In May 2010, the Alliance for Peacebuilding in collaboration with the United States Institute of Peace launched the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project. The goal of the project was to foster collaboration among funders, implementers, and policymakers to improve evaluation practice in the peacebuilding field. This report is inspired by the deep and far-ranging conversations that took place at the meetings.

Special Report:  Improving Peacebuilding Evaluation

Summary

  • The effective evaluation of peacebuilding programs is essential if the field is to learn what constitutes effective and ineffective practice and to hold organizations accountable for using good practice and avoiding bad practice.
  • In the field of peacebuilding evaluation, good progress has been made on the intellectual front. There are now clear guidelines, frameworks, and tool kits to guide practitioners who wish to initiate an evaluation process within the peacebuilding field.
  • Despite this, progress in improving peacebuilding evaluation itself has slowed over the past several years. The cause of this is a set of interlocking problems in the way the peacebuilding field is organized. These in turn create systemic problems that hinder effective evaluation and the utilization of evaluation results.
  • The Peacebuilding Evaluation Project, organized by USIP and the Alliance for Peacebuilding, brought funders and implementers together to work on solutions to the systemic problems in peacebuilding work. This report discusses these solutions, which are grouped into three categories: building consensus, strengthening norms, and disrupting practice and creating alternatives. Several initiatives in each of these categories are already under way.

About the Report

In May 2010, the Alliance for Peacebuilding in collaboration with the United States Institute of Peace launched the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project. Over the course of a year, the project held a series of four meetings in Washington, DC. The goal of the project was to foster collaboration among funders, implementers, and policymakers to improve evaluation practice in the peacebuilding field. This report is inspired by the deep and far-ranging conversations that took place at the meetings. Its central argument is that whole-of-field approaches designed to address systemic challenges are necessary if the practice of peacebuilding evaluation is to progress.

About the Author

Andrew Blum is a senior program officer in the USIP Grant Program. Within the Grant Program, he oversees USIP’s Sudan North-South Border Initiative and the Communication for Peacebuilding Priority Grant Competition. He cofacilitated each of the Peacebuilding Evaluation Project meetings.

Explore Further


Related Publications

China’s Dilemmas Deepen as North Korea Enters Ukraine War

China’s Dilemmas Deepen as North Korea Enters Ukraine War

Thursday, November 14, 2024

Until late October, the big questions about China’s role in the Ukraine conflict centered around whether Beijing would choose to expand its support for Russia to include lethal aid, or if it might engage in more active peacemaking to end the conflict. Then, on November 4, the Pentagon confirmed that North Korea sent more than 10,000 troops to Russia’s Kursk oblast, where Ukraine had captured some territory earlier this year. Days later, the State Department confirmed that North Korean soldiers had begun fighting Ukrainian troops.

Type: Analysis

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

How Should Seoul Respond to North Korea's Soldiers in Russia?

How Should Seoul Respond to North Korea's Soldiers in Russia?

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

The Ukraine war is taking a new turn with the involvement of North Korean soldiers. Washington estimates that, so far, North Korea has sent approximately 10,000 troops to Russia — around 8,000 of whom have been deployed to the western region of Kursk, where Ukraine seized territory in a surprise attack earlier this year. And as U.S. officials predicted in late October, North Korean troops have reportedly begun engaging in direct combat.

Type: Analysis

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Australia’s Strategic Thinking on the War in Ukraine, NATO, and Indo-Pacific Security

Australia’s Strategic Thinking on the War in Ukraine, NATO, and Indo-Pacific Security

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Russia’s war against Ukraine has spurred closer cooperation between Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific states and organizations, particularly Australia and NATO, signaling a deepening of ties that could have long-term benefits for global security. Over the long term, writes security expert Gorana Grgić, such alignment is crucial for signaling to potential aggressors that global coalitions are prepared to respond. This report analyzes Australia’s response in order to examine Canberra’s strategic thinking with respect to cross-theater cooperation, and it offers recommendations for US, NATO, and Australian policymakers.

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

Many Ways to Fail: The Costs to China of an Unsuccessful Taiwan Invasion

Many Ways to Fail: The Costs to China of an Unsuccessful Taiwan Invasion

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be an extremely difficult military, complex operation. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been thinking seriously since the early 2000s about what such a landing would require. For over two decades, its force development efforts have been focused on the weapons, equipment, doctrine and operational concepts required to conquer the island in the face of full U.S. military intervention. The PLA has made considerable progress toward that goal and may deem itself fully capable by the 2027 force development target set by Xi Jinping.

Type: Analysis

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications