Baseline Evaluation of Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria

Final Report

Time-Frame of Evaluation: March – May 2017

Date of Report: September 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTSACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................4

1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................9

1.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................91.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT...............................................................................................................10

1.2.1 Scope of the Project....................................................................................................................101.2.2 Objectives of the Project............................................................................................................111.2.3 Proposed Results and Activities.................................................................................................11

1.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS...............................................................................................................121.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................................................12

2. HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT.............................................................................................................14

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................17

3.1 EVALUATION DESIGN.........................................................................................................................173.2 EVALUATION SCOPE...........................................................................................................................183.3 SAMPLING AND SAMPLE SIZE............................................................................................................183.4 DATA SOURCES..................................................................................................................................193.5 DATA ANALYSIS METHOD.................................................................................................................203.6 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS.................................................................................................................203.7 EVALUATION TEAM............................................................................................................................223.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................................233.9 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................23

4. FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................................24

4.1 HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE......................................................................................................................244.2 SECURITY ACTORS.............................................................................................................................444.3 TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS OF DEALING WITH HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES...............................................624.4 COMMUNICATION AND DECISION MAKERS........................................................................................654.5 MEDIA COVERAGE.............................................................................................................................704.6 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.......................................................................................................714.7 PROGRESS OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................79

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................................................84

5.1 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................................845.2 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................86

ANNEX 1: PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS....................................................................88

ANNEX 2: SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION AND INSTRUMENTS...........................................90

ANNEX 3: BIOGRAPHY OF EVALUATORS....................................................................................129

2

ACRONYMS

ACJA Administration and Criminal Justice Act of NigeriaBOCODOP Borno Coalition for Democracy and progressCAD Chieftaincy Affairs DepartmentCBO Community Based OrganizationCHRMAA Coalition of Human Rights Monitors and Advocates of AdamawaCJTF Civilian Joint Task ForceCO Community ObserversCRN Community Response NetworksCSAD Community Security Architectural DialogueCSO Civil Society OrganizationDRL Democracy, Human Rights and LaborECLG Emirate Council of the Local GovernmentFBO Faith Based OrganizationHR Human RightsJNI Jama’atul Nasir IslamJTF Joint Task ForceLGA Local Government AreasMDA Ministries, Departments and AgenciesNDLEA National Drug Law Enforcement AgencyNEMA National Emergency Management AgencyNESCO Network of Civil Society OrganizationsNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationsNHRC National Human Rights CommissionNPF National Police ForceNSRP Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation ProgramNSCDC Nigerian Security and Civil Defence CorpsPAD Peace Architecture DialoguesPCNI Presidential Committee on the North-East InitiativePINE Presidential Initiative for the North EastSEMA State Emergency Management AgencySFCG Search for Common GroundSMS Short Message ServiceTOR Terms of ReferenceUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in North-East Nigeria” project, is an 18 months cost extension of the “Constructing Coalitions to Reduce Human Right Abuse in Northern Nigeria, funded by the United States Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). The pilot was implemented in Bauchi and Plateau States, also for 18 months. Close to the end of the pilot, Search for Common Ground (SFCG) requested cost extension to Adamawa and Borno States. The goal is to strengthen the engagement and advocacy processes, to enable local CSOs, to effectively address human rights abuses by the security forces. To achieve this the project will strengthen platforms and leverage investments in the State actors, CSOs and community leaders through training, to build ownership and capacity to address human rights gaps. The project intends to draw relevant regional actors into a network of human rights actors. SFCG believes that the project would help to bring displaced populations into the sphere of the network, by supporting partner organizations to extend their programming across the border of difficult-to-reach areas, such as Diffa, in Niger.

The target beneficiaries and primary stakeholders include Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Security actors, Judiciary, and the affected communities. The specific objectives of the project are to (1) strengthen the capacity of CSOs and the NHRC in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy; (2) Establish a platform between the NHRC, CSOs, and judicial actors for effective action on issues related to human rights; and (3) Improve communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on issues related to human rights.

The purpose of the evaluation was to collect, analyze, and present the baseline information related to related to human rights abuse by security forces that is not known, or only partly known to SFCG in Adamawa and Borno States. Additionally, as the project implementation has started, the evaluation also was to provide information to assess the progress made so far in the implementation of the project activities. The primary audience and users of the evaluation findings are: SFCG, US Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL); Civil Society Organizations (CSOs); security actors; participating Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) of government, at local, state and federal levels; the media; and communities.

Combinations of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, including desk review, surveys, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and in-depth interviews, was employed for the evaluation. The data were gathered from 10 communities, across five Local Government Areas (LGA), in Adamawa and Borno States. The data collection covered all the communities participating in the project implementation. Data collection was carried out between 19th April and 4th May 2017. Findings and conclusions of the evaluation are presented in line with the baseline objective questions, as follows.

Human rights abusesAlthough it may be with less impunity than before, the evaluation found evidence of human rights abuses in the communities despite previous interventions. The types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities in descending order of proportion of respondents are harassment; torture; arbitrary detention; extrajudicial killing; and rape. The places human rights abuses were reportedly taking place in the communities include host community settlement, IDP camps, security agent offices, anywhere of suspected violent attack, public buildings, roadblocks and the markets. Overall, the extent of human rights abuses taking place in the communities was relatively reported as low, medium, and high, by different respondents. However, compared to baseline, the results suggest that the extent of human rights abuses taking place currently in the communities is slightly lower.

4

The perpetrators of human rights abuses are mostly the military, the police, local vigilantes (civilian joint task force), and Civil Defence Corps. In relation to gender, men and youths were reportedly more involved in human rights abuses. Women, community leaders, and religious leaders were reported by some security respondents as perpetrators of human rights abuses. Although significant proportions of respondents said everyone is a victim of human rights abuses, women were most reported by the security respondents as victims of human rights abuses. Most community respondents reported youths and men as victims of human rights abuses.

Most respondents reported that reliable information can be found on human rights abuses from community leaders, neighbor and close friend, religious leaders, radio, local vigilantes, and the television. Other sources of reliable information reported some respondents are: government security agencies; newspapers; internet; community observers and groups; local government office/officials; text messages; civil society organizations; State Emergency Management Agency/National Emergency Management Agency; viewing center; and marketplace.

On the extent SFCG´s current project has addressed human rights abuses in relevant locations, the collaborative forums between security agencies, communities, and other critical human rights actors SFCG established to facilitate greater dialogue and monitoring, reporting and response to human rights violations, could contribute to reducing the rate of human rights abuses by the security agencies. However, it has not stopped sporadic incidences of human rights abuses. It is important to note that the communities under this study, have been exposed to previous SFCG interventions, having recently benefitted from similar interventions in other 12 months. This evaluation attempted to delineate the beginning of the phase of the current project with reference to time to assess the dynamics of change that target communities have experienced following previous SFCG interventions. Previous SFCG project interventions created the foundation for the implementation of the expanded intervention.

Security actors present in target communitiesThe formal security actors in the communities are the Military, the Police, and the Civil Defence Corps. The Department of State Security, Immigration, and National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) were mentioned by a small proportion of respondents. The informal security actors in the communities are the Local Vigilantes – Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF). Other informal security actors mentioned are the local hunters and “ECOMOG BOYS”. SFCG currently engages with these security actors. The formal and informal security actors are found mainly at places of suspected violent attacks, public buildings, roadblocks, security office station, marketplace, and schools.

The security forces and communities relate to one another by sharing information on security, working together on early warning and response system, and periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding. Most preferred ways of engaging with security actors are by sharing information on security, training on human rights protection, and periodic meeting. Level of collaboration between the security actors and target communities was reported very high and medium. Level of trust between the security actors and the communities was reported very high, high and medium by different respondents across the States.

Traditional systems of dealing with human rights abusesThe predominant traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses are through the traditional leadership/authority system – community and village heads, religious leaders, ward heads, and district heads. The elders’ council and youth leaders also provide mechanisms for dealing with human rights abuses in the communities. The traditional mechanisms of dealing with human rights abuses work through traditional leaders and the councils of elders who preside over issues regarding cases of crime, violations of human rights or local norms, particularly if these cannot be handled by family heads. The council of elders makes and take decisions to settle the cases, based on cultural or religious norms.

5

The trends with regards to involvement in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses indicate that community leaders, religious leaders, local vigilantes, men, and youths are involved in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. It was expected as traditional authority systems are the predominant mechanism for dealing with human rights abuses in the communities. More than women, the men and youths are more involved in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses in the community.

Communication and decision makersThe evaluation found that the traditional channels of communication about human rights abuses are through community leaders, religious leaders, neighbors and close friends, local vigilantes, community observers and groups, text messages, and CSOs. The formal channels of communication are through radio, television, the internet, security agencies, local government office, and SEMA/NEMA. The major decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities are the community leaders. Some respondents mentioned that religious leaders, local vigilantes, and security agencies also make decisions on human rights abuses in the communities.

The communication platforms facilitated by SFCG through PAD, CSAD and CRN have contributed to improving relationships, collaborations, and alliances with security agencies. The mechanism is making prompt reporting, improved monitoring, and responses to human rights abuses by security personnel.

Media coverageThe media program was delayed and below the target number of episodes and participants. The radio program is not implemented in Adamawa because the program has not been renewed with the media houses. The interactive radio program is not implemented according to the plan and is less than the target number of episodes and participants.

Progress of project implementationIn general, the project activities were delayed and are not in line with implementation schedules. So far, many of the planned interventions remain to be implemented as at the middle of three out of four quarters.

Strengthen the capacity of CSOs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy. One of the four pieces of training planned within the period under review was conducted on Conflict and Trauma Sensitive Journalism for Media Stakeholders in both Adamawa and Borno states. The radio program has been delayed and far less than the targeted number of episodes and participants, with only 4 of 26 planned episodes aired. Delay in providing support for the development of a coalition building framework to guide a more strategic engagement of CSOs in the human rights arena is limiting the effectiveness of the established platforms.

Establishing a platform between the NHRC, civil society, and judiciary for effective action. Planned coalition-building activities were ongoing in both Adamawa and Borno states, with the meeting of Peace Architectural Dialogue (PAD) Forums, Community Security Architectural Dialogue (CSAD) running according to plan. The respondents value the PAD forums because it promotes collaboration and ownership by stakeholders, but the approach of the Community Response Networks (CRN) indicates a critical challenge, which may affect the sustainability in the long-term, and by the time SFCG no longer provide stipends to Community Observers to cover for communication and mobilization cost.

The flow of critical human rights issues from the community level up to the state level seems not to be working as expected to cascade issues from CRN to CSAD, and from the latter to the PAD level. There were indications that the agenda at the community level, though based on local realities, seldom influence the issues discussed at other levels. The capacity of dialogue forums to coordinate effective multisectoral response does not match with the expectation. The forums facilitate good reporting and monitoring

6

human rights abuses through security agencies, but often defer actions to an individual or a committee to investigate and respond to issues than as a body.

Improved communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on human rights issues. The PAD, CSAD, and CRN forums have made the communities to engage in collaboration and alliances with security agencies in their domains. It has contributed to prompt reporting, better monitoring, and responses to human rights abuses by security personnel.

Performance indicatorsTable 1: Project performance indicators at baseline and statusIndicators Baseline CurrentCurrent percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes.Adamawa 94% 94%Borno 100%, 97%,Current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs.Coalition/network of actors working in rights and advocacy 88% 100%Meeting of inter-CSOs working in rights and advocacy 84% 95%Frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.Adamawa Monthly MonthlyBorno Monthly MonthlyCurrent level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations.Very cooperative 41.7% 58.3%Cooperative 16.7% 29.2%Fair cooperation 12.5% 8.3%Poor cooperation 4.2% 4.2%No cooperation 8.3% 0.0%Don’t know 16.7% 0.0%Current level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs and Judiciary.CSOs and NHRCVery cooperative 18.8% 9.1%Cooperative 37.5% 72.7%Fair cooperation 6.3% 18.2%Poor cooperation 18.8% 0.0%No cooperation 18.8% 0.0%CSOs and JudiciaryVery cooperative 23.5% 29.4%Cooperative 23.5% 29.4%Fair cooperation 23.5% 29.4%Poor cooperation 11.8% 5.9%No cooperation 17.6% 5.9%Current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states.Allegations of human rights abuses reported to NHRC by CSOs 36 17

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

The evaluation suggests the following ways SFCG could use the learning to improve on the project. Review the agenda of the dialogue forums. Human rights feature in the dialogue forums, but the

reports suggest that there is a disproportionate deliberation on security and conflict issues to the detriment of human rights issues.

Strengthening the capacity of Human Rights groups to create stronger alliances and synergies for collaboration and actions to promote human rights, protection, advocacy, and enforcement. Support coalition building amongst the existing human rights CSOs and networks to synergize

7

action planning and follow-up. The capacity of NHRC to network with CSO platforms is critical and needs to expand the scope, scale of engagement and visibility in the human rights protection, promotion, and enforcement arena.

Enhancing Media engagement in reporting, monitoring and awareness creation on human rights abuses by security agencies at the community level. Media role is critical for improving compliance with human rights in conflict. There is the need to encourage deeper engagement of the media in human rights awareness creation, social solidarity building, reporting, and monitoring accountability of government. SFCG needs to increase the human rights radio programming target to strengthen community-level awareness of human rights and uptake of the mechanisms for human rights accountability. Consider using innovative and entertaining media programming, such as radio drama and investment in social media. Similarly, there the need to reinstate the interactive radio program, which was suspended and review the broadcast time to reflect the most suitable time to balance the listenership. The current 25% of female callers might be an indication the airing time does not favor many women to listen.

Intensifying follow-up activities on community-level dialogue forums to increase participation, ownership, and sustainability. Further to the packages of training to build capacity and platform of dialogue on human rights, there is the need to implement a robust periodic follow-up, monitoring, and mentoring of the dialogue forum. Involve local CSOs that focus on human rights to ensure local ownership and sustainability of on-going support for community-level dialogue forum, well after the period of SFCG interventions.

Strengthen the community level human rights protection and promotion architecture. This could encourage human rights reporting, monitoring and collaboration with security agencies and other critical stakeholders to respond to community-level human rights concerns, alongside activities to strengthen traditional justice system.

Increasing the orientation and awareness creation on human rights and humanitarian laws and the practices amongst security agencies. There is the need to design an intervention to strengthen behavior, institution, and legislative reforms for human rights protection in humanitarian arena, targeting security agencies. It could require capacity building and continuous orientation, sensitization, and advocacy actions. The understanding and compliance with international human rights ethics, code of conduct and rules of engagement are crucial.

Introduce an innovative framework to guide discussions in the dialogue forums. The forums could benefit from the use of participatory tools such as community human rights mapping, social mobility tools, consensus building, assertiveness, problem tree analysis and solutions, action planning and participatory advocacy tools. Addressing critical issues that underline human rights violations, engaging with community and dialogue platforms in a more creative manner for problem identification, discussion, problem-solving, consensus building, action planning, advocacy and participatory monitoring and evaluation are critical to transforming human rights issues in the target communities.

Consider a change in the approach to community-level initiatives, such that local leaders are motivated and encouraged to participate more meaningfully in the community dialogue forums. The level of buy-in of traditional authority figures in the human rights programming is not strong enough to guarantee ownership and sustainability. A more vigorous periodic advocacy and sensitization initiatives could be a useful approach to win over more leaders in the communities.

8

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundSFCG has piloted the “Constructing Coalitions to Reduce Human Right Abuse by Security Forces in Northern Nigeria” project, in Bauchi and Plateau states. The United States Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) funds the project. Close to the end of the 18 months’ pilot period, SFCG requested cost extension, and the project proposal as “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in North-East Nigeria, to be implemented in two additional locations – Adamawa and Borno States. The goal and objectives of the cost extension project remain the same as the pilot phase (see section 2, project overview). The contexts of Adamawa and Borno State to implement the cost extension are different from the pilot phase and from one another. Over the past years, Borno and the Adamawa States have come under heavy Boko Haram terrorist attacks. The violence displaced tens of thousands of the communities. And Adamawa State was flooded with thousands of displaced persons fleeing the violence in Borno and from the hot spots within Adamawa State.

In 2013, following the increase in the spate of Boko Haram terrorist attacks, the government declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe States. The declaration spurred extensive military actions, and the emergence of community-based vigilante groups (“Civilian JTF”), to tackle the insurgency in the States. Since the emergency operation, the security forces have on several occasions been accused of alleged gross human rights violations, ranging from extrajudicial killing, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, extortion, and harassment. But it has been difficult to bring cases of human rights abuses against the Nigerian security forces. The concept of human rights seems unrealistic in the communities affected by conflicts and human rights violations. Measures to improve the human rights situation have been ineffective due to lack of capacity in national and local human rights actors, including limited resources, reach and trained staff to engage with security forces to prevent abuses and hold violators accountable.

There is an opportunity for partnership to improve the human rights situation. The government has committed to improving the human rights institution, and there is public enthusiasm for the program addressing human rights abuses in the North-East. The purpose of this evaluation was to collect, analyze, and present the baseline information related to human rights abuses by security forces that was not known, or only partly known to SFCG in Adamawa and Borno States. In addition, as the project implementation has started, the evaluation also was to provide information to assess the progress made so far in the implementation of the project activities. The specific questions that guide the evaluation are presented in the section on the evaluation methodology.

