Saferworld

Over the past decade or so, the EU has gradually adopted the concept of ‘human security’ in its support for security and justice programming. A commitment to human security implies that security and justice strategies and programmes should proactively seek to take into account and address citizens’ needs and concerns, as primary recipients of security and justice provision. One way to ensure these requirements are met is to promote public participation in the design, implementation and monitoring of security and justice mechanisms.
The EU has a number of policies, tools and frameworks which commit its institutions to taking a ‘participatory approach’ to programming, including in the areas of security and justice. These commitments are gradually, if unevenly, being translated into practice. However, research by the Initiative for Peacebuilding (IfP) Security Cluster has identified a number of institutional, cultural and operational challenges which hinder the understanding and use of participatory approaches by EU institutions. This paper gives an overview of the challenges faced by EU actors in understanding and using participatory approaches and suggests steps that EU institutions can take to overcome them.

Support for justice provision, both formal and informal, constitutes a significant element of donor assistance in Nepal. An initial shift towards supporting informal justice mechanisms (IJMs) began during the decade-long violent conflict between the state and the Maoists that continued until the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006. Donors have since renewed support for the reform and trengthening of the formal justice sector, but have continued to support IJMs. In particular, they have supported ‘new’ IJMs such as paralegal and community mediation committees. These systems today make up one layer of an increasingly complex matrix of formal and informal justice mechanisms, which include both traditional and other non-donor supported IJMs.
This paper builds on questions raised by earlier Saferworld research into IJMs, conducted between November 2009 and April 2010. This research revealed a complex and seemingly disjointed patchwork of donor-supported IJM projects, most of which were operating at a fairly small scale and without clear links either to formal or to other informal justice mechanisms. The research raised a number of challenging questions, including how and why donors first began supporting new IJMs, whether and how these new systems contribute to the strengthening of a broader system of justice in Nepal and to what extent their creation has supported ongoing peacebuilding efforts across the country.

This case study report presents research findings on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements of a long-running justice sector development programme in Uganda (hereafter JLOS – Justice Law and Order Sector). It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions’.1 Together with a wider desk review and supplementary research into the broader M&E systems used by the major SSR donors, the case studies provide an evidence base from which specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating SSR can be developed.

This report brings together the results of a research project on the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of security system reform (SSR) programmes. It focuses particularly on donor-supported SSR programmes, but with reference throughout to local ownership of and capacity for M&E activities. The report seeks to answer four questions about the M&E of SSR:

• Specific challenges of the M&E of SSR: What challenges apply to the M&E of SSR and security and justice institutions and what, if anything, is distinct about this area?
• Content and process: What should we be measuring when monitoring and evaluating SSR and how?
• Available resources: What existing resources can be drawn upon from within the field or from related disciplines to assist in developing specific guidance on M&E of SSR?
• Demand: Who are the most obvious users of tailored guidance on this subject and what do they need?

The report does not in itself constitute a guidance document on the M&E of SSR, but provides material from which tailored guidance could be prepared to meet the needs of interested parties.

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements for the AusAIDsupported Law and Justice Sector in Papua New Guinea (PNG). It covers both Government of PNG and AusAID mechanisms: examining their content, development and convergence over time. AusAID’s Law and Justice Sector Program (LJSP) has been running since 2004, with an initial design phase one year prior to that. The LJSP presents a unique case study involving the support of only one donor (AusAID) to a sector programme that is led with an increasing level of ownership by the recipient government.

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project entitled ‘Support to the Security Sector Reform (SSSR) programme in Albania’. Research for this project was carried out in Tirana in May 2008. It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions’.

Together with a wider desk review and supplementary research into the broader M&E systems used by the major SSR donors, the case studies provide an evidence base from which specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating SSR can be developed.

This report analyses the monitoring and evaluation arrangements (M&E) of a community policing project ‘Implementation of Community Policing in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)'. The field research for this report was carried out in May/June 2008.

This report is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project ‘Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidelines on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform (SSR) interventions'

This report assesses the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements put in place by the UK Government's Sierra Leone Security Sector Reform Programme, which ran from June 1999 until 31 March 2008. The research for this report was carried out between May and July 2008.

It is one of five case studies carried out as part of the Saferworld project, 'Evaluating for Security: Developing specific guidance on monitoring and evaluating Security Sector Reform interventions'.

This report provides an overview of the United Kingdom Government’s arrangements for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) the support it provides to security sector reform (SSR). It examines the M&E systems that already exist for similar types of work as well as looking at any specific treatment given to SSR, before also identifying outstanding needs, challenges and any trends and opportunities that exist for improving M&E in this area.

The origins of the most recent sustained period of conflict in Northern Ireland can be traced back to the civil rights movement that emerged in 1968, the coercive response by the Unionist government and communities, and subsequent armed Republican campaign against the British government and security forces. What followed was over 30 years of sectarian violence, terrorism, counter-terrorism and the separation of communities. The signing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in 1998 was not a conclusion to the conflict nor a resolution of the issues that had been the catalyst for the violence and disorder. Instead, the Agreement provided a framework for the transformation of the conflict through a peaceful political process and the reform of policing and justice institutions in Northern Ireland.

In 2013, Saferworld and Intercomm facilitated roundtable discussions with community development and interface workers from both Loyalist and Republican backgrounds; police officers from an operational and strategic background; academics and members of civil society to reflect on progress, challenges and lessons with regard to community policing, the policing of public disorder, and the management of transition in Northern Ireland.

The resulting paper, Reflections on the Northern Ireland experience: the lessons underpinning the normalisation of policing and security in a divided society , highlights issues of leadership, trust, partnership and accountability as key to progress and offers insight and valuable lessons drawn from the Northern Ireland experience that resonate with other contexts emerging from violent conflict.

Ovaj izveštaj identifikuje pouke relevantne za donatore i izvršne agencije koje žele da podrže pristupe bezbednosti utemeljene u zajednici.1 Isti se zasniva na radu koji su Saferworld i njegovi partneri obavili u oblasti bezbednosti u zajednici na Kosovu, u Nepalu i Bangladešu u periodu od 2010–13. godine.

Iako ne predstavlja formalnu ocenu, ovaj izveštaj sugeriše da programi bezbednosti u zajednici proizvode merljiva poboljšanja u načinima na koje same zajednice doživljavaju beđzbednost i sigurnost. Isti takođe identifikuje niz rezultata bitnih kako bi se omogućilo sposobno, odgovorno i uzvratno garantovanje bezbednosti i širi mirotvorni i državotvorni procesi. Nalazi takođe ukazuju na kritičnu ulogu građanskog društva u razvoju sektora bezbednosti i pravosuđa i na neke od mera koje su neophodne kako bi se ovim grupama pružila efektivna podrška. Izveštaj samo još više podvlači zapažanje da uspešne intervencije u domenu bezbednosti i pravosuđa treba da uključuju ne samo reforme na nivou zajednice već i one koje se vode institucionalno. Na kraju, izveštaj daje neke praktične pouke namenjene donatorima i agencijama koje žele da podržepristupe bezbednosti i sigurnosti utemeljene u zajednici u sklopu njihovog rada.

The main purpose of this handbook is to explain the principles underpinning Community Security interventions, and suggest practical approaches to implementing them, drawing on the work of Saferworld and a select number of other agencies. It is aimed at practitioners–particularly programme managers–and aims to help them work through the steps involved in planning, implementing, evaluating and improving Community Security interventions. It sets out the objectives of Saferworld’s Community Security work, explains why we see it as important, and draws together a significant body of learning and experience.