	  TNW
• Linit	  Baraza	  –	  Kwanza	  Districte,	  Youth	  Bunge	  
• Carol	  Namenba	  –	  Kwanza
• Mark	  Wafula	  –	  Kiminini	  TNW,	  Kimini	  Youth	  Group
Uasin	  Gisu	  youth,	  Eldoret,	  May	  24,	  2013
• Pius	  Omondi	  Kapasoya	  youth	  group	  –	  Eldoret	  E
• James	  Nganga	  -­‐Wareng
• Daniel	  Sang	  -­‐	  Wareng
• Mirian	  Chebet	  –	  West	  Indies	  youth	  gout.	  Eldoret	  We.
• Grace	  Kirwa	  –	  Kesses	  Wareng
• Ziproa	  Miana	  Chepteret	  –	  Wareng	  District
Uasin	  Gisu	  women,	  Eldoret,	  May	  24,	  2013
• Clair	  Ratemo-­‐	  	  women	  leader	  in	  Eldoret	  East	  District	  
• Karubo	  Makori	  –	  from	  Eldoret	  W.	  Chairperson	  Kibulgeny	  location	  women	  leader
• Anne	  Gitau	  –	  Eldoret	  E.	  Ainabkoi	  division.	  Chairlady	  of	  Kapsoya	  location,	  al	  women	  
registered	  gropus.	  Assistant	  Chiar	  of	  peace	  committee	  in	  Kapsoya	  location.
• Fanis	  Wandulu	  –	  Wareng	  District,	  Uasin	  Gisu.	  	  Chairlady	  Simama	  Imara	  mothers	  group	  
from	  Langas.
• Mary	  Atieno	  –	  from	  Kapsaret	  Division,	  Pioneer	  location,	  Langas	  Estate.	  Village	  elder	  
and	  work	  with	  the	  chief.	  Member	  of	  Women	  voices.
Uasin	  Gisu	  DPC,	  May	  24,	  2013
• Albert	  Githuka	  –Chair	  of	  Kikuyu’s	  peace	  inititative	  (KEPI)	  North	  Rift.
• Mary	  Njoki	  –	  Chair	  of	  Wareng	  District	  Peace	  Committee
• Pastor	  John	  Tuwei	  –	  member	  of	  DPC	  Soy	  division
• Henry	  Kiptoo	  Murei	  –	  Eldoret	  West	  DPC	  Chair
• Pauline	  Ngunjiri	  –	  Secretary	  DPC	  Eldoret	  East
Religious/Opinion	  Leaders	  –	  Kericho	  (May	  27,	  2013)
• Rose	  Rutto	  Martim	  	  -­‐	  Secretary	  DPC
• Rev.	  Joseph	  Sunya	  	  -­‐	  Chair	  Londiani	  DPC
• Rev.	  Charles	  Omego	  –	  member	  Londiani	  DPC
• Lazerous	  Angwenyi	  	  -­‐	  Peace	  Monitor	  for	  South	  Rift,	  DPC	  Secretary	  for	  Kipkelion	  District
• Abdel	  Azziz	  –	  trainer
58
Sotik	  Women	  –	  Kericho,	  May	  27,	  2013
• Anne	  Chebet	  –	  District	  Peace	  Monitor
• Evaline	  Korir	  –	  Sotik	  Boraba,	  door	  to	  door	  campaigner
• Monica	  Rono	  –	  Sotik	  Borab,	  door	  to	  door	  campaigner
• Lili	  Chamogey	  Ngeno	  –	  Sotik,	  door	  to	  door	  campaigner
• Nelly	  Milgo	  –	  Door	  to	  door	  campaigner
• Rebecca	  Mosonik	  –	  Sotik/Borabi	  –	  door	  to	  door
Sigowet	  Division	  Peace	  Committee,	  Sigowet	  Location,	  Kaplelartet	  (May	  27,	  2013)
• Elisha	  Atebi	  –Kaplelartet	  
• Wilson	  Rugut, -­‐	  Kaplelartet
• Solomon	  Bet	  –	  Sigowet
• Jackline	  Mora	  –	  Sigowet
• Francisca	  Chek	  –	  Sigowet
• Korir	  Mutai	  –Sigowet	  division.
• Mary	  Awini	  –	  District	  Officer
Influential	  women	  –	  Nakuru	  May	  29,	  2013
• Jane	  Wangoi	  Kariuki	  –	  Chief	  from	  Turi	  location
• Grace	  Koskei	  –	  DPC	  treasurer	  Njoro
• Therese	  Ngigi	  –	  DPC	  member	  Nakuru/Lanet
• Jean	  Thuku	  –	  trainer	  from	  CU.
• Jane	  Gathogo	  –	  DPC	  	  member	  	  Nakuru	  county	  and	  foundation	  for	  Women’s	  rights.
Early	  Warning	  focus	  group	  –	  Nakuru,	  May	  29,	  2013.	  Translated	  by	  Anyona	  Bengamin
• Ann	  Sabomi	  –	  Nakuru	  east	  –	  Morogi	  Youth	  Bunge
• Walter	  Rotich	  –	  Kuresoi	  North	  –	  Youth	  
• Joseph	  Njogu	  –	  Naivsahs	  Sight	  and	  Service	  Youth	  Bunge
• Rev.	  Jackson	  Angunza	  –	  Molo
• Anyona	  Benjamin	  –	  Nakuru	  Kapkures	  -­‐	  	  Early	  Bird	  Youth	  Bunge.
DPCs	  –	  Molo	  Town,	  May	  29,	  2013
• Mary	  Owoko –	  DPC	  treasurer	  
• Joseph	  Chagara	  –	  DPC	  Chairman
• Johnson	  Mureithi	  –	  memer	  of	  the	  DPC
• Wairimu	  Kanyri	  –	  DPC	  member	  from	  Turi
• Peninia	  Nyabera	  –	  District	  Peace	  Monitor	  
• Amos	  Mirau	  –	  DPC	  Secretary
• Peter	  Langat	  –	  DPC	  vice-­‐secretary
Molo	  Youth,	  May	  29,	  2013
• Wairimu	  Kanyiri	  –	  Turi	  	  DPC
• Nikolos	  Kago	  Ngodo	  –	  Sakamo	  from	  Sachangwni	  division
• John	  Kanga	  –	  Smart	  dedicated	  group	  in	  Molo
59
• Muigai	  Mburu	  –Morot	  Mieni	  youth.
• Sammy	  Njuguna	  –	  Innovative	  Theatre	  for	  change	  outh	  goup
• Margret	  Kihara	  –Molo	  Atuar	  youth	  group.
• Elizabeth	  Kariyuki	  –	  Molo	  youth	  emerging	  for	  change.
• Bonifest	  Kamau	  -­‐
• Nikolos	  Kago	  Ngodo	  –	  Sakamo	  from	  Sachangwni	  division.	  