SFCG will use the evaluation findings primarily to establish the baselines and to know the progress made so far in the implementation of the project activities in Adamawa and Borno States. The evaluation will help SFCG to set the target for the project performance indicators, to further inform the project strategy and approach to the project implementation. Other primary audiences and users of the evaluation findings are United States Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL); Civil Society Organizations (CSOs); security actors; participating Local, State and Federal Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA); the media; and communities.

The remaining part of the report presents the project overview – including the design, objectives, key results and activities, the theory of change and implementation. The evaluation methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of also presented in the report.

9

1.2 Overview of the Project

1.2.1 Scope of the ProjectThe “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in North-East Nigeria” project, is an 18 months cost extension of the “Constructing Coalitions to Reduce Human Right Abuse in Northern Nigeria project, funded by the United States Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). The pilot phase of the project was implemented in Bauchi and Plateau States, also for 18 months. Close to the end of the pilot, SFCG requested cost extension to Adamawa and Borno States. The target beneficiaries and primary stakeholders include CSOs, NHRC, Security actors, Judiciary, and affected communities. Table 2 below presents the population of affected communities, and LGAs, where the project is implemented.

Table 2: State, LGAs, communities and populationState Population LGA Population Community PopulationAdamawa 3,675,000 Yola North 230,830 Jambutu 21,000

Damilu 11,000Girei 150,120 BBC 8,500

Angwan 9,000Borno 4,994,000 Maiduguri

Municipal Council

640,080 Maisandari 90,000Shehuri North 13,000Gwange III 9,000

Jere 247,860 Mairi 11,000Old Maiduguri 12,000

Mafa 122,800 Zannari 10,000Total 8,669,000 Total 1,391,690 Total 194,500

Source: Table created from SFCG project documentation, April 2017

The project is to strengthen established CSO platforms, and leverage investments in state actors, CSOs and community leaders through targeted training, building their capacity to own and address human rights gaps. It is intended to draw relevant regional actors into a growing network of human rights actors. Additionally, SFCG believes that the project would help to bring displaced populations into the networks by supporting partner organizations to extend their programming across the border, to difficult-to-reach areas, such as Diffa, in Niger.

The approach of the project includes training and connecting key stakeholders to strengthen their capacity to promote human rights accountability, foster human rights awareness among the citizenry while ensuring their expectations remain realistic. It is also to provide government and security actors a sorely-needed forum in which they can engage with individual citizen, community groups, and civil society actors. Th broad methodology is adapted to fit the unique conflict context in each State. As an innovative approach to expand self-sustaining human rights coalition, the project incorporates State actors into interest-oriented activities, using peace-messaging radio programming, and unconventional case-study evaluation methods.

The project is expected to build CSO and community-based capacities in Borno and Adamawa States, and create positive change in two of Nigeria’s most tumultuous regions. The project is expected to contribute to an enduring model for constructive relationship change between security actors and stakeholders in a sensitive conflict context that can attract attention and be implemented elsewhere. It is also expected to contribute to sustaining the platforms being built in Plateau and Bauchi States while investing in relevant actors in Adamawa and Borno States.

10

1.2.2 Objectives of the Project This cost extension project builds on the goal and objectives of the pilot phase in Plateau and Bauchi States. The overall objective is to strengthen engagement and advocacy processes and enabling local CSOs to effectively address human rights abuses perpetrated by security forces". The specific objectives are:   

i. Strengthen the capacity of CSOs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy;

ii. Establish a platform between the NHRC, CSOs, and judicial actors for effective action on issues related to human rights; and

iii. Improve communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on issues related to human rights.

1.2.3 Proposed Results and ActivitiesThe project is designed to achieve six key results across the States. Table 3 presents the list of expected results and activities against the project objectives above.

Table 3: Project objectives, results, and activitiesObjectives Results ActivitiesStrengthen the capacity of CSOs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy.

Improve operational capacity to target CSOs and the NHRC in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy.

Human rights monitoring and reporting training workshop.Production of human rights reporting training.Common Ground advocacy training workshop.(Under CE) Interactive radio programming in Borno, Adamawa and Diffa.

Increased citizen knowledge on human rights and the work of key stakeholders to promote them.

Bi-monthly production of human rights radio features.Production of peace messaging radio programming.Support outreach to displaced populations.

Establish a platform between the NHRC, CSOs, and judicial actors for effective action on issues related to human rights

Increased collaboration between CSOs in each target state for more effective action on human rights issues

Civil Society strategy development workshop.Civil Society coalition building workshop.Forward looking dialogues on protection of holy sites and election violence prevention in Bauchi town and Jos city.

Improving communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders and security actors

Joint NHRC-Civil Society strategy development workshop.Integrate Borno and Adamawa actors into DRL CSO platform.

Improve communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on issues related to human rights

Improved behavioral capacity of security forces to understand and respect human rights principles

Development of a capacity and training plan with security actors.Peace Architecture Dialogues (PAD) between security actors and civil society.Resiliency training workshops.Stakeholder forums in Borno and Adamawa States.

Increased dialogue between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on human rights issues

Community forums with security actors.

Source: Table created from SFCG project documentation, May 2017

11

The overarching hypothesis of the project is that a broad-based action to address the norm of impunity can be made possible through inclusive civil society coalitions, improved tools for NHRC, the citizenry, working relationships and documentation to address tangible human rights issues. For this to happen it will depend on several factors. These are:

There is a degree of willingness from the government partners in the action, including security forces, the NHRC and the Judiciary, to participate in the innovative approach.

A process of dialogue and collaborative decision-making will yield real-world in the ways in which groups interact.

There will be an appetite for the program among civil society organizations and recognize that there may be a risk in the context of violence and security forces abuses.

The civil society groups may see the project as an attempt to dissuade or prevent them from holding government accountable or that dialogue processes may prevent them from adequately denouncing injustice.

1.3 Performance IndicatorsF Indicators

1. 2.1.4-7: Number of human rights defenders trained and supported.2. 2.3.1-6: Number of groups trained in conflict mediation/resolution skills or consensus-building

techniques with USG assistance.3. 2.1.3-17: Number of USG-assisted campaigns and programs to enhance public understanding of

judicial independence and accountability.4. 1.6.1-13: Number of people reached through USG-assisted public information campaigns to

support a peaceful resolution of conflicts.5. 2.1.4-7: Number of security actors trained and supported.6. 2.3.1-7: Number of consensus building forums (civil/security sector, civil/political).

Other Indicators7. Current percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes.8. The current number of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.9. The frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.10. The current level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations.11. The current level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs, and Judiciary.12. The current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs.13. The current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states.

1.4 Project Implementation PlanThe project management team is led by the Deputy Country Director, who provides overall coordination operational management and quality assurance of project implementation. At the field level, is the Senior Program Manager, who directly supervises the State Coordinators in Adamawa and Borno States respectively. Under the State, Coordinators are the Early Warning Coordinator and Officer respectively who coordinate the field level efforts for both the security and human rights project components. These officers are supported by a program assistant (Adamawa State) and trained interns (Borno State). A Monitoring and Evaluation Manager handles the entire field Monitoring and Evaluation effort.

The project implementation coordination on the field is done through Monday meetings and on-going pre- and post-activity meetings which seem to occur more in Borno than Adamawa State. It seems also

12

that the Adamawa State project team has been operating from outside of the State. The monitoring and evaluation manager and Early Warning Officers commute between States and based in Borno State, with over 10 hours’ road distance. A monitoring and evaluation framework has been developed for the project, but the frequency and quality of the reports are not regularity. For example, the evaluation did not find the report of activities carried out in some months the project was implemented. The evaluation found that follow-up dialogue meeting reports with the CRN from four LGAs in Borno were reported to have taken place on the same day, attended by the same SFCG officers, and in different locations. The contents of the reports were mostly similar. These findings were not observed in the CSAD reports, however.

Furthermore, the routine reports of the project do not aline mostly with the indicators defined in both the Monitoring and Evaluation Matrix. Although some of the indicators are well-articulated to capture outcome, the indicators are not well defined in the project’s implementation plan and reports. This limited the ability of this evaluation to assess and make judgments on the current trends towards the achievement of the following indicators.

• Percentage increase of radio listeners who have increased understanding of justice and accountability processes

• Percentage increase in allegations of human rights pursued by the NHRC in target states in 3 months after the project compared to first 3 months of project

Similarly, some of the outcome indicators are not well stated. For example, an indicator in result area 3.1 intends to assess the level of improved behavioral capacity of security forces to understand and respect human rights principles, by measuring the percent of trained security force members showing an increase in understanding and skillset. But the indicator does not adequately measure the result.

The project has an overarching theory of change, which states that if inclusive civil society coalitions, the NHRC, and the citizenry have improved tools, working relationships, and documentation to address tangible human rights issues, then broad-based action to address the norm of impunity will be possible. The theory of change is not fully developed to show the processes and mechanisms by which the anticipated change is expected to happen. The inputs, mechanisms, objects, domain, and dimensions of the anticipated change are not clear.

13

2. HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT

The North-East of Nigeria continues to face security challenges, despite the success of the Nigerian Military against the Boko Haram terrorists. As the security situation improves and communities sacked by the terrorists liberated, the government had commenced a plan to facilitate the return of millions of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) back to their original communities. About 300,000 IDPs 1 have already self-relocate back to their original communities in the liberated areas. But security and human rights concerns remain high. The Boko Haram terrorist has split up with more sporadic low-level guerrilla-like attacks. The development led to heightened concerns about the security and human right protection in many host communities, IDPs and returnee populations. There is the heavy presence of Security Agencies in the region, particularly in Adamawa and Borno States, which bear suffer the impact of the conflict.

Human Rights ActorsA variety of human rights actors now operate in the Adamawa and Borno State following the humanitarian crisis caused by the Bokoram terrorism. The human rights actors vary widely, from the conflict-affected communities and the traditional authority, to state and non-state actors. These include Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) at Local, State and national levels including the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC); Civil Society organizations (CSOs), Civil Liberty Organizations, Local and International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), with the humanitarian partners and various Sectoral Working Groups. There are various security agencies of formal organization, other government-sponsored Para-Military Groups and informal groups such as the Community Vigilantes. Other actors include the Media, Labour and Trade Unions, religious organizations, educational institutions, not to mention the infamous Boko Haram Sect. These play different roles in the human rights arena ranging from perpetration to perpetuation, mitigation, and enforcement.

Government ActorsThe government and its agencies are critical human rights actors. However, the government lagged behind in the level of engagement and discharge of their constitutional mandates to provide adequate security and protection for human lives, and property as well as promote and protect all the fundamental human rights of citizens. The human rights role played by the Police, Nigeria Military (Army) and the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) were mostly mentioned in the community.

There are governments initiatives which address human rights but subsumed with broader peace, reconciliation and development initiative in the North-East. For example, there are the North-East Coordination Forum, an initiative of the Presidential Committee on the North-East Initiative (PCNI2) and Presidential Initiative for the North-East (PINE). These initiatives like others are yet to produce tangible results because of lack of engagement with other critical stakeholders and the communities. Moreover, the focus of the government initiatives has been mainly reconciliation, restoration, and resettlement of displaced persons than human rights concerns. The increase in engagement by development partners in the human rights arena in recent times has also stimulated the government to focus more on human rights protection, promotion, and enforcement.

The government has created and is sponsoring human rights organizations such as the NHRC established by law (National Human Rights Commission Act of 1995 (Amended in 2010). There is the NHRC in Adamawa and Borno States, and a Regional Coordination Office in the North-East. The Commission serves as an extra-judicial mechanism to enhance and enjoy human rights. According to the NHRC Act 2010, the Commission is mandated to create an enabling environment for the promotion, protection, and

1 NEMA reports documented in SFCG 4th Quarter project activity report July-September 20162 Pcni.gov.ng

14

enforcement of human rights in Nigeria. It is also to facilitate public enlightenment, research, and dialogue to raise awareness and action on human rights. The mandate of the NHRC is not familiar to the substantial proportion of community informants. Other stakeholders at the LGA and State level recently know about the activities and role of the NHRC in the past two years. It has not strengthened capacity to engage, collaborate and provide effective leadership in the human rights arena.

Other agencies of government prominent on human rights at National and the State levels are the Ministry of Justice, National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA), National and State Orientation Agencies, Local Government Authorities, Official Security Agencies, Para-Military Bodies and government-owned media organizations. The roles of these organizations are often fragmented and along separate institutional mandates and structures. At the LGA level, despite being the closest arm of government to local communities, the capacities and the institutional mechanisms to effectively engage in human rights promotion and protection are lacking.

Civil Society, International Development and Humanitarian ActorsThe Civil Society involved in the human rights arena in Adamawa and the Borno States was not quantified by this evaluation, even though the lack of reliable, accurate and comprehensive data on who is where and doing what in any place. Moreover, the scope of the assignment did not permit a comprehensive stakeholders’ analysis to analyze the CSO actors. But, in terms of broad categorization, the CSO groups are involved in human rights promotion, protection, and advocacy. The CSOs carry out various activities with different networks, individual Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs). Prominent CSO networks in Borno State include the Network of Civil Society Organizations (NESCO) and Borno Coalition for Democracy and progress (BOCODOP). These networks comprised of several organizations and coalitions representing different interest groups on human rights. In Adamawa State, a new coalition for human rights has also emerged as Coalition of Human Rights Monitors and Advocates of Adamawa (CHRMAA). The coalition comprises of critical human rights actors including media organizations, other coalitions and interest groups active in human rights promotion, protection, and advocacy in the State. Additionally, there are Humanitarian Sector Working Groups on Protection in both States, which also intersect on Human Rights protection, promotion, and advocacy. Several international actors are implementing pockets of human rights focused interventions particularly in the humanitarian subsector. Sectoral efforts on Human rights is led by UNHCR, working closely with other internationally funded organizations implementing projects with crosscutting themes in humanitarian protection. Most international partners working in the human rights come under the humanitarian sector working group on Protection, which combines diverse initiatives and similar interventions in food security, resiliency building, disaster risk reduction, gender and child rights.

One of the major challenges impeding the effective engagement in the human rights arena by CSOs and international NGOs is the different institutional and program cleavages between most organizations. There are existing collaborative platforms such as the humanitarian sector working groups which were established to foster greater program synergies amongst actors but are often not inclusive, which has led to multiple vertically acting groups operating with little or no relationship with other groups. The formation of CHRMAA and NESCO are perhaps good indicators to buttress the growing recognition amongst CSOs and international NGOs of the value in building program synergies through the development of formidable alliances that could influence human rights political space, as opposed to carrying out individual ventures which hitherto characterized previous human rights programming. The second major challenge is the extent to which CSO and the international development and humanitarian actors strategically consider the protection of human rights of affected persons in the humanitarian crises within their existing program priorities. Most of the organizations focused primarily on humanitarian programming and have not drawn the link between humanitarian protection and core human rights programming.

15

The disconnect may suggest a misconception about the scopes of both human rights and humanitarian protection programming. For instance, whilst humanitarian assistance interventions may have some human rights protective or promotive impacts, these are only a subset of human rights protection and protection outcomes. Thus, a violation of the right to food or livelihood security may well influence people affected by conflict to indulge in armed robbery or theft constituting a violation of the fundamental human rights to safety of life and property on one hand. On the other hand, are the traditional and civil justice systems as well security agencies, which may resort to extra-judicial or unlawful processes to address the crime, could lead to serious fundamental human rights to a fair hearing, or life and even freedom from bodily harm if acceptable and lawful procedures are not followed.

The new cluster peacebuilding coalition model (Stakeholders Peace Architectural Dialogue) established by SFCG, has motivated CSOs to actively engage in human rights protection and promotion at different levels. It has enhanced human rights reporting, monitoring and response. There is promising intervention scope in the current project expansion plans, to facilitate greater inclusiveness and integration of the gamut of human interests in both core human rights and humanitarian protection programming. Such move may help to ensure that the human rights of affected populations are comprehensively and adequately respected, protected and fulfilled.