Nandi	  County	  local	  government	  officers,	  Kapsabet,	  May	  22,	  2013
• Edwin	  Bett	  –	  Tenderit,	  District	  Officer,	  deputy	  to	  the	  DC
• Grace	  Opati	  –	  DC	  Nandi	  South	  –	  DO-­‐1
• John	  Mbugua	  –	  Acting	  DC	  for	  Nandi	  Central
• Charles	  Kitheka	  –	  DO1	  Nandi	  North	  District
Wareng	  Youth	  Initiative	  Focus	  Group	  discussion	  (May	  30,	  2013)
• Andrew	  Chemoiywo
• Ascai	  Jepkogei
• Peter	  Nganga
• Irene	  Jepkogei
• Stephen	  Mwangi
• Christine	  Sitati
• Gideon	  Koech
• Caroline	  Bakasa.
60
Annex	  4:	  	  Projects	  visited
Mobett	  Community	  Development	  Project	  (Passion	  for	  Peace)	  –	  Uasin	  Gishu
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  	  120,000	  KSH	  	  Community	  Connector	  Project	  
Simama	  Imara	  women’s	  group	  –	  Uasin	  Gishu
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  	  120,000	  KSH	  Community	  Connector	  Project
Kesses	  Youth	  Group	  –	  Uasin	  Gishu
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  78,000	  KSH	  IGA;	  Financial	  Literacy	  training
Kapsoya	  Border	  Youth	  Group	  –	  Uasin	  Gishu
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  78,000	  KSH	  C4W	  in	  2011;	  78,000	  IGA	  grant	  in	  2012;	  Financial	  
Literacy	  training.
West	  Indies	  Youth	  Group	  -­‐	  Eldoret
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  78,000	  KSH	  IGA	  in	  2012;	  Financial	  Literacy	  training
Kichawir	  Upendo	  Group	  -­‐	  Kericho
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  C4W	  in	  2010;	  IGA	  grant	  in	  2011;	  Trainings	  in	  Financial	  Literacy,	  
Entrepreneurship,	  and	  many	  others.
Hekima	  Development	  Skills	  –	  Nakuru
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  78,000	  KSH	  IGA	  in	  2011
Mukinyai	  Borop	  Connection	  Bridge	  –	  Nakuru
Type	  of	  support	  given:	  	  C4W	  
61
Annex	  5:	  	  Evaluation	  TOR
Mercy	  Corps	  Rift	  Valley	  Local	  Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  (LEAP	  II)
External	  Final	  Evaluation	  Scope	  of	  Work
May-­June	  2013
1/	  Project	  to	  be	  evaluated	  
Rift	   Valley	   Local	   Empowerment	   for	   Peace	   (LEAP	   II	   and	   LEAP	   II	   Extension)	   being	  
implemented	   by	   Mercy	   Corps	   and	   partners	   (Wareng	   Youth	   Initiative	   for	   Peace	   and	  
Development	   and	   Kericho	   Youth	   Centre)	   and	   funded	   by	   the	   United	   States	   Agency	   for	  
International	  Development	  (USAID).	  The	  program	  started	  on	  July	  4,	  2010	  and	  ends	  on	  July	  
3,	  2013.
2/	  Purpose
2a/	  Purpose	  of	  evaluation
This	  is	  the	  final	  evaluation	  of	  the	  2	  year	  USAID-­‐funded	  Rift	  Valley	  Local	  Empowerment	  for	  
Peace	  (LEAP	  II)	  program	  and	  the	  1	  year	  cost	  extension.	  This	  is	  an	  external	  evaluation	  for	  
donor	  reporting	  purposes,	  but	  will	  also	  act	  as	  an	  important	  document	  for	  Mercy	  Corps	  and	  
our	  implementing	  partners	  in	  measuring	  program	  outcomes	  of	  LEAP	  II	  and	  future	  project	  
identification,	   design	   and	   implementation.	   Bridging	   ethnic	   divides	   and	   youth	   are	  
important	  areas	  of	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya’s	  long-­‐term	  programming	  strategy,	  and	  the	  LEAP	  II
program	  has	  helped	  us	  establish	  our	  unique	  contribution	  to	  the	  development	  and	  stability	  
of	   Kenya.	   The	   evaluation	   will	   serve	   as	   an	   important	   tool	   in	   reevaluating	   and	   defining	  
Mercy	  Corps’	  strategy	  in	  Kenya.	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  program	  team,	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya	  as	  well	  as	  Mercy	  Corps	  headquarters	  (HQ)	  
are	   directly	   concerned	   with how	   activities	   implemented	   measure	   against	   the	   program	  
results,	  as	  well	  as	  direct	  impact/progress	  and	  realizing	  its	   final	  goal.	   It	  is	  hoped	   that	   the	  
evaluation	  will	  clearly	  assess	  the	  project’s	  overall	  success	  in	  achieving	  its	  stated	  purposes	  
and	   results,	   and	   make	   clear	   recommendations,	   based	   on	   these	   results,	   regarding	  
necessary	  or	  beneficial	  future	  activities	  in	  the	  light	  of	  this	  program.	  Most	  importantly,	  the	  
evaluation	   should	   measure	   the	   sustainability	   of	   this	   action.	   In	   addition,	   information	  
collected	   will	   be	   vital	   for	   the	   following	   parties:	   1)	   the	   LEAP	   II program	   team;	   2)	   Mercy	  
Corps’	  Kenya	  office;	  3)	  Mercy	  Corps’	  headquarters	  staff;	  4)	  Wareng	  Youth	  Initiative	  for	  Peace	  
staff	  5)	  Kericho	  Youth	  Center	  staff	  6)	  LEAP	  II Peace	  Committees	  and	  Youth	  Self-­Help	  Groups;	  
and	   7)	   District/	   County	   Governments	   and	   decision-­makers	   that	   have	   been	   involved	   in	   the	  
project	  8)	  The	  National	  Steering	  Committee	  on	  peacebuilding	  and	  conflict	  management
The	  evaluation	  approach	  will	  involve	  as	  many	  of	   the	  LEAP	   II team	  members	  as	  possible,	  
and	   be	   designed	   in	   a	   way	   that	   allows	   the	   team	   an	   opportunity	   to	   learn	   about	   the	  
importance	  and	   relevance	   of	  project	  evaluation,	  and	  how	   this	   feeds	  into	   future	  program	  
62
design.	  Additionally,	  the	  evaluation	  will	  incorporate	  tools	  designed	  by	  Mercy	  Corps’	  Youth	  
and	   Conflict	   Management	   team	   under	   the	   Evaluation	   and	   Assessment	   of	   Poverty	   and	  
Conflict	   Interventions	   (EAPC)	   research	   grant.	   These	   tools	   examine	   community	  
relationships	  and	  peace	  agreements.	  
Findings	  and	  analysis	  of	  the	   final	  evaluation	  will	  be	  compiled	  in	  a	  report,	  with	  necessary	  
annexes.	   The	   final	   evaluation	   will	   consist	   of	   1)	   individual	   surveys	   with	   LEAP	   II
participants;	   2)	   focus	   group	   discussions	   with	   Peace	   Committees,	   and	   Early	   Warning	  
monitors	   and	   3)	   key	   informant	   interviews	   with	   relevant	   local	   and	   government	   officials	  
and	  LEAP	  II program	  team.	  