16

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 Evaluation Design The evaluation employed a cross-sectional survey design, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data to provide baseline information and assess the progress made so far in the implementation of the project. To generate the baseline data, since the baseline evaluation was conducted while the project implementation was ongoing, the evaluation asked respondents to reflect nine months back – from the time of this evaluation. This represents the baseline of the time the project commenced implementation. On the other hand, the evaluation asked respondents to reflect on the present situation to generate the data for assessing the progress made so far in implementing the project activities. The evaluation provides information about the situation of human rights abuses, security actors, traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses, communication, and decision-making. The evaluation also provides information about media role, project performance indicators and the progress made so far in implementing the project activities in Adamawa and Borno States. The specific questions set out to answer by the evaluation are as follows.

i. Security Actors: Who are the current formal and informal security actors? Where are they present? Are these the security actors that SFCG currently engage with? What are the preferred ways of engaging with these security actors with the prevailing context? How do security forces and communities relate to one another (both perspectives)? What is the level of trust of security agents by community members, and vice-versa?  What is the current level of collaboration between security and target communities?

ii. Human Rights Abuses: What kind of human rights abuses are taking place? Where? To what extent? Where can reliable information be found? What are the trends of gender with regards to perpetrators and victims? To what extent has SFCG´s current project addressed human rights abuses in the relevant locations?

iii. Traditional Systems: Are there traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses? Which ones? How do these mechanisms work? Are there any trends with regards to involvement and gender? How does SFCG´s work on human rights abuses support or hinder these traditional systems?

iv. Communication and decision makers: What are the traditional and formal channels of communication about security and human rights abuses? Who are the decision-makers? Which government agencies exist with a peace building or security mandate that is present in communities? How effectively do these peace building or security agencies work with communities? To what extent has SFCG´s formal and informal communication been effective in enhancing security and solutions to human rights abuses?

v. Media: What is the reach of SFCG´s media programs and profiles of the audience? Can the listeners/viewers relate to and absorb the messages? Have SFCG’s media programs contributed to any change in attitudes and perceptions of citizens and security personnel regarding human rights violations? What are the strengths and weaknesses in the current programs?

vi. Performance indicators: What is the current % of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes? What is the current # of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state/ Frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state? What is the current level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations? What is the current level of relationship between National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), CSOs and Judiciary? What is the current level of relationship

17

between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs? What is the current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states?

3.2 Evaluation ScopeThe evaluation covered 10 communities in all five Local Government Areas (LGA) across Adamawa and Borno States. Table 4 presents the list of communities in the LGAs were data was collected in Adamawa and Borno States. The field data collection was conducted between 19th April and 4th May 2017.

Table 4: States, LGAs and communitiesStates LGAs CommunitiesAdamawa Yola North Jambutu, and Damilu

Girei BBC and AngwanBorno Maiduguri Municipal Council Maisandari, Shehuri North and Gwange III

Jere Mairi and Old MaiduguriMafa Zannari

Source: Table created from SFCG project documents, April 2017

3.3 Sampling and Sample SizeThe evaluation used a combination of purposive, cluster, quota and convenience sampling techniques. Since the project does have a database of households and individuals in the participating communities, community mobilizers helped to recruit and identify each respondent and participant at the communities. The community mobilizers are people conversant with the communities, project activities and the involvement of community members. All 10 communities across the five LGAs participating in the project in Adamawa and Borno States were included in the evaluation. The key informant interviews were based on the list of stakeholders and who was available during the field work. The sample size estimate for the survey was 384, which was determined using a sample size table, based on a sample size formula, with 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. With a 10% provision for no response and inadequate responses, the total sample size estimate was increased to 422.

The sample size was allocated between Adamawa and Borno States proportional to the total population of the communities covered. The sample size allocation to communities was 70% of the total sample size and the remaining 30% was allocated equally to CSOs, security actors and government agencies. Table 5 presents the distribution of the survey respondents across the LGAs and States. Based on the number of LGAs covered in each State, 59% of respondents were in Borno State and 41% in Adamawa State.

Table 5: Distribution of community respondents across LGAs and statesCount Percent

Adamawa 123 41.3Yola North 59 19.8Girei 64 21.5Borno 175 58.7MMC 86 28.9Jere 59 19.8Mafa 30 10.1

298 100.0Security Actors 27 48.2CSOs 29 51.8Total 56 100.0

Source: Table created for evaluation, May 2017

18

3.4 Data SourcesThe respondents include representatives of CSOs, government agencies, security actors, community members, media, and SFCG project staff. The community respondents include community leaders; religious leaders; women leaders; youth leaders; groups of Community Observers and Community Security Architecture Dialogue (CSAD); and members of the community (men, women, youths, differently able, Muslims, Christians, traditional religious believers, other religious believers), whom SFCG involve directly and indirectly in the implementation of the project. The community respondents include both Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) and the host community members. A combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods was used, including surveys, desk review, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and in-depth interviews. Table 6 summarizes the total participants and respondents against the sample size target by data sources.

Table 6: Response rate by data sourcesTargets Actual % Actual

Key Informant Interview 6 5 83%Search for Common Ground (SFCG) 2 2 100%National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) 2 1 50%Media 2 2 100%In-Depth Interviews 40 26 65%Community Leader 10 10 100%Religious Leader 10 6 60%Youth Leader 10 6 60%Women Leader 10 4 40%Focus Group Discussions 10 8 80%Surveys 380 353 93%Community members 300 298 99%Security Actors 40 27 73%CSOs 40 29 65%Source: Table created for evaluation, May 2017

Desk Review. Several documents related to the project were reviewed to gain an understanding of the project design, goals and objectives, approaches and methods, the theory of change, expected results, strategy, and activities. The review also helped to generate the information on the implementation of the project, progress made so far and the contexts in which the project are implemented in Adamawa and Borno States. The key documents reviewed are the evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR), the project proposal, monitoring, and evaluation plan, previous baseline evaluation tools, and activity and quarterly reports. See desk review guide in Annex 2.

Key Informant Interviews. Five key informant interviews were conducted for SFCG project coordinators and officers, representatives of the NHRC, the Judiciary, and the media. The KIIs were used to elicit overview information about the security situation, human rights abuses, security actors working in the communities, communications channels, media coverage, collaborations on human rights, partnership, and the performance of the project. See KII guides in Annex 2.

In-Depth Interviews. Twenty-six n-depth interviews (IDI) were conducted to elicit information from community leaders, religious leaders, women leaders, and youth leaders. The IDIs were used to elicit detailed information about the security and human rights contexts, security forces, and mechanisms for dealing with human rights abuses, and the performance of the project. See IDI guide in Annex 2.

Focus Group Discussions. Eight focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with Community Security Architecture Dialogue (CSAD). The focus groups were used to elicit views of the participants

19

about security and human rights situations, security forces, mechanisms for dealing with human rights abuses, and the progress made to implement the project. See FGD guide in Annex 2.

Surveys. The surveys were conducted with 353 respondents, eliciting their demographic information and their views on security actors, human rights abuses, communication channels, and media programs. Three sets of questionnaires were designed and administered to sampled community members, the staff of CSOs and participating security actors. See survey questionnaires in Annex 2.

3.5 Data Analysis MethodThe data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with frequency counts, percentages, cross table, chart, and mean. Microsoft Excel package and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) were used to process and analyze the quantitative data. Data generated through the qualitative methods (desk review, FGD, IDI, and KII) were analyzed using content analysis and ethnographic summaries of salient views or opinions of the respondents and participants. Data presentation was mainly across the States (Adamawa and Borno), total respondents, and by the period (baseline and current).

3.6 Profile of RespondentsTable 7 presents the profile of the respondents of the CSOs. Most (72%) of the respondents were male. The number of male respondents was more in Borno, but female respondents were more in Adamawa. The CSOs interviewed were mainly Non-Governmental Organizations at 61% (Adamawa = 49%; Borno = 67%). The number of Community-Based Organizations represents 29% across the States. More than one-third (44%) of the CSO respondents claimed they are involved in security and peacebuilding.

Table 7: Profile of CSOs and the respondents across stateAdamawa = 7 Borno = 22 Total = 29

Type of CSOCommunity Based Organization 28.6% 28.6% 28.6%Non-Governmental Organization 42.9% 66.7% 60.7%Faith Based Organization 28.6% 4.8% 10.7%Legal statusCAC Registration 100.0% 36.8% 52.0%State Registration 0.0% 42.1% 32.0%Local Government Registration 0.0% 15.8% 12.0%SEMA 0.0% 5.3% 4.0%CSO in rights and advocacyYes 100.0% 90.9% 93.1%Don’t Know 0.0% 9.1% 6.9%Number of years in human rights and advocacyLess than one year 0.0% 5.0% 3.7%1 – 2 years 28.6% 15.0% 18.5%2 years plus – 5 years 0.0% 40.0% 29.6%More than 5 years 71.4% 35.0% 44.4%Don’t Know 0.0% 5.0% 3.7%GenderMale 42.9% 81.8% 72.4%Female 57.1% 18.2% 27.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Source: Table created for evaluation, May 2017

20

Figure 1 below, presents the proportions of CSOs respondents on their primary focus areas across the States. Substantial proportions of the respondents focused on humanitarian interventions (55%), peacebuilding and security (45%), community development (45%), and human rights and advocacy (45%).

Humanitarian intervention

Peace building and security

Community development

Human rights and advocacy

Girl child education/education

Assistance vulnerable children

Youth awareness

Women and children empowerment and drug abuse

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

71.4%

57.1%

71.4%

57.1%

14.3%

0.0%

0.0%

14.3%

50.0%

40.9%

36.4%

40.9%

9.1%

4.5%

4.5%

0.0%

55.2%

44.8%

44.8%

44.8%

10.3%

3.4%

3.4%

3.4%

Figure 1: Primary focus of CSOs across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Table 8 presents the distribution of the security actors interviewed in Adamawa and Borno states. The security actors interviewed include mainly the Police (37%), the Military (14.8%) and the Local Vigilantes (14.8%), all in Borno State. The security actors could not be reached for interviews during the data collection in Adamawa State. Approval could not be secured from the security agencies to interview the security actors during the field data collection process in Adamawa State. Only two security personnel granted an interview. The security respondents were almost all males (96%).

Table 8: Type of security actors and gender across the statesAdamawa = 2 Borno = 25 Total = 27

Security actorsThe Military 0.0% 16.0% 14.8%The Police 0.0% 40.0% 37.0%Civil Defense Corps 0.0% 8.0% 7.4%Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) 0.0% 16.0% 14.8%Department of State Security (DSS) 50.0% 4.0% 7.4%Immigration/NIS 50.0% 4.0% 7.4%Five organization security 0.0% 4.0% 3.7%Pinnacle security 0.0% 4.0% 3.7%GenderMale 100.0% 96.0% 96.3%Female 0.0% 4.0% 3.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Source: Table created for evaluation, May 2017

21

Table 9 presents the demographic characteristics of the community members who responded to the questionnaire. Although the sample allocation was designed with an equal number of male and female, the final response includes a slightly higher number of male (53%) compared to female (47%). There were more male respondents in Adamawa than in Borno, where female respondents were marginally more than male. The evaluation included 7% of respondents who are differently able, and non-displaced persons were a majority (75%). More than half (56%) of the respondents claimed they have lived in the communities for more than 10 years, and 84% were Muslims. On employment, 47% reported has worked in the last 12 months and 53% has not worked in the last 12 months. Of the proportion that reported has worked in the last 12 months, includes 42% in Adamawa State and 50% in Borno State. The overall average was 35 (±14) – Adamawa = 40 (±14) and Borno = 36 (±14).

Table 9: Demographic characteristics of community members across statesAdamawa = 123 Borno = 175 Total = 298

GenderMale 72(58.5%) 86(49.1%) 158(53.5%)Female 51(41.5%) 89(50.9%) 140(47.0%)Differently ableYes 9(7.3%) 12(6.9%) 21(7.0%)No 114(92.7%) 163(93.1%) 277(93.0%)DisplacementDisplaced person 13(10.6%) 61(35.3%) 74(25.0%)Non-displaced person 110(89.4%) 112(64.7%) 222(75.0%)Length of living in the communityLess than one year 1(0.8%) 3(1.7%) 4(1.3%)1–2 years 7(5.7%) 13(7.4%) 20(6.7%)2 years plus – 5 years 30(24.4%) 52(29.7%) 82(27.5%)5 years plus – 10 years 9(7.3%) 16(9.1%) 25(8.4%)More than 10 years 76(61.8%) 91(52.0%) 167(56.0%)ReligionChristianity 24(19.8%) 21(12.1%) 45(15.3%)Islam 96(79.3%) 152(87.4%) 248(84.1%)Traditional 1(0.8%) 1(0.6%) 2(0.7%)Worked in the last 12 monthsYes 52(42.3%) 88(50.3%) 140(47.0%)No 71(57.7%) 87(49.7%) 158(53.0%)AgeMinimum 19 18 18Maximum 80 85 85Median 36.5 32.0 35.0Mean 39.7 35.9 37.5Std. Deviation 14.1 13.5 13.9

Total 123(41.3%) 175(58.7%) 298(100.0%)Source: Table created for evaluation, May 2017

3.7 Evaluation TeamThe evaluation team comprised a core team of lead and associate evaluator to design, conduct, analyze and interpret the evaluation and its outcomes. The lead evaluator was responsible for overseeing the evaluation, including contract management, design of the evaluation methods and tools, training of enumerators, survey data collection, data management, analysis, reporting, review, quality assurance, and

22

submission of final reports to SFCG. The associate evaluator supports the lead evaluator and was responsible for qualitative field data collection, reporting, and analysis. Other members of the evaluation team were two field research assistants and 25 enumerators who were responsible for implementing the surveys. The field research assistants supervised the enumerators, recording of qualitative interviews and FGDs.

3.8 Ethical ConsiderationsThe evaluation was conducted with adherence to informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. All individuals for the data collection were provided with information about the purpose, risks, and benefits of the evaluation so they could make an informed decision whether to participate in the evaluation. In addition, the information shared by the respondents was kept confidential. At no point, the names of any respondent or other identifying information used in the data analysis, presentation of findings and report of the evaluation. Training was provided to data collectors to ensure they understand the ethical principles.

Upon completion of evaluation activities in the field, the data were maintained in a way that adheres to ethical principles. The mode of analysis adhered to standards for survey research, the aim of which was to make general claims about the participant populations, not specific claims about identifiable individuals. Where qualitative analysis was used to provide further insight on the general claims, any individual or household identifiers and reference were excluded. Instead, the characteristics or factors that support or refute the general claim was addressed.

3.9 LimitationsThe limitation of the methodology of the evaluation is that two forms of evaluation were designed as one to assess the baseline and progress made so far to implement the project activities. Since the evaluation has more than one focus, the evaluation design became complex. While a baseline study was intended, the design included assessment of the progress made so far to implement the project activities.

The baseline evaluation was conducted after the project implementation has commenced for about nine months. Many questions were set to help the respondents to recall past experiences and knowledge to inform their views of human rights abuses, security situations, and other related topics of the evaluation. There could be questions for which some respondents found difficult to accurately recall the answers and provide the same answers in both time frames. To minimize this, the enumerators were trained on how to help the respondents to recall answers with respect to time in the local language.

Another major limitation of the methodology is the evaluation of two different projects, with different objectives, in one evaluation design. It was difficult to separate the project during the data collection with the respondents. The same tools and respondents were employed to generate the primary data. The tools were designed to streamline the data collection process. However, very many questions were set to cover both projects and the community questionnaire took a long time of the enumerators and respondents to complete.

The time set for the field data collection affected the number of security actors reached, particularly in Adamawa State. The evaluation design did provide adequate time to for the bureaucracy of the different security agencies, hence it was difficult for many of the targeted security actors to grant an interview within a short notice and without the approval of their designated superiors. However, the evaluators worked through their networks and existing relationship with SFCG to secure interviews with many, mostly in Borno State.

23

4. FINDINGS

4.1 Human Rights AbuseThe findings presented here are focused on the kind of human rights abuses that are taking place and where they are taking place in the communities. The extent to which the human rights abuses are taking place and where reliable information can be found about the human rights abuses, as well as the trends, in relation to gender of the perpetrators and victims are presented. The findings also include the extent the current project addresses human rights abuses in the targeted locations.

Kind of human rights abuses taking place.Based on the responses by community members and security actors on forms of human rights abuses in the communities, figure 2 indicates substantial proportions of community respondents report harassment, torture, extortion, and arbitrary detention take place in the communities. About a quarter of the community respondents report rape and extrajudicial killings as forms of human rights abuses in the communities. At baseline, a significant proportion of the respondent report harassment, torture, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killing, and rape as forms of human rights abuses in the communities. The respondents indicated that extortion is taking place currently in the communities than at baseline.

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

26.8%

31.0%

67.6%

38.0%

49.3%

73.2%

25.0%

26.5%

64.7%

36.8%

51.5%

69.1%

Figure 2: Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by community members, at baseline and current status.

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 3 shows, at baseline, the proportion of community respondents who report the forms of human rights abuses in the communities. In Borno, a substantial proportion of community respondents report harassment (74%) and torture (70%) as forms of human rights abuses in the communities. About one-third of the community respondents report rape, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and extortion as forms of human rights abuses in the communities. In Adamawa, a substantial proportion (48% to 71%) of community respondents report arbitrary detention (48%), torture (59%), extortion (65%), and harassment (71%) as forms of human rights abuses in the communities. About 12% report rape as a form of human rights abuse in the communities.

24

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

11.8%

11.8%

58.8%

47.1%

64.7%

70.6%

31.5%

37.0%

70.4%

35.2%

44.4%

74.1%

26.8%

31.0%

67.6%

38.0%

49.3%

73.2%

Figure 3: Baseline - Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by community members across the states.

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 4 shows the proportion of community respondents who report the forms of human rights abuses currently taking place in the communities. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents reported harassment torture, extortion, and arbitrary killings are taking place in the communities. More than a quarter of the respondents indicates that extrajudicial killings and rape are happening in the communities. In Adamawa, a significant proportion of the respondents mentioned extortion, arbitrary detention, harassment, and torture as forms of human rights abuses currently in the communities. Like the baseline, 12% of the community respondents also report extrajudicial killings and rape as forms of human rights abuses currently in the communities.