A	  timeline	  for	  the	  evaluation	  and	  generation	  of	  the	  final	  report	  is	  provided	  in	  Section	  8	  of	  
this	   Scope	   of	   Work.	   Primary	   users	   of	   the	   information	   generated	   through	   the	   final	  
evaluation	  are:	  
• Mercy	   Corps	   –	   as	   a	   management	   tool,	   to	   calibrate	   effort	   to	   ensure	   the	   program	  
achieves	  proposed	  results;	  and
• USAID	  -­‐	  as	  a	  monitoring	  and	  evaluation	   tool,	   to	  measure	  results	  against	  proposed	  
impact	  indicators/	  results.
Results	  from	  the	  final	  evaluation	  will	  also	  be	  shared	  with:
• Stakeholders	  in	   the	   target	  communities,	  e.g.	   the	  district	  and	   regional	  government	  
and	  Peace	  Committees,	  as	  a	  means	   of	   transparency,	  accountability	  and	  continued	  
cooperation	  towards	  shared	  objectives;	  and
• Development	   stakeholders	   in	   the	   region,	   e.g.	   international	   development	  
organizations,	  institutional	  donors	  etc.	  as	  a	  means	  of	  attracting	  additional	  funding	  
to	  the	  region.
2b/	  Purpose	  of	  the	  consultancy
The	   overall	   goal	   of	   the	   Consultancy	   is	   to	   facilitate	   and	   manage	   the	   Mercy	   Corps	   final	  
evaluation	   for	   the	   LEAP	   II	   program.	   The	   Consultant	   will	   develop	   evaluation	   tools,	  
coordinate	   implementation	   of	   the	   survey	   and	   analyze	   its	   results.	   In	   addition,	   the	  
Consultant	   will	   lead	   the	   implementation	   of	   the	   focus	   group	   discussions	   with	   Peace	  
Committees	   and	   Youth	   Self	  Help	   Groups,	   as	  well	   as	   key	  informant	  interviews	  with	  local	  
government	  officials	  and	  the	  LEAP	  II	  program	  team.	  Finally	  the	  Consultant	  will	  produce	  a	  
final	  evaluation	  report	  for	  stakeholders	  as	  mentioned	  previously.	  	  
3/	  Background
In	   December	   2007,	   Kenya	   descended	   into	   political	   violence	   following	   disputed	  
presidential	  elections	  between	  incumbent	  President	  Mwai	  Kibaki’s	  Party	  of	  National	  Unity	  
and	  Raila	  Odinga’s	  opposition	  Orange	  Democratic	  Movement.	  Long	  considered	  one	  of	  the	  
most	  stable	  countries	  in	  East	  Africa,	  some	  1,500	  people	  died	  and	  600,000	  were	  displaced	  
in	   the	   violence.	   The	   epicenter	   was	   Kenya’s	   troubled	   Rift	   Valley	   Province,	   the	   site	   of	  
recurrent	  violence	  between	  the	  Kikuyu	  and	  Kalenjin	  tribes	  over	  political	  power,	  economic	  
opportunity,	   and	   land.	   A	   power-­‐sharing	   agreement	   brokered	   by	   former	   UN	   Secretary	  
63
General	   Kofi	   Annan	   ended	   the	   violence,	   both	   parties	   expressed	   a	   commitment	   to	   peace,	  
and	   the	   new	   coalition	   government	   agreed	   to	   an	   ambitious	   reform	   agenda	   that	   includes	  
moving	  two	  critical	  pieces	  of	  legislation	  on	  land	  and	  reconciliation	  through	  Parliament.	  In	  
order	   to	   build	   on	   that	   important	   window	   of	   opportunity,	   Mercy	   Corps	   and	   its	   local	  
partners,	  Wareng	  Youth	   Initiative	   for	  Peace	  and	  Development	  and	  Kericho	  Youth	  Centre	  
implemented	   a	   2	   year	   $	   1,700,000	   and	   a	   1	   year	   cost	   extension	   $1,000,000	   program	  
entitled	  Rift	  Valley	  Local Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  (LEAP	  II)	  in	  Uasin	  Gishu,	  Kericho,	  Bomet,	  
Nakuru	   and	   Trans-­‐Nzoia	   counties	   in	   the	   Rift	   Valley	   that	   were	   deeply	   affected	   by	   post-­‐
election	   violence.	  LEAP	   II’s	  overarching	  goal	  is	   to	  strengthen	   the	  ability	  of	  local,	  district,	  
and	   provincial	   structures	   to	   address	   the	   causes	   of	   2007	   post-­‐election	   violence	   and	  
promote	   sustainable	   peace	   and	   reconciliation.	   Mercy	   Corps	   supported	   this	   goal	   by	  
pursuing	   three	   related	   objectives:	   1)	   strengthen	   sustainable	   mechanisms	   for	   conflict	  
mitigation	   and	   reconciliation;	   2)	   supporting	   community	   dialogues	   and	   implement	   joint	  
development	   projects	   that	   build	   bridges	   among	   divided	   communities	   and	   demonstrate	  
tangible	   benefits	   to	   coexistence;	   and	   3)	   supporting	   youth	  integration	   and	   address	   a	   key	  
cause	  of	  violence	  through	  youth	  leadership	  training,	  small-­‐scale	  cash-­‐for-­‐work	  community	  
reconstruction	  projects,	  and	  income-­‐generation	  activities.	  
The	  LEAP	  II	  Extension	  goal	  is	  to	  strengthen	  the	  capacity	  of	  local	  actors	  and	  institutions	  in	  
targeted	  counties	  to	  develop	  and	  advance	  sustainable	  peace,	  reconciliation	  and	  norms	  of	  
nonviolence	  based	  on	  justice,	  accountability	  and	  equality.	  Mercy	  Corps	  is	  supporting	  this	  
goal	   by	   pursuing	   three	   related	   objectives:	  1)Strengthen	   transformational	   platforms	   that	  
will	   prevent	   and	   respond	   to	   local	   conflicts	   that	   threaten	   to	   destabilize	   the	   region.	   2)	  
Strengthen	  Early	  Warning	  and	  Early	  Response	  capacity	  through	  inclusion	  of	  youth	  and	  the	  
police	  to	  support	  peaceful	  elections.
LEAP	  II
Goal:	   Strengthen	   the	   ability	   of	   local	   structures	   to	   address	   causes	   of	   post-­election	  
violence	  and	  promote	  sustainable	  peace	  and	  reconciliation	  in	  the	  Rift	  Valley	  province
Objective	   1:	   Building	   and	   strengthening	   sustainable	   local	   mechanisms	   for	   conflict	  
mitigation	  and	  reconciliation
Result	  1.1	  Stakeholder	  mapping	  and	  conflict	  assessment	  done
Result	  1.2	  District	  Peace	  Committees	  established	  and/or	  strengthened
Result	  1.3	  32-­‐40	  district	  dialogue	  forums	  conducted	  that	  bring	  groups	  together	  to	  discuss	  
resolve	  joint	  problems.
Result	  1.4	  District	  leaders	  gain	   new	  leadership	  and	   consensus-­‐building	   skills	   to	   resolve	  
tensions.
Result	  1.5	  Early	  warning	  and	  response	  systems	  established.
Result	  1.6	  District	  and	  provincial	  leaders	  increase	  interaction	  through	  multi-­‐district	  and	  
regional	  forums
64
Objective	   2:	   Supporting	   60	   inter-­	   and	   intra-­community	   reconciliation	   dialogues	   that	  
disseminate	  information	   about	   Kenya’s	  new	   reform	   agenda	   and	   contribute	   to	   peaceful	   co-­
existence.
Result	   2.1	   80	   communities	   engaged	   through	   dialogues	   to	   promote	   reconciliation	   and	  
identify	  projects	  for	  implementation
Result	   2.2	   Implementation	   of	   64	   community	   and	   district	   projects	   that	   demonstrate	  
tangible	  benefits	  to	  cooperation
Result	  2.3.	  Demonstration	  by	  community	  members	  of	  increased	  willingness	  to	  cooperate	  
across	  conflict	  lines
Result	  2.3.	  Establishment	  of	  joint	  monitoring	  teams	  for	  all	  projects
Objective	  3:	   Support	  youth	  integration	  and	  address	  a	  key	  cause	  of	  conflict	  through	  youth	  
leadership	  training	  and	  income	  generation	  activities
Result	  3.1	  Organizational	  capacity	  of	  local	   youth	  association	  and	   youth	  self-­‐help	  groups	  
strengthened
Result	   3.2	  Acquisition	   of	   new	   skills	   by	   young	   people	   to	   help	   them	   earn	   an	  income	   and	  
address	  daily	  challenges
Result	   3.3	   Youth	   Self	   Help	   Group	   members	   achieve	   greater	   economic	   independence	  
through	  income	  generation	  activities
Result	   3.4	   Sense	   among	   youth	   that	   they	   are	   making	   a	   positive	   contribution	   to	   their
communities
Result	   3.5	   Youth	   identification	   and	   implementation	   of	   up	   to	   40	   income-­‐generating	  
activities
Result	  3.6	  Support	  of	  private	  sector	  mentors	  for	  youth	  entrepreneurs
LEAP	  II	  Cost	  Extension
Objective	   1):	   Strengthen	   transformational	   platforms	   that	   will	   prevent	   and	   respond	   to	  
local	  conflicts	  that	  threaten	  to	  destabilize	  the	  region.	  
Result 1.1 Strengthen and Expand Peace Committees 
Result 1.2: Expand women’s role as peacebuilders in Rift Valley.
Result 1.3: Promote non-violence, especially around the election, through information 
campaigns.
Result 1.4: Document and disseminate stories through talking circles
Result 1.5: Foster cooperation across ethnic lines during the election season through quick 
impact projects.
Objective	  2):	  Strengthen	  Early	  Warning	  and	  Early	  Response	  capacity	  through	  inclusion	  of	  
youth	  and	  the	  police	  to	  support	  peaceful	  elections
Result 2.1: Strengthen Early Warning and Early Response Mechanism 
65
Result 2.2: Address Early Warning Signs of Conflict identified by the EWER teams and 
dialogue groups through access of early warning fund.
Result 2.3: Train youth bunges on Early Warning and Early Response.
Result 2.4: Decentralization of Early Warning and Early Response hubs/centers 
Result 2.5: Stakeholders Forums and EWER planning meetings to strengthen coordination with 
police.
4/	  Existing	  sources	  of	  project	  information	  
• Proposals	  submitted	  to	  USAID
• Program	  Results	  Framework	  and	  PMPs	  
• Baseline/midterm	  survey	  reports
• Monitoring	  information	  (data	  collection	  instruments,	  data	  management	  tools)
• Donor	  reports	  (annual,	  bi-­‐annual,	  finance,	  quarterly	  narrative)
• Other	  project	  support	  information	  such	  as	  forms,	  procedures,	  news	  clippings	  etc.
5)	  Survey	  Methods
In	   consultation	   with	   the	   LEAP	   II program	   team,	   Mercy	   Corps’ Youth	   and	   Conflict	  
Management	   Team,	   and	   Mercy	   Corps’	   Design,	   Monitoring	   and	   Evaluation	   unit,	   the	  
consultant	  will	  design	  a	  multi-­‐method	  approach	  to	  evaluating	  the	  outcomes	  and	  impact	  of	  
the	   LEAP	   II program.	   The	   evaluation	   will	   include	   both	   quantitative	   and	   qualitative	  
methods,	  as	  well	  as	   surveys,	   focus	  group	  discussions	  and	   key	  informant	  interviews.	  The	  
consultant	  will	  incorporate	  the	  baseline	  survey	  and	  additional	  Mercy	  Corps’	  participatory	  
tools	  in	  the	  evaluation	  methodology.	  One	  likely	  tool	  to	  be	  incorporated	  into	  the	  evaluation	  
is:
• Peace	   Agreement	  Data	   Forms/	  Dispute	   Resolution	   forms:	   which	   helps	   determine	  
how	  the	  Peace	  Committees	  used	  their	  skills	  to	  settle	  disputes.
Other	  tools	  may	  be	  included	  in	  consultation	  with	  technical	  staff	  from	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya	  
or	  YCM.	  
6)	  Data	  collection	  plan
In	   consultation	   with	   the	   LEAP	   II	   program	   team,	   Mercy	   Corps	   YCM	   and	   Mercy	   Corps’	  
Design,	  Monitoring	  and	  Evaluation	  Unit, the	  consultant	  will	  select	  a	  sampling	  strategy	  for	  
both	  districts/counties	  covered	  under	  LEAP	   II.	  The	  evaluation	  should	  be	  sure	   to	  balance	  
participation	  of	  Peace	  Committee	  members,	  youth	  participants	  and	  additional	  community	  
members	  affected	   by	   the	   program.	  Additionally,	   the	   consultant	  will	   be	   sure	   that	  women	  
comprise	  30%	  of	  the	  sample	  population.	  	  
7/	  Team	  composition	  and	  participation
The	   survey	   will	   be	   coordinated	   and	   led	   by	   the	   Consultant.	   The	   survey	   team	   will	   be	  
comprised	   of	   a	   number	   of	   surveyors,	   made	   up	   by	   Mercy	   Corps	   staff,	   Wareng	   Youth	  
Initiative	   for	   Peace	   and	  Development	   and	  Kericho	   Youth	   Centre	   staff.	  Whilst	  in	   country,	  
66
the	  Consultant	  will	  work	  closely	  with	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya	  staff.	  Mercy	  Corps	  will	  assist	  in	  
the	   designing	   of	   a	   database	   for	   the	   survey,	   as	   well	   as	   entering	   collected	   data	   in	   the	  
database.	  In	  Eldoret,	  the	  Consultant	  will	  work	  closely	  with	  the	  Mercy	  Corps	  LEAP	  II	  Chief	  
of	   Party	  in	   order	   to	   provide	   a	   constant	   source	   of	   rich	  insight	  into	   the	   LEAP	   II	   program.	  