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

11.8%

11.8%

47.1%

52.9%

64.7%

52.9%

29.4%

31.4%

70.6%

31.4%

47.1%

74.5%

25.0%

26.5%

64.7%

36.8%

51.5%

69.1%

Figure 4: Current - Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

25

Figure 5 presents the proportion of security actors who report the kinds of human rights abuses taking place in the communities. The result indicates that substantial security respondents report rape, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention extortion and harassment as human rights abuses currently in the communities and at baseline. At baseline, most of the respondents reported harassment and torture as human rights abuses in the communities. A significant proportion of the respondents indicated rape, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and extortion as forms of human rights abuses currently taking place in the communities.

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

61.5%

69.2%

69.2%

46.2%

53.8%

84.6%

72.7%

72.7%

63.6%

54.5%

63.6%

81.8%

Figure 5: Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by security actors, at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 6 indicates, the proportion of security actors who report the kinds of human rights abuses in the communities, at baseline. In Adamawa, the security respondents all report extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and extortion as human rights abuses in the communities. In Borno, many of the security respondents reported rape, extrajudicial killings, torture, extortion, harassment, and arbitrary detention as human rights abuses in the communities.

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

66.7%

66.7%

75.0%

41.7%

50.0%

91.7%

61.5%

69.2%

69.2%

46.2%

53.8%

84.6%

Figure 6: Baseline - Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

26

Figure 7 shows the proportion of security actors who report the kinds of human rights abuses taking place currently in the communities. In Adamawa, the security respondents reported extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and extortion as forms of human rights abuses taking place in the communities. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents reported rape, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, extortion, and harassment as human rights abuses taking place in the communities.

Rape

Extra judicial killings

Torture

Arbitrary detention

Extortion

Harassment

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

80.0%

70.0%

70.0%

50.0%

60.0%

90.0%

72.7%

72.7%

63.6%

54.5%

63.6%

81.8%

Figure 7: Current - Types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Reports of focus groups and interviews also substantiate the kinds of human rights abuses often committed by the security agencies in the communities. The respondents mentioned beating, physical harassment, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and extortion are still common human rights abuses in the communities. Also, but less frequently reported were cases of rape, torture, and extrajudicial killings. The interviews revealed occasional incidences of civilians being arrested or detained unnecessarily for minor offenses, without due investigation or opportunity for appropriate legal representation.

Where human rights abuses are taking place Figure 8 indicates the places where human rights abuses allegedly take place in the communities. A substantial proportion of the respondents mentioned the host community settlement, IDP camps, security agent offices and anywhere of suspected violent attack as places where human rights abuses committed in the communities. The respondents also report public buildings, roadblocks, and the market as places where human rights abuses take place in the communities. At baseline, a higher proportion of the respondents reported roadblocks, and anywhere of suspected violent attack as for where human rights abuses take place in the communities. On the other hand, a significant proportion of the respondents indicate the current places human abuses take place are public buildings and host community settlements.

27

Security Agents office station

Public buildings (Mosque, Church, Govt Office, etc.)

Road blocks

IDP Camps and settlements

Host community settlements

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violent attack

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

46.2%

30.8%

38.5%

53.8%

69.2%

38.5%

46.2%

45.5%

36.4%

27.3%

54.5%

72.7%

27.3%

36.4%

Figure 8: Places where human rights abuses take place in the communities, at base-line and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 9 indicates the proportion of respondents who report the places human rights abuses take place in the communities, at baseline. In Adamawa, the respondents mentioned security agent office station, IDP camps, and anywhere of suspected violent attack are where human rights abuses take place in the communities. In Borno, many also respondents mentioned host community settlement, IDP camps, security agent office station, roadblocks, market, public buildings and anywhere of suspected violent attack are places where human rights abuses take place in the communities.

Security Agents office station

Public buildings (Mosque, Church, Govt Office, etc.)

Road blocks

IDP Camps and settlements

Host community settlements

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violent attack

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

41.7%

33.3%

41.7%

50.0%

75.0%

41.7%

41.7%

46.2%

30.8%

38.5%

53.8%

69.2%

38.5%

46.2%

Figure 9: Baseline - Places where human rights abuses take place in the communities across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

28

Figure 10 shows, the proportion of respondents who report the places where human rights abuses are taking place currently in the communities. In Adamawa, the respondents all mentioned security agent office station, IDP camps, and anywhere of suspected violent attack as places, human rights abuses take place in the communities. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents mentioned host community settlement, IDP camps, security agent office and public buildings as places human rights abuses take place in the communities. More than a quarter of the respondents mentioned roadblocks, the market and anywhere of suspected violent attack as for where human rights abuses take place in the communities.

Security Agents office station

Public buildings (Mosque, Church, Govt Office, etc.)

Road blocks

IDP Camps and settlements

Host community settlements

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violent attack

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

40.0%

40.0%

30.0%

50.0%

80.0%

30.0%

30.0%

45.5%

36.4%

27.3%

54.5%

72.7%

27.3%

36.4%

Figure 10: Current Places reported by security actors human rights abuse take place across state

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Extent human right abuses are taking place Figure 11 presents the proportion of community respondents on the extent to which human rights abuses are taking place in the community. The respondents were asked to rate the extent to which human rights abuses taking place in the community from Very High to Very Low. Less than one-fifth of the respondents rated the extent very high (Baseline = 19% and Current = 16%). Others rated the extent a medium (Baseline = 18% and Current = 25%); low (Baseline = 19% and Current = 27%). According to the respondents, the extent to which human rights abuses are taking place in the community maybe reducing.

Figure 12 presents the distribution of community respondents who reported the extent to which human rights abuses were taking place before the project across the two States. In Adamawa, 33% rated low, 17% rated very low, a medium and very high. In Borno, about 20% rated very high, and 18% rated a medium. The results suggest that the rate of human rights abuses taking place in the community tends to be higher in Borno than Adamawa, where it was rated lower.

29

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

12.2%

18.9%

17.8%

10.0%

18.9%

22.2%

12.2%

27.8%

25.6%

13.3%

15.6%

5.6%

Figure 11: Extent of human rights abuses taking place in the communities reported by community members at baseline current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

16.7%

33.3%

16.7%

8.3%

16.7%

8.3%

10.6%

13.6%

18.2%

10.6%

19.7%

27.3%

12.2%

18.9%

17.8%

10.0%

18.9%

22.2%

Figure 12: Baseline - Extent of human rights abuses taking place in the communities reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 13 presents the extent to which human rights abuses are taking place currently in the community. In Adamawa, 33% of the community respondents rated it low; 17% rated very low; 26% rated a medium. In Borno, 26% rated low and a medium each, 17% reported it is very high and 14% high. The result indicates that the extent of human rights abuses taking place currently in the community ranges from medium to low, in Adamawa, and from very high to medium in Borno.

30

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

16.7%

33.3%

25.0%

12.5%

12.5%

0.0%

10.6%

25.8%

25.8%

13.6%

16.7%

7.6%

12.2%

27.8%

25.6%

13.3%

15.6%

5.6%

Figure 13: Current - Extent of human rights abuses taking place in the communities reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 14 presents the reports of security actors on the extent of human rights abuses taking place in the community. At baseline, more than a quarter (29%) of the security respondents rated the extent mostly low, medium, and high, respectively. Nearly a half (47%) of the respondents rated the extent currently low, and 18% rated it currently high, and 24% rated it medium.

Very low Low Medium High Very high0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0.0%

28.6% 28.6% 28.6%

14.3%

5.9%

47.1%

23.5%17.6%

5.9%

Figure 14: Extent human rights abuses are taking place in the communities, reported by security actors, at baseline and current status

BaselineCurrent

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

31

Figure 15 presents the distribution of security respondents who rated the extent to which human rights abuses were taking place before the project, across the two States. In Adamawa, half of the respondents rated the extent low and medium. In Borno, 33% rated it high, 17% rated it very low, 25% rated it a medium and low respectively. The results suggest that the rate of human rights abuses taking place in the community may be more in Borno than in Adamawa State.

Low Medium High Very high0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

50.0% 50.0%

0.0% 0.0%

25.0% 25.0%

33.3%

16.7%

28.6% 28.6% 28.6%

14.3%

Figure 15: Baseline - Extent human rights abuses are taking place in the communi-ties, reported by security actors across the states

AdamawaBornoTotal

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 16 presents the proportion of security respondents who reported on the extent to which human rights abuses are taking place, currently in the community. In Adamawa, 50% rated low and a medium, respectively. In Borno, 40% rated low, and 20% rated it high. A substantial proportion (67%) of the respondents rated a medium and low.

Very low Low Medium High Very high0.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%110.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%6.7%

40.0%

26.7%20.0%

6.7%5.9%

47.1%

23.5%17.6%

5.9%

Figure 16: Current - Extent human rights abuses are taking place in the communities, reported by security actors, across state

Adamawa Borno Total

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

32

Trends with regards to perpetrators and victims and gender in human rights abuses Figure 17, presents the proportion of community respondents who report the perpetrators of human rights abuses. A substantial proportion of the respondents report the Military (Baseline = 75%; Current = 71%); the Police (Baseline = 54%; Current = 55%). Some of the respondents (35%) also reported the local vigilantes as perpetrators of human rights abuses. About 10% mentioned the Civil Defence Corps and community leaders, also as perpetrators of human rights abuses in the communities. Other perpetrators mentioned by a small proportion of respondents are individuals and youths, civil society, private organizations, and religious leaders.

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Civil Society

Private Organizations

Individual member of the community and youth

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

75.0%

54.4%

10.3%

35.3%

10.3%

1.5%

4.4%

2.9%

4.4%

70.8%

55.4%

10.8%

35.4%

9.2%

1.5%

4.6%

3.1%

6.2%

Figure 17: Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by community members at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 18 shows, at baseline, in Adamawa, a greater proportion of community respondents reported that the Police (90%) and the Military (53%) were the perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. Some of the respondents (16%) indicated community leaders as perpetrators of human rights abuses. In Borno, substantial community respondents mentioned the Military (84%), local vigilantes (45%) and the Police (41%) were the perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community.

Figure 19 shows, currently, in Adamawa, a higher proportion of community respondents report that the Police (90%) and the Military (42%) are the perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. Some of the respondents (16%) each mentioned Civil Defence Corps and community leaders are perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents report the Military (83%), local vigilantes (46%), and the Police (41%) are the main perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community.

33

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Civil Society

Private Organizations

Individual member of the community and youth

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

52.6%

89.5%

10.5%

10.5%

15.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.3%

83.7%

40.8%

10.2%

44.9%

8.2%

2.0%

6.1%

4.1%

4.1%

75.0%

54.4%

10.3%

35.3%

10.3%

1.5%

4.4%

2.9%

4.4%

Figure 18: Baseline - Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Civil Society

Private Organizations

Individual member of the community and youth

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

42.1%

89.5%

15.8%

10.5%

15.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.3%

82.6%

41.3%

8.7%

45.7%

6.5%

2.2%

6.5%

4.3%

6.5%

70.8%

55.4%

10.8%

35.4%

9.2%

1.5%

4.6%

3.1%

6.2%

Figure 19: Current - Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

34

Figure 20 presents overall results of the security actors who responded to the question on the perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. A substantial proportion of the security respondents reported that men, youths, women, the Military, the Police, and Civil Defence Corps are all perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. At baseline, most security respondents indicate that the men, youth, the Military, the Police, and Civil Defence Corps were responsible for human rights abuses than they are currently in the community. A significant proportion of the respondents (46%) mentioned that women are currently also perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community.

Men

Women

Youth

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

84.6%

38.5%

46.2%

84.6%

69.2%

46.2%

23.1%

23.1%

15.4%

81.8%

45.5%

45.5%

81.8%

63.6%

45.5%

18.2%

18.2%

9.1%

Figure 20: Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by security actors at base-line and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 21 presents the distribution of security respondents on the perpetrators of human rights across the states, at baseline. In Adamawa, the security respondents reported men, youth, the Military, the Police, local vigilantes, and community leaders as perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. In Borno, most security respondents mentioned men, the Military, the Police, Civil Defence Corps, women, and youths are perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. Some of the respondents (17%) each also mentioned that local vigilantes, community leaders, and religious leaders were responsible for human rights abuses in their communities.

Figure 22 shows, currently in Adamawa, security respondents all report that men, youth, the military, the police, local vigilantes, and community leaders are perpetrating human rights abuses in the community. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents report that men, women, youth, the military, the police, and Civil Defence are perpetrating human rights abuses in the community. Some of the respondents (10%) each mentioned that local vigilantes, community leaders, and religious leaders perpetrate human rights abuses in their communities.

35

Men

Women

Youth

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

83.3%

41.7%

41.7%

83.3%

66.7%

50.0%

16.7%

16.7%

16.7%

84.6%

38.5%

46.2%

84.6%

69.2%

46.2%

23.1%

23.1%

15.4%

Figure 21: Baseline - Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by security ac-tors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Men

Women

Youth

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Community leaders

Religious leaders

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

80.0%

50.0%

40.0%

80.0%

60.0%

50.0%

10.0%

10.0%

10.0%

81.8%

45.5%

45.5%

81.8%

63.6%

45.5%

18.2%

18.2%

9.1%

Figure 22: Current - Perpetrators of human rights abuses, reported by security ac-tors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

36

Figure 23 presents the result of community members who responded to the question on the victims of human rights. The people most reported by the respondents as victims of human rights abuses are: men (baseline = 24%, current = 22%); youths (baseline = 28, current = 30%); everyone (baseline = 21%, current = 23%); and women (17%).

Men

Women

Youth (Boys & Girls)

Children

Women and Children

Everyone

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

24.4%

17.1%

28.0%

1.2%

1.2%

20.7%

7.3%

21.8%

16.7%

29.5%

1.3%

1.3%

23.1%

6.4%

Figure 23: Victims of human rights abuses reported by community members at base-line and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 24 shows that in Adamawa, most community respondents reported youth (38%), women (24%) and everyone (24%) were victims of human rights abuses in the communities. In Borno, most community respondents reported men (31%), youths (25%), everyone (20%) and women (15%) were victims of human rights abuses in the communities.

Men

Women

Youth (Boys & Girls)

Children

Women and Children

Everyone

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4.8%

23.8%

38.1%

0.0%

0.0%

23.8%

9.5%

31.1%

14.8%

24.6%

1.6%

1.6%

19.7%

6.6%

24.4%

17.1%

28.0%

1.2%

1.2%

20.7%

7.3%

Figure 24: Baseline - Victims of human rights abuse reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

37

Figure 25 shows in Adamawa, the current victims of human rights abuses in the community mentioned by community respondents are youths (38%), women (29%) and everyone (19%). In Borno, the result indicates the people most reported by community respondents as victims of human rights abuses are: men (28%); youths (26%); everyone (25%); and women (12%).

Men

Women

Youth (Boys & Girls)

Children

Women and Children

Everyone

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4.8%

28.6%

38.1%

0.0%

0.0%

19.0%

9.5%

28.1%

12.3%

26.3%

1.8%

1.8%

24.6%

5.3%

21.8%

16.7%

29.5%

1.3%

1.3%

23.1%

6.4%

Figure 25: Current - Victims of human rights abuse reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Further, figure 26 presents the results of security actors who responded to the question on victims of human rights abuses. Overall, less than half of the security respondents mostly reported that women (baseline = 43%; current = 50%); everyone (baseline = 43%; current = 42%); men (baseline = 14%, current = 8%) are victims of human rights abuses in the community.

Men

Women

Everyone

Men

Women

Everyone

Cur

rent

Bas

elin

e

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

10.0%

40.0%

50.0%

16.7%

33.3%

50.0%

8.3%

50.0%

41.7%

14.3%

42.9%

42.9%

Figure 26: Victims of human rights abuses in the communities reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

38

According to figure 26 above, in Adamawa, the security respondents all reported women only are victims of human rights abuses both at baseline and currently in the communities. In Borno, 50% of the community respondents indicate that everyone is a victim of human rights abuses in the community. Some respondents indicate women (baseline = 33%; current = 40%), and men (baseline = 17%; current = 10%) as most victims of human rights abuses in the community. The result indicates that the respondents mostly confirmed women are victims of human rights abuses. The result also suggests there have been no changes in the victims of human rights abuses in the community.

Where reliable information can be found on human rights abusesOn where reliable information can be found on human rights abuses in the community, the question was asked to community members and the security actors. Figure 27 to 29 present the results of community members. Overall, figure 27 indicates substantial community respondents reported that information on human rights abuses can be found from community leaders (baseline = 75%, current = 77%); neighbor and close friends (baseline = 67%, current = 68%); religious leaders (baseline = 56%, current = 58%); radio (baseline = 56%, current = 58%); local vigilantes (baseline = 45%, current = 56%); and television (baseline = 43%, current = 45%). Some respondents reported government security agencies (baseline = 30%, current = 28%); newspapers (baseline = 27%, current 26%); internet (baseline = 24%, current = 23%); community observers and groups (baseline = 17%, current = 18%); local government office/officials (baseline = 17%, current = 17%); text messages (baseline = 14%, current = 19%); CSOs (baseline = 12%, current = 12%) and SEMA/NEMA (baseline = 13%, current = 10%).