During	  implementation	  of	  the	  evaluation,	  the	  focal	  point	  for	  the	  Consultant	  will	  be	  Mercy	  
Corps	   LEAP	   II	   Chief	   of	   Party	  with	  additional	   support	   from	  Mercy	   Corps’	  YCM	   team.	   The	  
Consultant	   will	   liaise	   with	   the	   Country	   Director	   in	   order	   to	   prepare	   and	   finalize	   the	  
evaluation	  report.	  	  
8/	  Procedures:	  schedule	  and	  logistics
The	  Consultant	  will	  commit	  to	  an	  estimated	  total	  of	  20	  working	  days.	  	  The	  practical	  field	  
work	  for	  the	  evaluation	  will	  be	  conducted	  in	  June	  2013.	  The	  Consultant	  will	  have	  5	  days	  to	  
draft	  the	  final	  document.	  
Result Estimated	  
duration	  
(days)
1.	  Review	  of	  existing	  information	  sources	  by	  the	  Consultant	   1
2.	  Action	  planning	  meeting	  with	  LEAP	  II	  team	  to	  clarify	  roles	  and	  
half-­‐day	  workshop	  to	  familiarize	  the	  LEAP	  II	  team	  with	  the	  
evaluation	  methodology	  and	  revisit	  evaluation	  questions	  
1
3.	  Pilot	  testing	  and	  refining	  of	  the	  evaluation	  tools	  (in	  training	  
form) 1
4.	  SURVEY
5.	  FOCUS	  GROUP	  DISCUSSIONS
6.	  KEY	  INFORMANT	  INTERVIEWS
8
7.	  Preparation	  of	  preliminary	  findings	  for	  presentation	  at	  
workshop 2
8.	  Workshop	  to	  analyze	  findings,	  successful	  practices	  and	  lessons 1
9.	  Presentation	  of	  preliminary	  evaluation	  findings	  to	  Mercy	  Corps	  
Kenya	  and	  LEAP	  II	  partners. 1
10.	  Preparation	  of	  evaluation	  report.	  Finalize	  evaluation	  report	  on	  
incorporation	  of	  feedback	  from	  key	  Mercy	  Corps	  HQ	  team	  
members.
5
Mercy	  Corps	  will	  provide	  logistical	  support	  in	  the	  form	  of	  transport,	  access	  to	  workspace,	  
and	  translators/facilitators	  in	  meetings.	  Mercy	  Corps	  will	  also	  provide	  human	  resources	  in	  
the	   form	  of	  a	  number	  of	  staff	  members	  who	  will	  be	  available	  to	  support	  the	  evaluator	  in	  
planning	   and	   collecting	   information.	   Finally	   Mercy	   Corps	   will	   provide	   transport	   and	  
facilitation	  where	  necessary	  during	  district-­‐based	  evaluation	  work.
9/	  Deliverables
The	  final	  product	  of	  this	  final	  evaluation	  is	  a	  report,	  ready	  for	  presentation	  to	  MC/HQ	  and	  
USAID.
67
10/	  Reporting	  and	  dissemination	  requirements
The	   final	  evaluation	  report	  will	  not	  exceed	  30	  pages	  excluding	  attachments	  and	  annexes.	  	  
Copies	  of	  the	  report	  will	  be	  provided	  to	  Mercy	  Corps	  Kenya,	  Mercy	  Corps	  HQ	  and	  USAID.	  
The	   final	   evaluation	   report	   shall	   be	   structured	   in	   accordance	   with	   the	   following	  
guidelines:
• Cover	  Page,	  List	  of	  Acronyms
• Table	   of	  Contents	  which	  identifies	   page	   numbers	   for	   the	  major	   content	  areas	   of	  
the	  report.	  	  
• Executive	   Summary	   (2	   pages)	   should	   be	   a	   clear	   and	   concise	   stand-­‐alone	  
document	   that	   gives	   readers	   the	   essential	   contents	   of	   the	   evaluation	   report	   in	   2	  
pages,	   previewing	   the	   main	   points	   in	   order	   to	   enable	   readers	   to	   build	   a	   mental	  
framework	   for	   organizing	  and	   understanding	   the	   detailed	  information	  within	   the	  
report.	   	   In	   addition,	   the	   Executive	   Summary	   helps	   readers	   determine	   the	   key	  
results	  and	  recommendations	  of	  the	  report.	  	  Thus,	  the	  Executive	  Summary	  should	  
include:	   major	   lessons	   learned;	   maximum	   of	   two	   paragraphs	   describing	   the	  
program,	  summary	  of	  targets	  and	  intended	  outcomes;	  areas	  of	  meaningful	  under	  or	  
over	  achievement;	  and	  possibly	  a	  few	  lines	  describing	  the	  action	  plan	  developed	  to	  
follow	   up	   on	  evaluation	   recommendations	  and	   how	   the	  evaluation	   report	  will	   be	  
disseminated.	  	  	  
• Rationale	  for	  the	  Evaluation
• Methodology:	   sampling	   method	   including	   strengths	   and	   weaknesses	   of	   method	  
used,	  inclusion	  of	  stakeholders	  and	  staff,	  rough	  schedule	  of	  activities,	  description	  of	  
any	   statistical	   analysis	   undertaken,	   including	   justification	   and	   software	   package	  
used.	  	  The	  discussion	  of	  any	  random	  sampling	  used	  should	  include	  details	  on	  how	  
the	   random	   respondents	   were	  identified	   and	  invited	   to	   participate.	   	   This	   section	  
should	  also	  address	  constraints	  and	  limitations	  of	  the	  evaluation	  process	  and	  rigor.	  	  
The	   methodology	   section	   should	   also	   include	   a	   detailed	   description	   of	   data	  
collection	  techniques	  used	  throughout	  the	  evaluation.	  	  
• Results:	  Organized	  according	  to	  objectives,	  results	  and	  indicators.	  	  	  
• Synthesis,	   Recommendations	   and	   Lessons	   Learned:	   Make	   concrete	  
recommendations	   for	   future	   programme	   implementation,	   pull	   out	   organization	  
lessons	  learned,	  and	  generally	  comment	  on	  data	  and	  results.	  Everything	  presented	  
in	   this	   section	   must	   be	   directly	   linked	   back	   to	   the	   information	   presented	   in	   the	  
Results	  section	  of	  the	  report.	  Recommendations	  that	  are	  not	  directly	  tied	  to	  Results	  
can	  be	  included	  in	  an	  Evaluator	  Comments	  section	  for	  the	  report.
• Annexes:	   data	   collection	   instruments	   in	   English	   list	   of	   stakeholder	   groups	   with	  
number	  and	   type	   of	  interactions;	  SOW,	   qualitative	  protocols	  developed	  and	  used,	  
any	   data	   sets	   can	   be	   provided	   in	   electronic	   format,	   and	   any	   required	   photos,	  
participant	  profiles	  or	  other	  special	  documentation	  needed.	  
68
Annex	  6:	  	  Focus	  Group	  Discussion	  guide
Introductory questions:
Please share your name and how you have participated in the LEAP program. 
What has been your overall impression of the program?
Program Results questions:
1. What have been the key conflicts in this district over the past 3 years?
2. From your observation, did the LEAP program address the main causes of conflict/tension 
in the district (relevance)? 
If yes, in which ways?
If no, what would have been more effective activities to address tensions/conflict in 
your district?
3. How effective are the DPCs & LPCs in your area?
Has their effectiveness increased or decreased over the past 3 years? 
In what ways?
What types of conflicts have they addressed in past 3 years?
How effective have they been in addressing inter-community tensions?
How effective were they during the recent elections?
Will they continue to operate after LEAP II ends?
4. How effective have the District leaders been in consensus building, resolving 
conflicts/addressing tensions between communities?
Has their effectiveness increased or decreased over the past 3 years? 
In what ways?
What types of conflicts have they addressed in past 3 years?
How effective is the interaction between District and Provincial leaders?
5. Have you participated in district dialogue forums?
How effective were they?
Did they resolve any key inter-community tensions/issues?
6. Is there a Conflict Early Warning System established in your area?
Were you involved with it? Ifs, what was your role?
What does it do?
Who participates? (who collects the data, who compiles it, who does the information 
go to?)
Did it identify and report on any emerging conflicts over past 3 years? 
If so, how effective was it in getting information to the right people?
What was the response to the report?
7. Have you participated in dialogues between communities?
If so, please describe your participation 
How effective the dialogue was at reducing tensions?
What changes resulted from the dialogues between the communities?
8. Are you aware of LEAP supported Projects in your area? (C4W, IGA, Community Projects?)
Did you participate in the project/s? How?
69
What was the impact of this project?
Did it build relationships between different groups?
Did the project consolidate any agreements made during dialogues? If so, how?
How sustainable have these projects been?
9. Are you aware of any Youth Self Help Group projects in this district? 
Did you participate in one?
How has your capacity increased from participation in the project?
Were you linked with any private sector mentors? Did they add value to your 
activities/projects?
10. How willing are people in your community to interact with others of different ethnic groups?
Can you give me an example of how communities are willing to interact/unwilling 
to interact? 
Has their willingness interact increased or decreased over the past 3 years?
What has influenced this change (increase or decrease)?
Did the LEAP project influence people’s willingness to interact across ethnic 
groups.
11. What ways do youth contribute to your communities?
Has this improved or reduced over the life of the project?
If so, did the LEAP program have any influence on this?
12. If there were different results in the elections, or if there had not been the coalition, how safe 
would the election process have been in Rift Valley?
Did you participate/observe any events/information campaigns promoting non￾violence? 
How effective were they at reducing election violence?
13. What is the your perception of the reform efforts? Does the general population in Rift Valley 
accept these reforms? 
Why or why not?
Ending questions: 
Overall, how was the interaction with the implementing organizations (MCK, local partners).
Is there anything we should have talked about, but didn’t?
Any other comments?
70
Annex	  7:	  End	  of	  Project	  Household	  Survey	  Questionnaire
Questionnaire NO. ………..…..
Date administered …………….
Start time: …………….
End time: ……………..
Dear	  Sir/	  Madam,
Mercy	  Corps	  is	  conducting	  an	  impact	  evaluation	  on	  the	  second	  phase	  of	  the	  Local	  
Empowerment	  for	  Peace	  Program	  (LEAP	  II)	  in	  14	  districts	  in	  Rift	  Valley;	  Eldoret	  West,	  
Eldoret	  East,	  Wareng,	  Nandi	  North,	  Aldai,	  Tinderet,	  Trans	  Nzoia,	  Kericho	  West,	  Kericho	  
East,	  Kericho	  Central,	  Kipkelion	  West,	  Nakuru,	  Molo	  and	  Sotik	  Districts	  of	  Rift	  Valley	  
Province.	  This	  program	  is	  made	  possible	  by	  the	  generous	  financial	  support	  of	  the	  
American	  people	  through	  The	  United	  States	  Agency	  for	  International	  Development	  
(USAID).
We	  are	  in	  the	  final	  stages	  of	  LEAP	  II	  extension	  and	  evaluating	  the	  program’s	  activities	  and	  
impact.	  We	  kindly	  request	  you	  give	  some	  time	  in	  filling	  this	  questionnaire.	  Please	  read	  the	  
instructions	  carefully	  below.	  
Thank	  you,	  
Mercy	  Corps	  Staff	  
Thank you,
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Youth or youth group members fill SECTIONS A and B ONLY (Youth age is 18 – 35 
years)
2. District or Divisional Peace Committee (DPC) Members fill SECTIONS A and C ONLY
3. Other community members fill SECTION A ONLY
4. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT
71
SECTION A (Please fill this out)
1. Group Type: (Tick one that apply to you)
□District/Division/Locality Peace Committee member (DPC)
□Youth Self Help Group (YSHG) member
□Other community member
2. District 
3. Division 
4. Location 
5. Sub Location
6. Gender: □Male □Female
7. Age (Years): □ 13-18 □ 19-25 □ 26-30 □ 31-35 □ 36 and above
8. What is your level of education?
□Never cleared primary
□Cleared primary
□Never Cleared Secondary
□Secondary (Form four)
□Vocational/Polytechnic/College Diploma or certificate
□University degree
□Postgraduate studies
9. List the languages you speak (starting with your mother tongue)
1.______________________ 3_______________________
2.______________________ 4. _____________________
10. Did participate you in the Mercy Corps Local Empowerment for Peace (LEAP) Program?
□1. Yes □2. No
10b. If NO, did someone in your family participate in the LEAP program.
□1. Yes □2. No
11. Does a Peace Committee (PCs) exist in your district? 
□1. Yes □2. No □I don’t Know
11a. If yes to 11 above, which peace committee exist in this area?
□1. None □2. LPC □3. DPC □5. DPC & LPC 
11b . If yes to 10 above, how effective are the peace committees?
Peace Committee
Very 
Effective Effective
Somewhat 
Effective
Not 
Effective
72
LPC
DPC
12. Have you ever referred any disputes affecting you to the Peace Committee?
□1. Yes □2. No
12a. If Yes in 12 above, where did you refer your dispute to?