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersCommunity observers and groups

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterGovernment Security AgenciesLocal Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

SEMA/NEMAPrivate organizations

Local Government Office/OfficialYouths

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

67.1%74.7%

56.2%17.1%

27.4%42.5%

55.5%24.0%

11.6%13.7%

4.1%29.5%

45.2%12.3%

9.6%17.8%

0.7%

68.6%76.8%

58.4%17.8%

25.9%44.9%

58.4%22.7%

11.9%18.9%

5.4%28.6%

56.2%9.7%

7.0%16.8%

0.0%

Figure 27: Sources of information on human rights abuses reported by community members at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 28 presents the proportion of community respondents who reported on the sources of information on human rights, at baseline. In Adamawa, a substantial community respondents reported community

39

leaders (88%), religious leaders (74%), neighbor and close friends (65%), radio (49%), and local vigilantes (48%) as sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities. Other sources reported by the respondents are television (36%); newspapers (33%); government security agencies (32%); internet (29%); local government office/officials (25%); community observers and groups (22%); text messages (19%); SEMA/NEMA (10%). In Borno, most respondents reported neighbor and close friends (69%), community leaders (62%), radio (61%), television (48%), local vigilantes (43%), and religious leaders (40%) as sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities. Some respondents mentioned government security agencies (27%), newspapers (22%), internet (20%), CSOs (16%), community observers and groups (13%), SEMA/NEMA (14%), and local government office/officials (12%).

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersCommunity observers and groups

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterGovernment Security AgenciesLocal Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

SEMA/NEMAPrivate organizations

Local Government Office/OfficialYouths

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

65.2%88.4%

73.9%21.7%

33.3%36.2%

49.3%29.0%

7.2%18.8%

4.3%31.9%

47.8%10.1%

8.7%24.6%

0.0%

68.8%62.3%

40.3%13.0%

22.1%48.1%

61.0%19.5%

15.6%9.1%

3.9%27.3%

42.9%14.3%

10.4%11.7%

1.3%

Figure 28: Baseline - Sources of information on human rights abuses reported by community members across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 29 presents the respondents who report on the current sources of information on human rights abuses. In Adamawa, a substantial community respondents mentioned community leaders (90%), religious leaders (77%), neighbor and close friends (65%), local vigilantes (59%), and radio (47%) as sources of information on human rights abuses. Other sources mentioned are television (39%); newspapers (30%); government security agencies (36%); internet (23%); local government office/officials (24%); community observers and groups (22%); text messages (21%). In Borno, substantial respondents mentioned community leaders (67%), radio (66%), neighbor and close friends (65%), local vigilantes (54%), television (49%), and religious leaders (49%) as sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities. Other current sources of information on human rights abuses reported by some of the community respondents are government security agencies (23%); newspapers

40

(23%); internet (22%); text messages (18%); CSOs (17%); community observers and groups (15%); SEMA/NEMA (12%); local government office/officials (11%).

Neighbor and close friends

Religious leaders

Newspapers

Radio

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)

Joints/Viewing Center

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Private organizations

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

65.4%89.7%

76.9%21.8%

29.5%38.5%

47.4%23.1%

5.1%20.5%

6.4%35.9%

59.0%6.4%6.4%

24.4%

71.0%67.3%

44.9%15.0%

23.4%49.5%

66.4%22.4%

16.8%17.8%

4.7%23.4%

54.2%12.1%

7.5%11.2%

Figure 29: Current sources of information on human rights abuses reported by community members across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

The results of the responses by security actors on the question of where reliable information on human rights abuses can be found are presented in figure 30 to 32 below. In figure 30, most security respondents indicated information can be gotten from different sources, including community leaders (baseline = 92%, current = 94%); neighbor and close friends (baseline = 83%, current = 81%); religious leaders (baseline = 67%, current = 75%); newspapers, television, and radio (baseline = 58%, current = 56%); CSOs (baseline = 58%, current = 50%); internet (baseline = 50%, current = 50%); test messages (baseline = 33%, current = 50%); market places (baseline = 42%, current = 31%). About a quarter of the respondents indicated joints/viewing centers and local government office/official (baseline = 25%, current = 19%) as places information on human rights abuses can be found in the community.

Figure 31 presents baseline report by security respondents on the sources of information on human rights abuses. In Adamawa, the respondents mentioned newspapers, television, radio, CSOs, and local government office/official as sources of information. Half of the respondents mentioned neighbor, community leaders, religious leaders, marketplaces, text messages, and joint/view centers as sources of information. In Borno, the respondents mentioned community leaders as the sources of information on human rights abuses in the community. Substantial proportions of the respondents reported that neighbor and close friends (90%) and religious leaders (70%) as sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities. Half of the respondents indicated newspapers, television, radio, internet, and CSOs as sources of information. Smaller proportions of the respondents talked about text messages (30%), joint/viewing centers (20%), and local government office/officials as sources of information on human rights abuses in the community.

41

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersMarket places

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO, and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterLocal Government Office/Official

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

83.3%

91.7%

66.7%

41.7%

58.3%

58.3%

58.3%

50.0%

58.3%

33.3%

25.0%

25.0%

81.3%

93.8%

75.0%

31.3%

56.3%

56.3%

56.3%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

18.8%

18.8%

Figure 30: Sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities reported by security actors at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersMarket places

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO, and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterLocal Government Office/Official

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%120.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

90.0%

100.0%

70.0%

40.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

Figure 31: Baseline - Sources of information on human rights abuses in the communi-ties, reported by security actors across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 32 presents the proportions of security respondents on where information can be found currently on human rights abuses in the community. Like the baseline in Adamawa, the respondents mentioned the mass media (newspapers, television, radio, and internet), CSOs and local government office/officials as sources of information on human rights abuses. Similarly, half of the respondents reported that neighbors and closes friend, community leaders, religious leaders, marketplaces, text messages, and joint/viewing

42

centers as sources of information on human abuses. In Borno, the respondents mentioned mainly community leaders, neighbors and close friends (86%); religious leaders (77%); the mass media – including newspapers, television, radio, and internet (50%); text messages (50%); CSOs (43%). Other sources of information on human rights abuses in the communities reported by smaller proportions of security respondents are marketplaces (29%); joint/viewing centers (14%).

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersMarket places

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO, and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterLocal Government Office/Official

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%120.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

78.6%

28.6%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

42.9%

50.0%

14.3%

7.1%

Figure 32: Current sources of information on human rights abuses in the communi-ties, reported by security actors across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Extent SFCG´s current project has addressed human rights abuses in relevant locationsResults from the FGDs and interviews indicate the incidence of human rights abuses by the security agencies, has been on a decline. Some development partners have focused intervention on the issues, and SFCG has created community dialogue platforms for collaboration across the sectors. Relationships between the communities and security agencies have improved. There is an improvement in human rights issues reporting, monitoring, dialogue, and advocacy. But there is a concern for not prosecuting perpetrators of human rights abuses in the community. The CSOs raised concern on the lack of enforcement of the Criminal Justice Act of Nigeria (ACJA), which clearly prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of suspects, to protect civilians by the NHRC. Other challenges relate to the low level of community awareness on human rights laws; poor knowledge of human rights and humanitarian laws; weak behavioural and institutional reforms for human rights in the security agencies; under-reporting of human rights abuses by the media; weak engagement in human rights promotion, protection, and advocacy by the CSOs. Amongst other factors, these have contributed to the rates of human rights abuses in the community.

There is no doubt that the role of security personnel in the communities has helped to reduce conflict and insecurity in target communities. There has been a rapid response by the security agencies to security threats. It is due to proactive information and intelligence gathering to forestall attacks by Boko Haram terrorists on the security agencies and the communities vulnerable to Boko Haram attacks. However, recent reports have accused the security agencies of various human rights abuses, during missions. In addition to the inhuman and degrading treatment of civilians, there are alleged cases of child-soldiering by government-sponsored CJTF and vigilante groups.

43

Despite the collaboration and awareness creation on human rights protection ethics and practices, using human rights and humanitarian Laws, facilitated by SFCG, incidences of human rights abuses by security agencies have continued. Most respondents attribute this to lack of appropriate behavioural and institutional reforms, knowledge of the ethics and principles of human rights and humanitarian law by many security agencies.

4.2 Security ActorsCurrent formal and informal security actors.The security agencies deployed in Adamawa and Borno states vary widely. All security apparatus are present in various numbers. They include mostly the Army, different Police formations, and the government-sponsored para-military groups – The Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF). Other agencies like National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Nigeria Immigration, and Department of State Security (DSS) also are present to perform their functions according to their respective institutional mandates to contribute to ensuring security, peace, law, and order. For example, the NDLEA is there to prevent an increase in the use of illicit and had drugs by youths (Shillah boys in Adamawa), because of the trauma caused by the protracted conflict in the region. Similarly, high influx of refugees because of the cross-border scope of the conflict also necessitate the deployment of the immigration agency. Besides the formal security agencies, there are other local groups that sprung up as a result of the crises, including local vigilantes, local hunters, and the infamous “ECOMOG BOYS”. The latter being a band of thugs in Borno State, often employed by high-profile politicians for their personal security.

Additionally, figure 33 indicates that a substantial proportion of community respondents mentioned local vigilantes as security actors present in the communities across the states (Baseline = 80%, Current = 90%). About a third of the respondents mentioned the Police (Baseline = 67%, Current = 65%), and about half (Baseline = 53%, Current = 47%) of the respondents mentioned the Military. The community respondents who reported the Civil Defence Corps include a baseline (26%), and current (34%). The presence of the Department of State Security personnel was reported by about 10% of the community respondents.

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Department of State Security

Immigration

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

52.6%

66.5%

26.0%

80.0%

10.7%

46.5%

65.4%

33.8%

90.0%

10.4%

0.4%

Figure 33: Security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by community members at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

44

Figure 34 presents the proportion of community respondents who reported on the security actors in the communities in Adamawa and Borno, at baseline. The respondents mainly reported the local vigilantes (Adamawa = 90%, Borno = 71%); the Police (Adamawa = 76%, Borno = 58%); the Military (Adamawa = 24%, Borno = 78%).

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Department of State Security

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

23.8%

76.2%

24.8%

90.1%

5.9%

78.1%

57.9%

27.2%

71.1%

14.9%

52.6%

66.5%

26.0%

80.0%

10.7%

Figure 34: Baseline - Security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 35 presents the proportions of community respondents who reported on the security actors who currently are in the communities, in Adamawa and Borno States. A substantial proportion of the respondents mentioned local vigilantes, the Police, and the military as the security actors who are present in the communities. The result suggests that more respondents in Borno State mentioned the Civil Defence Corps and local vigilantes.

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Department of State Security

Immigration

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

17.2%

77.6%

25.0%

95.7%

5.2%

0.0%

68.6%

56.2%

40.5%

85.6%

14.4%

0.7%

46.5%

65.4%

33.8%

90.0%

10.4%

0.4%

Figure 35: Current security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

45

Further, figure 36 to 38 below present the proportion of security respondents who reported on the presence of security actors in the communities across the states. According to figure 36, substantial proportions of the respondents reported the Military (Baseline = 80%, Current = 96%); the Police (Baseline = 80%, Current = 81%); Civil Defence Corps (Baseline = 60%, Current = 65%); and Local Vigilantes (Baseline 60%, Current = 65%). The proportion of respondents who reported the presence of these security actors are currently more compared to baseline.

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

80.0%

80.0%

60.0%

60.0%

96.2%

80.8%

65.4%

65.4%

Figure 36: Security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by security actors at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

In Adamawa, figure 37 shows at baseline all security respondents reported the presence of the Military, the Policy, Civil Defence Corps, and Local Vigilantes. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the respondents reported the Military (77%), the Police (77%), Civil Defence Corps (54%) and Local Vigilantes (54% each).

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

76.9%

76.9%

53.8%

53.8%

80.0%

80.0%

60.0%

60.0%

Figure 37: Baseline - Security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Currently, in Adamawa, figure 38 shows that the security respondents report the presence of the Military, the police, Civil Defence Corps, and Local Vigilantes. In Borno, a substantial proportion of the

46

respondents reported the presence of the Military (95%), the Police (79%), Civil Defence Corps (63%) and Local Vigilantes (63%).

The Military

The Police

Civil Defence Corps

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

95.8%

79.2%

62.5%

62.5%

96.2%

80.8%

65.4%

65.4%

Figure 38: Current - Security actors involve in peace building in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Where current formal and informal security actors are present.Figure 39 to 41 present the proportions of community respondents who reported the places where the current security actors are present in the communities. Figure 39 indicates that over half of community respondents reported everywhere of suspected violence (B = 59%, Current = 59%) and as public building 9Baseline = 53%, Current = 55%). Other places reported by about half of community respondents are: Roadblocks (Baseline = 48%, Current = 50%), security office station (Baseline = 47%, Current = 50%) and marketplace/school (Baseline = 40, Current = 43%). Again, the proportion of community respondents who reported on where the security actors are currently present are more compared to baseline.

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Office station

Market place and school

Anywhere of suspected violence

Bush

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

48.3%

53.2%

47.3%

40.5%

59.0%

1.0%

49.8%

55.4%

50.2%

42.6%

59.4%

0.8%

Figure 39: Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by community members at baseline and curent status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 40 shows, at baseline, in Adamawa, 60% of community respondents reported the presence of security actors at everywhere of suspected violence, 53% security office station, 41% public building, and 34% marketplace and school. In Borno, a substantial proportion of community respondents reported the

47

presence of security actors at public building (65%), roadblock (64%) everywhere of suspected violence (58%), marketplace and school (48%), and security office station (42%).

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Office station

Market place and school

Anywhere of suspected violence

Bush

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

32.0%

41.0%

53.0%

34.0%

60.0%

0.0%

63.8%

64.8%

41.9%

46.7%

58.1%

1.9%

48.3%

53.2%

47.3%

40.5%

59.0%

1.0%

Figure 40: Baseline - Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 41 shows, currently, substantial proportions of community respondents reported that current security actors are present everywhere of suspected violence (Adamawa = 59%, Borno = 60%); public building (Adamawa = 38%, Borno = 69%); security office station (Adamawa = 56%, Borno = 47%); road blocks (Adamawa = 28%, Borno = 68%); and market place and school (Adamawa = 32%, Borno = 51%).

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Office station

Market place and school

Anywhere of suspected violence

Bush

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

27.7%

38.4%

54.5%

32.1%

58.9%

0.0%

67.6%

69.1%

46.8%

51.1%

59.7%

1.4%

49.8%

55.4%

50.2%

42.6%

59.4%

0.8%

Figure 41: Current - Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 42 to 44 present the proportions of security respondents who also reported on the places security actors are present in the communities. Figure 42 shows substantial a proportion of the respondents reported road blocks (Baseline = 67%, Current = 82%); public building (Baseline = 75%, Current = 77%);

48

security agent office station (Baseline = 75%, Current = 73%); market place (Baseline = 58%, 59%); anywhere of suspected violence (Baseline = 67%, Current = 64%)

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Security Agents office station

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violence

Bush check point

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

66.7%

75.0%

75.0%

58.3%

66.7%

81.8%

77.3%

72.7%

59.1%

63.6%

4.5%

Figure 42: Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by security actors at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 43 presents the proportion of the security respondents who reported on the places security actors are present across the states. The figure shows substantial proportions of respondents reported road blocks (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 70%); public building (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 80%); security agent office station (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 70%); market place (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 60%; and anywhere of suspected violence (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 67%).

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Security Agents office station

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violence

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

70.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

60.0%

66.7%

75.0%

75.0%

58.3%

66.7%

Figure 43: Baseline - Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 44 shows currently the proportion of security respondents who reported on places security actors are present in the communities. The figure indicates, like the baseline, substantial proportion of the security respondents reported road blocks (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 85%); public building (Adamawa =

49

50%, Borno = 80%); security agent office (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 70%); market place (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 60%); and anywhere of suspected violence (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 60%).

Road blocks

Public building (government, palace, mosque, church, etc.)

Security Agents office station

Market place

Anywhere of suspected violence

Bush check point

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%

85.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

60.0%

5.0%

81.8%

77.3%

72.7%

59.1%

63.6%

4.5%

Figure 44: Current - Places where security actors are present in the communities, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

How security forces and communities relate to one another.Figure 45 to 47 present the proportion of community respondents who reported on the ways security actors and community relate to one another. Figure 45 shows a baseline and current proportions of security respondents who reported that the security actors and communities share information on security (94%) and work together on early warning and response system (42%). Others mentioned periodic meeting (Baseline = 26%, Current = 27%); collaboration on solutions to human rights abuses (baseline = 23%, Current = 27%). A small proportion of the respondents reported training on human rights abuses and security forces coming to interrogate them as other ways the security forces relate the communities.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Security come to ask questions

0.0%

20.0

%

40.0

%

60.0

%

80.0

%

100.