□1. LPC □2. DPC □3. Both
12b. If Yes in 12 above what type of dispute? (TICK ONE that most apply)
□1. Land □4. Family/Domestic
□2. Cattle rustling □5. Political
□3. Between ethnic groups □6.Other (Specify)_______________
13. Which ONE of the following do you think is the KEY contributor to ethnic conflicts in your 
location in the last 6 months (TICK ONE)
□1. Land related grievances □5. Unemployment
□2. Tribalism □6. Poverty
□3. Politics □7. None
□4. Culture □8. Other(specify) ____________
14. Have you received any peacebuilding training?
□1. Yes □2. No
14a. If yes in 14 above, from whom?
____________________________
____________________________
15. In question 15a,b,c below, how often have you met with the following in the last 6 months? 
15a. Peace Committee (PC) member from other districts
□0 □1-2 times □3-4 times □More than 4 times
15b. National Steering Committee (NSC) official
□0 □1-2 times □3-4 times □More than 4 times
15c. Provincial leaders (PC, DCs, DOs, Chiefs, MPs, Business leaders etc.)
□0 □1-2 times □3-4 times □More than 4 times
16. During the recent elections, did you participate in any civic education for peaceful elections 
activity in your community?
□1. Yes □2. No
16a. If yes in 16 above, how many civic education for peaceful elections events did you attended in 
the 3 months leading up to the elections?
73
□None □1-2 □3-4 □More than 4 
16b. Referring to 16a. above, what type of events were they?
□1. Peace dialogues □4. Peace tournaments
□2. Peace campaigns □5. Other (Specify) _______________
□3. Civic education
16c. If you participated, what was your main role (TICK ONE that mostly applies) □1. 
Participant
□2. Leader/ Organizer
□3. Facilitator/ Moderator
□4. Peace Committee Member
□5. Other (specify) ______________________________
17. Which groups or organizations are organizing useful peace dialogues in your community or 
district?___________________________________________________
18. Which of the following statements is closer to your view? (Choose Statement 1 or Statement 
2)
Statement 1: The use of violence is never justified in Kenyan politics and development 
today.
Statement 2: In this country, it is sometimes necessary to use violence in support of a just 
cause. 
 □ 1. Agree with Statement 1 □ 2. Agree with Statement 2
19. In the past 6 months, have you personally ever used force or violence for a political cause? 
□ 1. Yes □ 2. No 
19a. If No in 19 above, would you do this (use violence) if circumstances forced you?
□ 1. Yes, I would if I had the chance □ 2. No, I would never do this
20. Are the local mechanisms for conflict mitigation, peace and reconciliation, strong enough to 
prevent violence from happening again in the future?
□1. Yes □2. No
20a. If No, why not?
□1. A lack of trust in mechanisms 
□2. Lack of capacity of the existing structures
□3. Other (please specify)_________________
21. How well do you understand the following Kenya's agenda 4 reforms? (Tick as applicable 
across each reform item)
Agenda 4 Item Very Well Well Somewhat Not at all Don't know
Constitutional reforms
Legal and Institutional 
reforms
Poverty and inequality
74
Youth Unemployment
Land reforms
22. In your local area, how effective are the groups below in mediating conflict among ethnic 
communities? Put only one tick in each line. 
 Very Effective Effective Not Effective Don't Know
Elders
DPC
LPC
Women
Youth Leaders
Local Politicians
Religious Leaders
Other
23. In the last 3 months have any of your family members been involved in any disputes with 
persons from outside the family? 
□Yes □No
23a. If yes, who was the dispute with?
□Family □Stranger of the same ethnic group
□Friend/Neighbor □Stranger of a different ethnic group
□Police/government
23b. If yes, what was the nature of the dispute?
□land/property rights □Harm to property/theft/robbery
□water rights □Other (Please specify) ______________
□Issues regarding relationships
23c. How was this dispute resolved?
□Not resolved □Religious leaders mediated
□Directly discussed with those involved □Peace committee members mediated
□Friends/family mediated □Local government officials mediated
□Elders mediated
23d. To what extent were you satisfied with the resolution of this dispute?
□To a great extent □To a small extent
□To some extent □Not at all
24. Are there any mechanisms to alert people to a problem/possible conflict (early warning 
systems) in your district?
□1. Yes □2. No
24a. If yes, can you name and/or describe them. 
______________________________
75
25. What role did you play in Early Warning/Early Response system?
□ Monitoring at the grassroots
□ Transmitting Information to Mercy Corps/Ushahidi platform
□ Transmitting Information to DPC
□ Responding to the Early Warning Messages
□ Other (explain)_______________________
26. Compared to neighboring communities, how peaceful or violent is your community? 
□1. Very Peaceful
□2. Somewhat Peaceful
□3. Neither peaceful nor violent
□4. Somewhat violent
□5. Very violent
□6. Don't know
27. To your knowledge have there been any incidents of politically instigated violence in your 
communities in the last 6 months?
□ 1. Yes □2. No
27a. If yes to 27 above, about how many incidents occurred in your community?
______________________________
27b. If yes to 27, what happened? (check the top two most often incidents) 
 Neighboring
 Own Community Communities
Beating
Killing
Cattle raid
Ambush
Abduction
Household theft
Rape
Other (specify)
27c. If yes, were women involved in perpetrating this incident? 
 Neighboring
 Own Community Communities
Yes, definitely
Probably so
Probably not
No, definitely not
Don't Know
27d. If yes, were youth involved in perpetrating this incident? 
 Neighboring
76
 Own Community Communities
Yes, definitely
Probably so
Probably not
No, definitely not
Don't Know
28. Has insecurity in the last 3 months prevented you from investing in your livelihood? 
□1. Yes □2. No
29. In the last 3 months, were there any areas you avoided going to or through because of 
insecurity?
Going to the market? □Yes □No
Getting water for household use? □Yes □No
Going to your field/farm? □Yes □No
Moving your animals to new pasture? □Yes □No
Earning money or going to work? □Yes □No
Going to school/college? □Yes □No
Getting medical care? □Yes □No
Visiting friends or relatives □Yes □No
30. If your ancestral land was in Rift Valley, would you allow other people from other ethnic 
communities settle on it? 
□Yes □No □Undecided
31. Would you allow people from other ethnic groups settled in your ancestral land to belong to 
other political parties other than the one preferred by your ethnic group?
□1.Yes □2. No □3. Undecided
32. How often do you interact with members of other ethnic communities?
□1. Frequently □3. Rarely
□2. Sometimes □4. Never
33. How many reconstruction projects has your community implemented jointly with other ethnic 
groups? ______________________________
34. Below, please answer whether you have engaged in the following activities with members of 
other ethnic groups in the last 3 months. Please DO NOT rate whether you have done these 
activities with YOUR OWN ETHNIC GROUP
Market/ 
Trade Social Farming Politics Work
Community 
Group Conflict
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
77
Luo
35. How much do you trust members of the following ethnic groups …DO NOT rate whether you 
trust your OWN ETHNIC GROUP. 
To a great 
extent
To some 
extent
To a small 
extent
Not at all
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
36. How comfortable would you feel if someone from the following tribes is contesting for an 
elective post in your community? DO NOT rate your OWN ETHNIC GROUP 
Very 
Comfortable Comfortable Uncomfortable
Very 
Uncomfortable Don’t know
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
37. Do you feel that members of the following communities exclude you from participation in the 
following activities? DO NOT rate whether your OWN ETHNIC GROUP has excluded you. 
Education/ 
School
Health 
Services Transport
Community 
Celebrations
Obtain a 
Loan
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
38. In questions 38a,b,c,d below, how comfortable would you feel if the following things happened. 
DO NOT rate your OWN ETHNIC GROUP
38a. If your brother or sister married them? 
Very 
Comfortable Comfortable Neither Uncomfortable
Very 
Uncomfortable
Don’t know
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
38b. If you worked for them? 
Very 
Comfortable Comfortable Neither Uncomfortable
Very 
Uncomfortable
Don’t know
78
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
38c. If you were paying them to work in your field? 
Very 
Comfortable Comfortable Neither Uncomfortable
Very 
Uncomfortable
Don’t 
know
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
38d. If they were looking after your animals?
Very 
Comfortable Comfortable Neither Uncomfortable
Very 
Uncomfortable
Don’t 
know
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
39. In your opinion, how interested in sustainable peace is each of the ethnic groups listed? DO 
NOT rate your OWN ETHNIC GROUP
Very 
Interested
Somewhat 
Interested
Somewhat 
Disinterested
Very 
Disinterested
Don’t 
Know
Kalenjin
Kikuyu
Kisii
Luhya
Luo
40. Do youth in your community ever participate in crime or violence? 
□Never □Most of the time
□Rarely □Always
□Sometimes □Don't know
40a. If yes, why? Check the top two most often reasons
□Lack of means of livelihood (job)
□Follow traditions of conflict with other groups
□Developing bad behaviors
□Instigated by others (i.e., politicians, gangs)
□Other (specify) _____________________________
41. In questions 41a,b, below, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement
79
41a. Youth are responsible members of the community? 
□Strongly agree
□Agree
□Neither agree or disagree
□Disagree
□Strongly disagree
41b. Youth are productive members of my community? 
□Strongly agree
□Agree
□Neither agree or disagree
□Disagree
□Strongly disagree
42. How do women earn a living/earn money in your community? (check the top two most 
common ways)
□Farming □Daily casual work
□Livestock □House help
□Small business/ Trading □Don’t earn money
43. When conflict breaks out in your community, what are the roles of women? (check the top two
most common ways)
□Preparing food for fighters
□Encouraging fighters with songs
□Tending/share raided cattle/stolen goods
□Try to mediate between contending parties
□Other (specify)
44. When conflict breaks out in your community, what are the roles of men? (check the top two 
most common ways)
□Engaging with the fight
□Tending raided cattle
□Migrating to other areas
□Try to mediate between contending parties 
□Other (specify)
45. Are women affected by conflict differently than men? 
□Yes □No □Don't know
45a. If yes, how? 
□They are subjected to violence like rape
□Through widowhood, lose means of support
□Other (specify) ________________________________
46. In your community, are women involved in traditional conflict resolution?
80
□To a very great extent
□To a great extent
□Neither small nor great extent
□To a small extent
□To a very small extent
□ Not at all
46a. If yes, how are women in your community involved in conflict resolution activities
□Being part of peace committee
□Advising/counseling husbands
□Advising youth
□Other (specify)
47. In question 47a,b below, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement
47a. Women should be represented in peace committees or in other conflict resolution activities? 
□Strongly agree □Disagree
□Agree □Strongly disagree
□Neither agree nor disagree □Don't know
47b. The actions of women increase conflict with other communities. 
□Strongly agree □Disagree
□Agree □Strongly disagree
□Neither agree nor disagree □Don't know
48. In your community, to what extend have women taken up active leadership roles in peace 
structures like DPCs?
□1. To a very great extent □4. To a small extent
□2. To a great extent □5. To a very small extent
□3. Neither small nor great extent □ They have not
49. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement:
Women should be represented in peace committees or in other conflict resolution activities.
□1. Strongly agree □4. Disagree
□2. Agree □5. Strongly disagree
□3. Neither agree nor disagree □6. Don't know
81
SECTION B
FOR YOUTH ONLY
50. Are you a member of a Youth Self-Help Group?
□ Yes □No
51. What do you do for a living? 
□Full employment (Permanent/contractual and pensionable)
□Farming
□Do casual jobs if and when they come (Kibarua)
□Self-employed
□Self Help Group activities
□Housewife
□Family business (except farm)
□Nothing
52. If you are unemployed, why?
□Can't find a job
□I am discriminated against because of my tribe
□I have no connections
□In School/College
□I have not enough education
□Other (Please specify) ___________________
53. In general, how do you rate your economic conditions compared to those of other Kenyans? 
Better, the same, or worse?
□Worse □Same □ Better □ I don’t know
54. Looking ahead, do you expect your economic conditions to be better, the same, or worse in 
twelve months time?
□Worse □Same □ Better □ I don’t know 
55. If employed, what is your average income per month? □Ksh. 
0 □Kshs 9,001-15,000
□Kshs. 1-3000 □Kshs 15,001-18,000
□Kshs 3,001-6000 □Kshs 18,001-21,000
□Kshs 6,001-9,000 □Above Kshs 21,000
56. How much income do you need per month to cover personal and family expenses? 
□Ksh. 5,000 □Ksh. 20,000
□Ksh. 10,000 □Ksh. 25,000
□Ksh. 15,000 □Ksh. 30,000 and above
57. If you can't meet monthly expenses, how do you make ends meet? 
□Ask Parents □Handouts from Politicians
82
□Ask Relatives □Do casual jobs (Kibarua)
□Depend on Friends □Other (specify)_________________
58. How often do you have to ask others for financial help?
□Daily □Weekly □Monthly □6 times a year□Not at all
59. Within the last year, how many times have youth in your community organized collective action 
for any cause?
□None □1-2 times □3-5 times □More than 5 times
60. How many multi-ethnic youth activities have been held in your community in the last year? 
□None □1-2 times □3-5 times □More than 5 times
83
SECTION C
FOR DPC's ONLY
61. What type of dispute did your group resolve most often? (TICK ONE)
□Land
□Family/Domestic
□Cattle rustling
□Political
□Between ethnic groups
62. What type of dispute did your group resolve second most often? (TICK ONE)
□Land
□Family/Domestic
□Cattle rustling
□Political
□Between ethnic groups
63. Have you received any peacebuilding training?
□Yes □No
64. If yes, from whom?
____________________________
____________________________
65. In question 65a,b,c below, how often have you met with the following in the last 6 months? 
65a. DPCs from other districts
□0
□1-2 times
□3-4 times
□More than 4 times
65b. Provincial leaders (PC, DCs, DOs, Chiefs, MPs, Business leaders etc.) □0
□1-2 times
□3-4 times
□More than 4 times
65c. The National Steering Committee
□0
□1-2 times
□3-4 times
□More than 4 times
84
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
85
Annex	  8:	  	  (separate	  file)	  Data	  Set.