0%

93.9%

25.6%

22.6%

41.5%

7.3%

0.6%

93.7%

27.2%

27.2%

42.2%

13.1%

0.5%

Figure 45: Ways security actors and community relate to one another, reported by community members at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

50

At baseline, 94% of community respondents in Adamawa and Borno indicated that security forces and communities share information on security. Less than half of the respondents reported relating through periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding (Adamawa = 30%, Current = 21%); working together on solutions to human rights abuses (Baseline = 44%, Current = 39%); and training (Adamawa = 4%, Borno = 11%). See figure 46 below.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Security come to ask questions

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

93.7%

30.4%

16.5%

44.3%

3.8%

0.0%

94.1%

21.2%

28.2%

38.8%

10.6%

1.2%

93.9%

25.6%

22.6%

41.5%

7.3%

0.6%

Figure 46: Baseline - Ways security actors and community relate to one another, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 47 shows, most community respondents currently report security forces and communities share information on security (Adamawa = 92%, Borno = 95%). Less than half of the respondents reported that the security forces and communities work together on early warning and response system (Adamawa = 44%, Borno = 41%); periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding (Adamawa = 30%, Borno = 25%); and collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses (Adamawa = 22%, Borno = 32%).

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Security come to ask questions

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

92.4%

30.4%

21.7%

43.5%

5.4%

0.0%

94.7%

24.6%

31.6%

41.2%

19.3%

0.9%

93.7%

27.2%

27.2%

42.2%

13.1%

0.5%

Figure 47: Current - Ways security actors and community relate to one another, reported by community members across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

51

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figures 48 to 50 present the proportions of security actors who reported on the ways security actors and communities relate to one another. According to figure 48, the security respondents mainly report sharing information on security with communities (Baseline = 67%, Current = 64%), and work together on early warning and response system (Baseline = 17%, Current = 9%).

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Escort

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

66.7%

8.3%

8.3%

16.7%

63.6%

9.1%

4.5%

9.1%

9.1%

4.5%

Figure 48: Ways security actors and the community relate to one another, reported by security actors at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 49 indicates that a substantial security respondents reported the security communities share information (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 70%) and 50% reported periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding in Adamawa. In Borno, 10% reported collaboration on solutions to human rights abuses and 20% for training on human rights protection.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Training on human rights protection

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

70.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

66.7%

8.3%

8.3%

16.7%

Figure 49: Baseline - Ways security actors and the community relate to one another, reported by security actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 50 shows that most security respondents report security forces and communities currently share information on security (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 65%). In Adamawa, 50% reported periodic meeting

52

on security and peacebuilding as one of the two ways security forces and communities currently relate to one another.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Escort

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

65.0%

5.0%

5.0%

10.0%

10.0%

5.0%

63.6%

9.1%

4.5%

9.1%

9.1%

4.5%

Figure 50: Current - Ways security actors and the community relate to one another, reported by security respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Preferred ways of engaging with security actors Figures 51 to 53 present report by community respondents on their preferred ways of engaging with security actors. In all, figure 51 shows that about 62% respondents like preferred sharing information on security with the security actors. A small proportion of the respondents preferred periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding, working together on early warning and response, and collaboration on solutions to human rights abuses.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Security come to ask questions

Don't Know

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

62.6%

10.3%

4.2%

7.5%

15.4%

62.3%

9.0%

4.9%

7.8%

0.4%

0.4%

15.3%

Figure 51: Preferred ways by community members of engaging with security actors at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

53

Figures 52 and 53 show similar patterns at baseline and currently across the two states. Substantial proportions of community respondents reported sharing information on security as their preferred way of engaging with security actors.

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Work together for early warning and response system

Don't Know

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

57.4%

18.8%

5.0%

5.9%

12.9%

67.3%

2.7%

3.5%

8.8%

17.7%

62.6%

10.3%

4.2%

7.5%

15.4%

Figure 52: Baseline - Preferred ways by community members of engaging with se-curity actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Working together on early warning and response system

Training on human rights protection

Security come to ask questions

Don't Know

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0

%

57.8%

18.1%

6.9%

5.2%

0.0%

0.0%

12.1%

65.8%

2.0%

3.3%

9.9%

0.7%

0.7%

17.8%

62.3%

9.0%

4.9%

7.8%

0.4%

0.4%

15.3%

Figure 53: Current - Preferred ways by community members of engaging with se-curity actors across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 54 to 56 present proportions of security respondents on preferred ways of engaging with security actors. Like community respondents, substantial proportions of security respondents reported sharing information on security as a preferred way of engaging with security actors (baseline = 83%, Current = 65%).

54

Share information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaborate on solutions to human rights abuses

Training on human rights protection

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

83.3%

0.0%

16.7%

65.0%

20.0%

5.0%

10.0%

Figure 54: Preferred ways by security actors of engaging at baseline and current sta-tus

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 55 indicates that a substantial security respondents (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 90%) preferred to share information on security. Some respondents (Adamawa = 50%; Borno = 10%) mentioned training on human rights protection as a way that they preferred to engaged.

Sharing information on security

Training on human rights protection

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

90.0%

10.0%

83.3%

16.7%

Figure 55: Baseline - Preferred ways by security actors of engaging across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Currently, figure 56 shows the preferred way of engagement by the security respondents is sharing information on security (Adamawa = 50%; Borno = 68%), by training – Adamawa (50%), and by periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding – Borno (22%).

55

Sharing information on security

Periodic meeting on security and peace building

Collaboration for solutions to human rights abuses/violation

Training on human rights protection

0.0%

20.0%

40.0

%60

.0%80

.0%

100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

66.7%

22.2%

5.6%

5.6%

65.0%

20.0%

5.0%

10.0%

Figure 56: Current - Preferred ways by security actors of engaging across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Current level of collaboration between security and target communities.Figures 57 to 59 present proportions of community respondents who reported on level of collaboration between security actors and communities. From figure 57, significant proportion of community respondents reported level of collaboration with security actors very high (Baseline = 23%, Current = 22%), high (Baseline = 41%, Current = 40%), and medium (Baseline = 30, Current = 30%).

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t Know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

1.7%

2.9%

29.7%

40.7%

23.3%

1.7%

1.8%

4.6%

30.4%

39.6%

22.1%

1.4%

Figure 57: Level of collaboration between security actors and the communities, reported by community respondents at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 58 shows similar pattern of significant proportion of community respondents reported level of collaboration with security actors very high (Adamawa = 24%, and Borno = 22%); High (Adamawa = 48%, and Borno = 33%); and Medium (Adamawa = 24, and Borno = 34%).

56

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t Know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0%

1.2%

24.4%

48.8%

24.4%

1.2%

3.3%

4.4%

34.4%

33.3%

22.2%

2.2%

1.7%

2.9%

29.7%

40.7%

23.3%

1.7%

Figure 58: Baseline - Level of collaboration between security actors and the com-munities, reported by community respondents across the state

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Currently, figure 59 shows proportion of community respondents who reported level of collaboration with security actors very high (Adamawa = 23, Borno = 21%); High (Adamawa = 52%, Borno = 30%); and medium (Adamawa = 23%, Borno = 36%).

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don’t Know

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

0.0%

1.1%

23.2%

51.6%

23.2%

1.1%

3.3%

7.4%

36.1%

30.3%

21.3%

1.6%

1.8%

4.6%

30.4%

39.6%

22.1%

1.4%

Figure 59: Current - Level of collaboration between security actors and the com-munities, reported by community respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figures 60 to 62 present the proportions of security respondents who reported on level of collaboration between security actors and target communities. Figure 60 indicates a large proportion of security

57

respondents reported level of collaboration with communities very high (Baseline = 50%, Current = 32%), high (Baseline = 8%, Current = 18%), and medium (Baseline = 42%, Current = 46%).

Low Medium High Very high0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0.0%

41.7%

8.3%

50.0%

4.5%

45.5%

18.2%

31.8%

Figure 60: Level of collaboration between security actors and communities, reported by security respondents at baseline and current status

BaselineCurrent

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 61 shows the proportion of security respondents who reported the level of collaboration between security actors and communities very high (Adamawa = 100%, and Current = 40%); high (10%) and medium (50%); both in Borno.

Medium

High

Very high

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

50.0%

10.0%

40.0%

41.7%

8.3%

50.0%

Figure 61: Baseline - Level of collaboration between security actors and the com-munities, reported by security respondents across state

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Currently, figure 62 indicates a larger proportion of security respondents reported the level of collaboration with communities very high (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 25%); high (20%); medium (50%), both in Borno.

58

Low

Medium

High

Very high

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

5.0%

50.0%

20.0%

25.0%

4.5%

45.5%

18.2%

31.8%

Figure 62: Current level of collaboration between security actors and the communi-ties, reported by security respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Level of trust of security agents by community members.Figures 63 to 65 present the proportion of community respondents who reported the level of trust of security agents by community members. Figure 63 shows substantial proportion of the community respondents reported level of trust of security agents by community members is high (Baseline = 38%, Current = 41%), and very high (Baseline = 22%, Current = 19%). Just over a quarter of the community respondents reported the level of trust of security agents by community members is medium (Baseline = 26%, Current = 26%).

No trust

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don't Know

.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.5%

5.6%

4.2%

25.7%

38.3%

21.5%

4.2%

0.7%

4.9%

4.9%

26.1%

41.0%

18.7%

3.7%

Figure 63: Level of trust in the security agents by community respondents at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 64 shows proportion of community respondents who reported level of trust of security actors very high (Adamawa = 26%, Borno = 18%), high (Adamawa = 39%, Borno = 38%), and medium (Adamawa = 25%, Borno = 27%).

59

No trust

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don't Know

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

.0%

1.0%

4.0%

24.8%

38.6%

25.7%

5.9%

0.9%

9.7%

4.4%

26.5%

38.1%

17.7%

2.7%

0.5%

5.6%

4.2%

25.7%

38.3%

21.5%

4.2%

Figure 64: Baseline - Level of trust in the security agents by community respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 65 shows proportion of community respondents who reported level of trust of security agents by community members. Substantial proportion of community respondents reported level of trust very high (Adamawa = 26%, Borno = 13%), high (Adamawa = 40%, Borno = 42%), and medium (Adamawa = 25%, Borno = 27%).

No trust

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

Don't Know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

.0%

.9%

3.4%

25.0%

39.7%

25.9%

5.2%

1.3%

7.9%

5.9%

27.0%

42.1%

13.2%

2.6%

0.7%

4.9%

4.9%

26.1%

41.0%

18.7%

3.7%

Figure 65: Current level of trust in the security agents by community respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

60

Level of trust of community members by security agents.  Figures 66 to 68 present the proportions of security respondents who reported the level of trust of community members. Overall, figure 66 shows a larger proportion of security respondents reported level of trust of community members very high (Baseline = 33%, Current = 20%); high (Baseline = 17%, Current = 24%); and medium (Baseline = 50%, Current = 36%). Only currently, security respondents reported the level of trust of the community as low (12%) and very low (8%).

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

16.7%

33.3%

8.0%

12.0%

36.0%

24.0%

20.0%

Figure 66: Level of trust in the communities by security respondents at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 67 shows the proportion of security respondents who reported the level of trust of the community by security agents as very high (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 20%). Only in Borno, security respondents reported the level of trust of the community as high (20%) and medium (60%).

Medium High Very high0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

0.0% 0.0%

100.0%

60.0%

20.0% 20.0%

50.0%

16.7%

33.3%

Figure 67: Baseline - Level of trust in the communities by security respondents across the states

AdamawaBornoTotal

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Currently, figure 68 shows in Adamawa all security respondents reported the level of trust of the community very high (100%). In Borno, the security actors reported the level of trust of the community by security agents as high (26%), medium (39%), low (13%), and very low (9%).

61

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

8.7%

13.0%

39.1%

26.1%

13.0%

8.0%

12.0%

36.0%

24.0%

20.0%

Figure 68: Current - Level of trust in the communities by security respondents across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

4.3 Traditional Systems of Dealing with Human Rights AbusesThe evaluation looked at traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses and how the mechanisms work; assess the trends of the involvement and gender in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses; and the way SFCG´s work support or hinder the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses.

Traditional ways of dealing with human rights abusesDiscussions and interviews with community groups and leaders confirmed traditional systems governing human rights promotion, protection and enforcement in the communities exist over the years. They are based on norms, culture, religion, and traditions transferred from generation to generation in the communities. Figure 69 presents the proportion of community respondents who reported on traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses in the communities across the states. Total proportion (38%) of respondents (including 39% in Adamawa and 38% in Borno) reported the existence of traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses in the communities.

The most mentioned traditional mechanism of dealing with human rights abuses is traditional leadership systems, comprising of community and religious leaders, ward and district heads, youth leaders or community elders (Adamawa = 38%, Borno = 28%). Some respondents also mentioned other traditional ways for dealing with human rights abuses are by reporting to traditional leaders or heads (Adamawa = 24%, Borno = 3.3%); gathering people together to resolve issue of human rights abuses (Adamawa = 11%, Borno = 16%); and through public enlightenment (Adamawa = 4.4%, Borno = 13%). Other ways mentioned by small proportion of respondents are consultation of ‘native doctors’, local vigilantes (civilian JTF), and cultural songs and dance.

62

Traditional ways of dealing with HR abuses

Community, ward, district, religious and youth leader/head or elders take action

Report to traditional leaders or heads

Consulting 'native doctor'

Gathering people together to address abuses

Local vigilantes (Civilan JTF)

Public enlightenment to promote peace in the community

Cultural songs and dance

Refer to government/court

Don't Know

0.0%

20.0% 40.0%

60.0%

80.0%100.0

%

39.0%

37.8%

24.4%

0.0%

11.1%

4.4%

4.4%

0.0%

0.0%

17.8%

37.7%

27.9%

3.3%

1.6%

16.4%

6.6%

13.1%

1.6%

3.3%

26.2%

38.3%

32.1%

12.3%

0.9%

14.2%

5.7%

9.4%

0.9%

1.9%

22.6%

Figure 69: Traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses in the communities across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

The way traditional mechanisms of dealing with human rights abuses work. Interviews and discussions with community leaders and groups revealed although the structure and systems Interviews and discussions with community leaders and groups revealed similar structures and systems of traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses in most communities, though some slightly different applications of the norms in one community to another. For instance, in Borno State, there is the traditional Emirate system where the communities have traditional authority council of community leaders (Bulama) council of elders. It is the traditional unit of governance in most communities. The community leaders report to the Ward Heads (Mai-Angwan) who in turn report to the District Head. The district head is responsible to the Shehu who is the head of the entire Emirate. In addition to the Shehu who is the paramount leader of predominantly Kanuri people of Borno State, there are also Emirs who lead the Hausa Fulani sections of the State. In Adamawa, the system is similar except the paramount leader is the Lamido, like the Emirs in the Hausa and Fulani groups. The village heads are called Ma Angwan, while the Ward and District Heads are the 'Jauros' and 'Ados', respectively.

The traditional leaders and their councils of elders preside over issues regarding cases of crime, violations of human rights or local norms, particularly if these cannot be handled through family heads. The council of elders make and take decisions about such cases based on the indicative cultural or religious norms as well as settle disputes or decide punishment against cases arising from the violations of existing norms. In the traditional system, therefore, human rights issues are reported to the Village Heads, who convene the council of Elders to deliberate and make decisions on the specific issues being addressed. The community vigilante and youths play a major role in carrying out the decisions of the leaders and thus form a critical component of community enforcement. Issues that are beyond the village heads are reported to the Ward Heads for necessary actions and from there upwards to the District heads and through these to the Paramount leader.

63

The traditional Justice systems coexist with the formal systems of the State government, LGA, Ward Councils, and the Judiciary – including customary, high courts, sharia courts and law enforcement (the Police). The formal administrative system is secondary in dispensing authority and rule of law at the community level, where the traditional leaders and councils retain their authority. The LGA and Ward Councils constitute the structures of the formal system of governance at the community level. The authority of the formal government structure is often limited to mobilization for programs of the government and civil society organizations, such as immunization, food relief distribution, elections, sensitization, and meetings. Relationships between traditional systems and other stakeholders, particularly the Security Agencies are cordial and sustained through infrequent courtesy calls or visits. Collaborative platforms between traditional authority figures and other critical human rights actors are not formalized or institutionalized, because they are ad hoc, depending on the issues at hand. Within the framework of the formal civil governance system, there are established mechanisms and links between communities and government, through the Traditional Leaders’ Councils, which government interfaces by periodically meeting with the traditional systems. In Adamawa State, there is the Adamawa State Traditional Leaders Council headed by the Lamido of Adamawa. Similarly, in Borno State, the traditional Leaders Council is led by the Shehu of Borno. In addition, there is a dedicated Ministry called the Ministry of Local Government and Emirate Affairs, with a specific Directorate for Emirate Affairs headed by a very senior Director. Through these platforms, the traditional leadership is sometimes consulted on matters affecting their communities and they too as leaders within the government relate issues of human rights to the formal civil systems. Thus, both systems play vital roles in the resolution of human rights issues and concerns, promotion, and enforcement.

The Boko Haram conflict has made the traditional authority systems relatively less effective for protecting and enforcing of human rights. There is a level of mistrust for traditional systems amongst the security agencies, who view them as the facilitators of conflict around their communities. There is mutual suspicion between the security agencies and the traditional systems, such that security agencies believe that traditional leaders harbor and give assistance to some Boko Haram members in their communities. Also, some respondents reported that the decline in the influence of many traditional authorities is because they have compromised by their individualized relationships with government and the security agencies to gain political relevance at the expense of their community interests. Further, the emergence of armed gangs such as the ECOMOG Boys in Borno state who have strong influence and political support from the politicians whom they serve have contributed to a seeming inability of some traditional leaders to control the unscrupulous activities of these groups especially those related to human rights violations, such as harassment of innocent citizens within their domains of authorities.

Involvement and gender in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. Figure 70 shows the proportion of respondents who reported on the trends with regards to those involved and gender in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses across the states. A substantial proportion of the respondents mentioned community leaders (Adamawa = 96%, Borno = 87%) and religious leaders (Adamawa = 79%, Borno = 67%) are involved in traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. This is expected because the traditional leadership system was reported as the predominant system of dealing with human rights abuses. The respondents also largely mentioned local vigilantes (Adamawa = 58%, Borno = 60%), men (Adamawa = 63%, Borno = 44%), and youths (Adamawa = 50%, Borno = 46%) are involved in traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. Some respondents mentioned the Police (Adamawa = 31%, Borno = 44%), the Military (Adamawa = 10%, Borno = 35%), Civil Defence Corps (Adamawa = 19%, Borno = 27%), and CSOs (Adamawa = 10%, Borno = 14%) are involved in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. In terms of gender, larger proportions of respondents mentioned men (52%) and youth (48%) than women (23%) are involved in traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses.

64

Men

Women

Youth

Community leaders

Religious leaders

Civil Defence Corps

Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

The Police

The Military

CSO (including CBO, NGO and FBO)

Private Organizations

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

62.5%

29.2%

50.0%

95.8%

79.2%

18.8%

58.3%

31.3%

10.4%

10.4%

0.0%

44.4%

17.5%

46.0%

87.3%

66.7%

27.0%

60.3%

44.4%

34.9%

14.3%

4.8%

52.3%

22.5%

47.7%

91.0%

72.1%

23.4%

59.5%

38.7%

24.3%

12.6%

2.7%

Figure 70: People involve in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

How SFCG´s work on human rights abuses support or hinder the traditional systems.SFCG’s work on human rights abuses is intended to support these traditional systems by strengthening the existing system which can be used to address human rights abuses in the communities. Thus, SFCG intention of working with tradition systems to mobilize communities to strengthen mechanisms for addressing human rights abuses. But, one of the challenges stemmed from establishing human rights monitoring and response structures, with the weak inclusiveness of community members. It is due mostly to the absence of a strategic human rights engagement and coalition building strategy. Secondly, though the established platforms seemingly collaborative does not sufficiently facilitate meaningful relationship building, communication, and information sharing between communities and Security Agencies, mainly because of a weak cohesion and networking amongst the members.

4.4 Communication and Decision makersTraditional and formal channels of communication about human rights abuses. Figures 71 to 73 presents the proportions of community respondents who reported on the traditional and formal channels of communication about human rights abuses. Figure 71 shows that a substantial proportion of respondents mentioned traditional channels, such as community leaders (Baseline = 75%, Current = 77%); religious leaders (Baseline = 56%, Current = 58%); neighbor and close friends (Baseline = 67%, Current = 69%); and local vigilantes (Baseline = 45%, Current = 56%). Other traditional channels mentioned by some respondents include community observers (Baseline = 17%, Current = 18%); mobile phone text messages (Baseline = 14%, Current = 19%); CSOs (Baseline = 12%, Current = 12%). The major formal channels of community about human rights abuses reported by the respondents are radio

65

(Baseline = 56%, Current = 58%); television (Baseline = 43%, Current = 45%). Other formal channels of communication about human rights abuses include newspapers (Baseline = 27%, Current = 26%); internet (Baseline = 24%, Current = 23%); security agencies (Baseline = 30%, Current = 29%); SEMA/NEMA (Baseline = 12%, Current = 10%); local government office (Baseline = 18%, Current = 17%).

Neighbor and close friends

Religious leaders

Newspapers

Radio

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)

Joints/Viewing Center

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Private organizations

Youths

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

67.1%74.7%

56.2%17.1%

27.4%42.5%

55.5%24.0%

11.6%13.7%

4.1%29.5%

45.2%12.3%

9.6%17.8%

0.7%

68.6%76.8%

58.4%17.8%

25.9%44.9%

58.4%22.7%

11.9%18.9%

5.4%28.6%

56.2%9.7%

7.0%16.8%

0.0%

Figure 71: Channels of communication about human rights abuses in the communi-ties at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 72 indicates similar pattern across the states, with a substantial proportion of respondents reporting traditional channels of communications, including community leaders (Adamawa = 88%, Borno = 63%); religious leaders (Adamawa = 74%, Borno = 40%); neighbor and close friends (Adamawa = 65%, Borno = 69%); local vigilantes (Adamawa = 48%, Borno =43%). Other traditional channels are community observer and groups (Adamawa = 21%, Borno = 13%); text messages (Adamawa = 19%, Borno = 9%); CSOs (Adamawa = 7%, Borno = 16%). Formal channels of communications reported by a substantial proportion of respondents at baseline are radio (Adamawa = 49%, Borno = 61%), television (Adamawa = 36%, Borno = 48%); security agencies (Adamawa = 32%, Borno = 27%). Other formal channels include internet (Adamawa = 295, Borno = 20%); local government office (Adamawa = 25%, Borno = 12%); SEMA/NEMA (Adamawa = 10%, Borno = 14%).

66

Neighbor and close friendsCommunity leaders

Religious leadersCommunity observers and groups

NewspapersTelevision (TV)

RadioInternet

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)Text messages

Joints/Viewing CenterGovernment Security AgenciesLocal Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

SEMA/NEMAPrivate organizations

Local Government Office/OfficialYouths

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

65.2%88.4%

73.9%21.7%

33.3%36.2%

49.3%29.0%

7.2%18.8%

4.3%31.9%

47.8%10.1%

8.7%24.6%

0.0%

68.8%62.3%

40.3%13.0%

22.1%48.1%

61.0%19.5%

15.6%9.1%

3.9%27.3%

42.9%14.3%

10.4%11.7%

1.3%

Figure 72: Baseline - Channels of communication about human rights abuses in the communities across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 73 shows current channels of communication about human rights abuses across the states. Like figure 72 above, a substantial proportion of respondents mentioned community leaders (Adamawa = 90%, Borno = 67%); religious leaders (Adamawa = 77%, Borno = 45%); neighbor and close friends (Adamawa = 56%, Borno = 71%); local vigilantes (Adamawa = 59%, Borno = 54%), which are traditional channels of communication about human rights abuses. Other traditional channels mentioned by some respondents are: community observers (Adamawa = 22%, Borno = 15%); test messages (Adamawa = 21%, Borno = 18%); CSOs (Adamawa = 5%, Borno = 16%). Current formal channels of communication reported mostly by respondents are radio (Adamawa = 47%, Borno = 66%); television (Adamawa = 39%, Borno = 50%); security agencies (Adamawa = 36%, Borno = 23%); local government office (Adamawa = 24%, Borno 11%); SEMA/NEMA (Adamawa = 6%, Borno = 12%).

67

Neighbor and close friends

Religious leaders

Newspapers

Radio

CSOs (including CBO, FBO and NGO)

Joints/Viewing Center

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Private organizations

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

65.4%89.7%

76.9%21.8%

29.5%38.5%

47.4%23.1%

5.1%20.5%

6.4%35.9%

59.0%6.4%6.4%

24.4%

71.0%67.3%

44.9%15.0%

23.4%49.5%

66.4%22.4%

16.8%17.8%

4.7%23.4%

54.2%12.1%

7.5%11.2%

Figure 73: Current channels of communication about human rights abuses in the communities across the states

BornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Decision makers.Figures 74 to 76 below present the proportion of respondents on decisions about human rights abuses in the communities. From figure 74, the respondents mentioned mostly community leaders (Baseline = 46%; Current = 40%) decide on human rights abuses in the community. It is consistent with the result, which indicates that community leaders are mostly involved in the traditional channels of communication and systems of dealing with human rights abuses in the community. Less than a quarter of the respondents mentioned religious leaders (Baseline = 19%; Current = 23%) and security agencies (Baseline = 17%, Current = 19%) decide on human rights abuses in the community.

Community leader

Religious leader

Appointed individuals/groups

Government Security Agencies

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

46.4%

18.8%

2.9%

17.4%

8.7%

5.8%

40.3%

22.6%

3.2%

19.4%

8.1%

6.5%

Figure 74: Decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities at base-line and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

68

Figure 75 indicates at baseline, a substantial proportion of respondents (Adamawa = 84%, Borno = 32%) report that community leaders make the decisions about human rights abuses in the community. In Borno, 24% of respondents mentioned religious leaders, 23% security agencies, and 12% local vigilantes. The involvement of religious leaders and security agencies were reported by about 5% of respondents in Adamawa State.

Community leader

Religious leader

Appointed individual/group

Government Security Agencies

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

84.2%

5.3%

0.0%

5.3%

0.0%

5.3%

32.0%

24.0%

4.0%

22.0%

12.0%

6.0%

46.4%

18.8%

2.9%

17.4%

8.7%

5.8%

Figure 75: Baseline - Decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 76 shows that currently a substantial proportion (Adamawa = 78%; Borno = 25%) of respondents mentioned that community leaders are decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities. Some respondents mainly in Borno reported security agencies (25%), religious leaders (27%), and local vigilantes (11%) also make decisions about human rights abuses in the communities. In Adamawa, 11% mentioned religious leaders.

Community leader

Religious leader

Appointed individual/group

Government Security Agencies

Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF)

Don’t know

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

77.8%

11.1%

0.0%

5.6%

0.0%

5.6%

25.0%

27.3%

4.5%

25.0%

11.4%

6.8%

40.3%

22.6%

3.2%

19.4%

8.1%

6.5%

Figure 76: Current decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

69

Effectiveness of SFCG’s formal and informal communication in enhancing human rights solutionsThe extent to which SFCG’s formal and informal communication have been effective in enhancing solutions to human rights issues can be read in section 4.7 progress of project implementation, under the objective of improved communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on human rights issues.

4.5 Media CoverageThe evaluation considered several media-related questions which were set by the project. These questions were to know the reach of SFCG´s media programs and profiles of the audience; if listeners/viewers relate to and absorb the messages; if SFCG’s media programs has contributed to any change in attitudes and perceptions of citizens and security personnel regarding human rights violations; and the strengths and weaknesses in the current programs? As at the time of this evaluation, there was not adequate information and basis to evaluate the project with these questions. Many of the planned activities have not been executed and the initial activities carried out were not according to schedule. The interactive radio program has not been implemented according to the project plan – it is delayed and far adrift of the targeted number of episodes and participants. The evaluation gathered that the radio program has not started in Adamawa because the program was not renewed with the media. From the interviews, there was an indication that the radio program was suspended in Adamawa State. Further on the implementation status can be read in section 4.7 Progress of project implementation.

The characteristics of the media in Adamawa and Borno State are similar, including public and private radio, print, and television (TV). Online social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Short Message Service (SMS) are also increasingly being used, especially by young people and youths, for accessing and sharing information, communication, and entertainment. However, the radio or word of mount still stands out as most effective means of communication in many communities. More than half of the key informants affirmed that the radio is one of the most popular means of accessing information at the community level. In Adamawa, more than 60% of the informants mentioned word of mouth as the most effective mechanism for accessing information at the community level. It buttressed the importance of existing traditional mechanisms of information sharing and communication. The radio is more availability, own and use. In the group that preferred word of mouth, it is an issue of means and authenticity of the information being communicated. Some respondents believe that radio information is mostly government facilitated propaganda, often inaccurate, not in-depth or seldom reflect the true picture of the reality.

“We get lots of information from the radio because most people, and at least every family has a radio set. However, not all information can be gotten from the radio. If there is an attack being planned or someone comes into our community who is suspicious or even when organizations have programs like material distribution, they tell our leaders and we get the information from them.”

FGD/Community Men/Jambutu Community/Adamawa State

Borno State Media landscape: There is no existing and reliable information on the exact map of media agencies in both Adamawa and Borno States at the time of the study. In Borno State, a media mapping report produced by the Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Programme (NSRP) in 2011 has not been recently updated. Key informant consultations coupled with document appraisals suggest that there is two main Government owned TV stations in Borno State. NTA Zonal Network Centre is a Federal Government broadcasting service, with two sub-stations, in Maiduguri and Biu. Borno State Television Corporation is however, State Government owned. There is a measurable penetration of some Private TV broadcasters such as AIT and Channels, both of whom have field crews based in the region. Four Radio

70

stations also exist – Peace FM owned by the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria and the radio section of the Borno State Radio and Television, Peace FM, Freedom Radio and Game FM. The languages used for broadcast vary and include Baburbura, Margi Pela, Margi Dam Boa, Shua Arab, Fulani, Waha (Guduf), Hausa, English, Pidgin English, and Kanuri. There are many Print Media Services including the Punch, Sun and Daily Trust Newspapers.

Adamawa State Media landscape: In Adamawa State, there are two main government owned and operated television stations namely the Federal Government owned Nigeria Television Authority-NTA Yola and the State Government owned Adamawa Television Corporation (ATV). The Private Television Stations include, Adamawa television, Gotel television, African International Television (AIT), Channels Television, Radio Stations include Adamawa broadcasting cooperation, Gotel Radio, Radio Nigeria (Fombina Radio). Prominent Print Media Organizations include Adamawa Press Ltd, the Sun, Vanguard, Daily Trust and the New Nigeria Newspaper-Hausa (Rana Ta Fito).

The effective engagement of Media organizations in Conflict and HR reporting, investigation, and monitoring in the North East is often associated with many challenges. Triangulations from the Nigeria Stability and Reconciliation Program (NSRP) report and KIIs revealed several dimensions. Most key informants converged significantly on the opinion that there is a pervasive pattern of under-reporting of issues of conflicts and HR violations amongst media organizations. The evidence points most frequently either to self-censorship on the part of media organizations arising from the fear of being targeted by insurgents or from the need to reduce the negative reports about government actions to reduce inflaming the political situation and face political intimidation. Some key stakeholders, particularly amongst the Security Agencies, mentioned that inappropriate reporting by the media, particularly about troop movements, counter-insurgency plans and missions have in the past hampered the efforts of Security Agencies and even put the lives of security personnel in the frontlines of battles in jeopardy. A situation attributed to poor capacity for appropriate Conflict reporting and weak communication and collaboration between Media and Security Agencies. The angle of perception by some human rights focused agencies, however, deviates substantially from this opinion. In their views, State-imposed censorship and political intimidation have been the main factors rather than a weak capacity of media organizations.

4.6 Key Performance IndicatorsThis section describes the results of the agreed project performance indicators. The findings are presented under each of the performance indicators, which are related to radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes; inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state or frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state; level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations; level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs and Judiciary; level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs; and level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states.

Current percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes.Figure 77 presents the proportion of respondents who said they listen to and understand judicial accountability processes (Baseline = 98%, Current = 96%). Across the two states, substantial proportions of respondents reported they understand judicial accountability processes: Adamawa (Baseline = 94%, Current = 94%); Borno (Baseline = 100%, Current = 97%).

71

Adamawa Borno Total0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

93.8%100.0% 97.9%

94.4% 96.8% 95.9%

Figure 77: Percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes

BaselineCurrent

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs.The current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs was assessed with questions about the involvement of CSO respondents with other CSOs in rights and advocacy, existence of coalition or network of actors working in rights and advocacy, and existing meeting of inter-CSOs working in rights and advocacy. Overall, substantial proportions of respondents (84%) reported their organizations are involved with other CSOs in rights and advocacy (Adamawa = 100%, Borno = 87%). Figure 78 indicates total proportions of respondents who reported existing meeting of relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs (Baseline = 88%, Current = 100%), and coalition or network of actors working in rights and advocacy (Baseline = 84%, Current = 95%). In Borno, all respondents reported there is an existing meeting of inter-CSOs working in rights and advocacy, and a majority also reported their organizations are involved with other rights and advocacy CSOs (Baseline = 100%, Current = 92%). In Adamawa, all respondents report there is currently meeting of inter-CSOs and coalition or network of actors working in rights and advocacy, compared to baseline (57%) of respondents.

Coalition or network of actors

Meeting of inter-CSOs

Coalition or network of actors

Meeting of inter-CSOs

Coalition or network of actors

Meeting of inter-CSOs

Ada

maw

aB

orno

Tot

al

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

100.0%

100.0%

92.3%

100.0%

95.0%

100.0%

57.1%

57.1%

100.0%

100.0%

84.2%

87.5%

Figure 78: level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and ad-vocacy CSOs

BaselineCurrent

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

72

Frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.While there was no clear number of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state, figure 79 to 81 present the frequency of inter-CSOs meeting in each state at baseline and currently. Figure 79 shows a substantial proportion of respondents reported the frequency of inter-CSO meeting is monthly (Adamawa = 43%, Borno = 53%). In Borno, some respondents reported it is biweekly (12%), and quarterly (24%).

Biweekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

Never

DK

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

0.0%

42.9%

0.0%

14.3%

28.6%

14.3%

11.8%

52.9%

23.5%

5.9%

0.0%

5.9%

8.3%

50.0%

16.7%

8.3%

8.3%

8.3%

Figure 79: Baseline - Frequency of inter-CSOs meeting across state

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 80 presents the current proportion of respondents who reported the frequency of inter-CSOs meeting across the states. A substantial proportion of the respondents reported the frequency of inter-CSO meeting is monthly (Adamawa = 86%, Borno = 77%). Also in Borno, 18% of respondents reported the frequency is biweekly.

Biweekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0%

85.7%

0.0%

14.3%

17.6%

76.5%

5.9%

0.0%

12.5%

79.2%

4.2%

4.2%

Figure 80: Current frequency of inter-CSOs meeting across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

73

Overall, figure 81 compared baseline with current status, and a substantial proportion of respondents reported frequency of inter-CSOs meeting is monthly (Baseline = 50%, Current = 79%). Some respondents reported the frequency of inter-CSOs meeting is biweekly (Baseline = 8%, Current = 13%), quarterly (Baseline = 17%, Current = 4%).

Biweekly

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

Never

DK

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

8.3%

50.0%

16.7%

8.3%

8.3%

8.3%

12.5%

79.2%

4.2%

4.2%

0.0%

0.0%

Figure 80: Frequency of inter-CSOs meeting at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Current level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations.Figures 82 to 84 present level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations in each state at baseline and currently. Figure 82 shows that a large proportion of respondents reported level of collaborations is very cooperative (Baseline = 42%, Current = 58%). Some respondents reported that the level of collaboration is cooperative (Baseline = 17%, Current = 29%) and fair cooperation (Baseline = 13%, Current = 8%). At baseline, 17% of respondents could not assess the level of cooperation, and about 8% said there is no cooperation.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

DK

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0

%

41.7%

16.7%

12.5%

4.2%

8.3%

16.7%

58.3%

29.2%

8.3%

4.2%

Figure 82: Level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

74

Figure 83 shows that at baseline most respondents report the level of inter-CSO meetings and collaboration as very cooperative (Adamawa = 29%, Borno = 47%); cooperative (Adamawa = 14%, and Borno = 18%). In Adamawa, the proportions of respondents who reported the level of inter-CSOs meetings and collaboration are (not cooperative = 29%; poor cooperation = 14%). In Borno, 18% of respondents reported that there was a fair cooperation.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

DK

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

28.6%

14.3%

0.0%

14.3%

28.6%

14.3%

47.1%

17.6%

17.6%

0.0%

0.0%

17.6%

41.7%

16.7%

12.5%

4.2%

8.3%

16.7%

Figure 83: Baseline - Level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 84 shows larger proportion of respondents currently report level of inter-CSOs meetings and collaboration is very cooperative (Adamawa = 57%, Borno = 59%), cooperative (Adamawa = 29%, Borno = 29%). In Borno, about 12% of respondents reported fair cooperation, and in Adamawa, 14% reported the level collaboration is poor.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

57.1%

28.6%

0.0%

14.3%

58.8%

29.4%

11.8%

0.0%

58.3%

29.2%

8.3%

4.2%

Figure 84: Current - Level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations across state

TotalBornoAdamawa

75

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Current level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs and Judiciary.Figures 85 to 87 present the proportion of respondents who report the level of relationship between CSOs and the NHRC. Overall, figure 84 shows a larger proportion of respondents mentioned that the level of relations is cooperative (Baseline = 38%, Current = 73%). At baseline, about 19% of respondents indicated the level of the relationship was very cooperative, poor cooperation, and no cooperation. In Borno, 18% of respondents reported the level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC as fair cooperation.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

18.8%

37.5%

6.3%

18.8%

18.8%

9.1%

72.7%

18.2%

Figure 85: Level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

At baseline, figure 86 shows the majority of respondents reported level of relationships between CSO and NHRC was cooperative (Adamawa = 20%, Borno = 46%), and very cooperative (Adamawa = 20%, Borno = 18%). In Adamawa, 60% of respondents reported that the relationship between CSOs and NHRC was not cooperative. In Borno, 27% of respondents reported level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC was a poor cooperation, and 9% said it was a fair cooperation.

76

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

-10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

20.0%

20.0%

0.0%

0.0%

60.0%

18.2%

45.5%

9.1%

27.3%

0.0%

18.8%

37.5%

6.3%

18.8%

18.8%

Figure 86: Baseline - Level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 87 shows all respondents in Adamawa currently report the level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC is very cooperative. In Borno, 80% reported the level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC is cooperative, and 20% said it is a fair cooperation.

Very cooperative Cooperative Fair cooperation0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0%0.0%

80.0%

20.0%

9.1%

72.7%

18.2%

Figure 87: Current level of relationship between CSOs and NHRC across the states

AdamawaBornoTotal

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figures 88 to 90 present proportions of respondents who reported level of relationship between CSOs and the Judiciary. Overall, figure 87 shows distribution of respondents acrosss very cooperative (Baseline = 24%, Current = 29%), cooperative (Baseline = 25%, Current = 29%), fair cooperation (Baseline = 24%, Current = 29%), poor cooperation (Baseline = 12%, Current = 6%), and no cooperation (Baseline = 18%, Current = 6%). The distribution suggests that there is currently probably more cooperative relationship between CSOs and the Judiciary.

77

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

23.5%

23.5%

23.5%

11.8%

17.6%

29.4%

29.4%

29.4%

5.9%

5.9%

Figure 88: Level of relationship between CSOs and Judiciary at baseline and current status

CurrentBaseline

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 89 presents the proportion of respondents who report on the levels of relationship between CSOs and the Judiciary, at baseline. In Adamawa, one-third of the respondents said the level of relationship between the CSOs and the Judiciary is very cooperative and another said no cooperation. In Borno, more than a quarter of the respondents said the level of relationship between the CSOs and the Judiciary is either cooperative or fairly cooperative.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

No cooperation

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

33.3%

16.7%

16.7%

0.0%

33.3%

18.2%

27.3%

27.3%

18.2%

9.1%

23.5%

23.5%

23.5%

11.8%

17.6%

Figure 89: Baseline - Level of relationship between CSO and the Judiciary across the states

TotalBornoAdamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Figure 90 shows the current distribution of respondents on the level of relationship between the CSOs and the Judiciary. Like the baseline, in Adamawa, one-third of respondents said the relationship is very

78

cooperative and a fair cooperation. In Borno, 36% said the relationship is cooperative, and 27% said it is very cooperation or fairly cooperative.

Very cooperative

Cooperative

Fair cooperation

Poor cooperation

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0

%

33.3%

16.7%

33.3%

0.0%

27.3%

36.4%

27.3%

9.1%

29.4%

29.4%

29.4%

5.9%

Figure 90: Current level of relationship between CSO and the Judiciary across state

Total

Borno

Adamawa

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

Current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states. Information on the level of allegations of human rights was difficult to come by during this baseline evaluation. Efforts made to reach officials of the NHRC did not yield a required result because the representative of the NHRC could grant the time for in-depth. And when we secured an appointment with the official in Adamawa, a record of the level of allegation pursued by the NHRC was not provided. However, the evaluation generated estimates of allegations of human rights abuses reported to the NHRC by the CSO respondents. Figure 91 indicates, a total of 36 allegations were reported to the NHRC (baseline), and 17 allegations were currently reported. It includes Adamawa (Baseline = 11; Current = 0); and Borno (Baseline = 25; Current = 17).

Baseline Current Baseline Current Baseline CurrentAdamawa Borno Total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 91: Allegations of human rights abuses reported to NHRC by CSOs in target states

Source: Chart created for evaluation primary data, May 2017

79

4.7 Progress of Project ImplementationThe project implementation began officially in October 2016. At the end of September 2016, several activities were conducted as part of the project start-up. In Borno State, SFCG conducted pre-inception visits to 18 State Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) and selected key actors including the Shehu of Borno (paramount traditional ruler), Abdullahi Gana Muhammadu; to intimate stakeholders on the scope, aspirations and plan for the second extension and expansion plans of the Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria project in the state. The pre-inception visits provided the opportunity to both advocates for greater involvement in, collaboration for and ownership of the projects by critical stakeholders in the State. Some of the key MDA and actors visited included the National Police Force (NPF), Nigerian Security and Civil Défense Corps (NSCDC), Emirate Council of the Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs Department, Jama’atul Nasir Islam (JNI), and the University of Maiduguri. Similarly, SFCG conducted a project inception training for staff and key project persons in September 2016. The training focused mainly on the goals, objectives, scopes and implementation strategy for the expansion project, as well the donor’s rules and procedures for reporting, financial, administration and procurement management. Interviews revealed that the start-up training was to help bring project staff up to speed with the project implementation and scope. There was no evidence from a review of the report that similar inception meetings or training have been conducted in Adamawa State as at the time of the evaluation. However, the progress of activities so far indicates some achievements under each objective of the project, across the states.

Strengthen the capacity of CSOs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy.As the time of the evaluation, many activities have not carried out as were planned. One of the four planned training was conducted on Conflict and Trauma Sensitive Journalism for Media Stakeholders in both Adamawa and Borno States. The training was conducted in the third quarter though planned for the first quarter. Some participants in the training reported that the knowledge gained has been very relevant to their work in human rights promotion and protection. The project is facilitating media programme 'Yan cinka Garkuwan ka', an interactive radio program designed to contribute to “increased citizen knowledge on human rights and the work of key stakeholders in promoting them.” From the radio log data made available, 4 episodes have been made out planned 26 episodes, in October 2016. The call-in program featured 20 persons (4 females and 16 males), representing only 25% female listeners.

80

85% 15%

Figure 92: SFCG's radio log in October 2016 to May 2017

Episodes not broadcasted

Episodes broadcasted

The radio program has not been implemented in Adamawa State because the program was not renewed with the media. The interactive radio program has not been implemented according to the project plan – it is delayed and far less than the targeted number of episodes and participants. There was an indication that the radio program was suspended, and is why it has not started in Adamawa.

In general, the project activities have been delayed and are not in line with the implementation schedules. Other key activities including the regional training workshops for NHRC and CSO groups on human rights monitoring, reporting and advocacy, and training of CSOs in Evidence-Based Advocacy and Resiliency, were pending. It is because the media component was suspended due to the review of SFCG media strategy. It was unclear when the implementation of the component will resume. Related to this, the plan to disburse small grant support to selected journalists to strengthen the practice of adequate and in-depth reporting of HR and security issues in conflict settings was yet to be implemented. Although it was scheduled to commence in the second quarter after the Conflict and Trauma Sensitive Journalism Training. As was reported, the Conflict and Trauma Sensitive training were conducted in the third quarter.

Establishing a platform between the NHRC, civil society, and judiciary for effective action.With regards to the aspiration to foster “increased collaboration between CSOs in the target States for more effective action on human rights issues”, considerable work has been carried out in Adamawa and Borno States. The activity reports revealed that the planned coalition-building activities were carried out and the Peace Architectural Dialogue (PAD) Forums were launched. As at the time of the field data collection, at least five monthly PAD meetings have held in both State. Support for community forums between government officials, security actors, community leaders, and key stakeholders at the LGA level under the auspices of the Community Security Architectural Dialogue (CSAD), has also taken off and running according to plan. In both States, meetings have been held monthly, since the first quarter of the project implementation. The evaluation also found that community-level meetings are being held under the umbrella of the community dialogue forums and Community Response Networks (CRN).

The overall evidence shows that the project has evolved an approach to delivering on this objective, riding on the existing gains under the previous project. This is perhaps best evidenced by the systematic sequence of mobilization, sensitization, and formation of platforms at the different levels, which are linked in such a way that representatives of one layer are also members of the other layers. For example,

81

in Adamawa State, it was observed that the LGA Vice Chairmen, Community Observers, and Community leaders as well as being members of the CRN are also members of the CSADs. In turn, the LGA Chairman, Vice, and District Heads represent the CSADs in the PAD Forum. So far, as was stated before, both the PADs and CSADs have commenced. These forums continue to utilize existing skills and knowledge gained from previous training workshops to facilitate dialogue and discussions on the HR and security issues most prevalent in their current realities. The forums were mostly at the meeting and deliberation phases (Forming and Norming). The decisions and action plans of these platforms were taken forward through referral to individual member organizations or at best ad hoc committees of specific member organizations whose role impact or is affected by the issues being discussed. A good example perhaps is a recent situation of emerging conflict between Tricycle riders (Keke) and some security agencies in Maiduguri, arising from allegations of harassment by specific security agencies from the union of tricycle riders. The issue was discussed during a PAD meeting and this led to the setup of an ad hoc investigative committee of selected security agencies and transport union members respectively. The recommendations from the report of the ad hoc committee during a subsequent meeting, followed by additional discussions and dialogue resulted in a peaceful resolution of the issues.

The evaluation found that the approach to the dialogue forum seems innovative and highly effective mechanism which holds promises for the maintenance of peace in both States. There is a strong likelihood of local ownership of the dialogue and collaborative forum, as many members interviewed confirmed readiness and willingness to adapt and continue the collaborative platform approach even after project phased out. These testimonials are indications of the relevance and sustainability of the dialogue forum approach.

“We like the PAD discussion forum because it has seriously helped to bring different shades of interest on one table. This feat even government had been unable to achieve. The discussions and collective decision-making are yielding visible and satisfactory fruits and so we will continue to do it this way even if SFCG ends their projects because of this visible and tangible benefits for our peace and security.”

KII/CJTF Officer/Borno State

“The SFCG approach will not end even if the project phases out. We are seeing the benefits clearly. There was never a time when security agencies and communities, as well as other stakeholders, came together to regularly meet and discuss to solve problems together. It has made our communities more peaceful and safe”

KII/Local NGO Executive/Adamawa State

However, similar testimonies above cannot be said of the CRN because the forum has some critical foundational cracks, which may compromise its sustainability in the long-term. The Community Observers who play a crucial galvanizing role for the CRN are paid monthly stipends by the project for communication and mobilization. There is a concern about the capacity of the target communities to sustain the practice. When Community Observers (CO) were asked if they would be able to sustain their roles should the project stopped, many said that discontinuing their monthly stipends will affect their ability to continue to play their roles as observers. Indeed, most of the observers consulted noted that there is a need to increase their monthly stipends, which is currently inadequate to meet their needs as observers. Some suggested the need for SFCG to design-in, some economic and livelihood component to enable them to continue to sustain their observing roles. A further concern relates to lack of mechanisms for monitoring the accountability of observers. Stipends are not designed as a performance-based incentive, rather as a motivational package to upset some associated cost to the role they play in the community. The implication of this is that the functions of the observers are not measured for productivity or adequately supervised which raises a moral issue and abuse of privilege. What is clear,

82

however, is that there is a strong appreciation of the impact of the CRN strategy by community leaders and the observers, it remains to see how SFCG intends to motivate local communities to invest in the sustainability of the CRN platforms in target communities.

Also, the creation of the linkages is to allow an upward flow of critical human rights issues from the community level up to the state level, but this has not happened as much as expected. Interviews with CRN and PAD members did not show the cascade of issues from CRN to CSAD, and from the latter to the PAD level. It seems that the agenda at the community level, are set based on the peculiar local realities, it seldom influences the issues discussed at the upper levels. It also suggests that the objective of the multi-level, multisectoral dialogue platforms, which is to strengthen local institutions’ capacities to monitor, collect, document, analyze and disseminate information about human rights abuses, is on track, but the capacity of the dialogue forum to coordinate effectively multisectoral response, is far below expectation as a body. The forum facilitates reporting and monitoring of human rights abuses by security agencies. Actions are frequently referred to individual members to take forward or at best a committee set up to investigate and respond to issues, rather than as a body. It may be attributed to the absence of a Civil Society or Dialogue Forum Strategy to guide the agenda and mechanism of action of the platforms.

The evaluation found that the plan to mobilize and facilitate targeted CSOs to produce a strategy outlining coalition action on security sector and human rights abuse has not commenced. The planned interventions to support a strategy development workshop between NHRC and civil society groups have not been implemented.

Improve communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on human rights issues.The planned resiliency training workshops in Adamawa and Borno States have not been conducted. On improving communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors, the PAD stakeholder and CSADs forums, and CRNs are playing a key role. Through these forums, many of the targeted communities have engaged in collaboration and alliances with security agencies in their domains. This has also contributed to prompt reporting, better monitoring, and responses to human rights abuses by security personnel.

“We have a better relationship with Security Agencies especially the Police, with which we previously had many issues. We have their numbers, they know us by name and we know them. We pay courtesy calls to them periodically and they also visit our traditional leaders frequently unlike before. When we have issues, we resolve these easily and quicker than before”

KII Community Observer/Damilu Community/Adamawa State

“There has been a lot of success from the work of SFCG. In February 2017, our attention in JNI was called in one of the IDP camps about a case where a military officer bullied and sexually harassed a young girl. We called SFCG and put a team together to go to the camp to investigate the report. When it turned out to be true, we took up the matter with the Commanding Officer, who asked us to give him one week to investigate further. As we speak the Officer who committed this crime has been court-marshaled and jailed by the Security Agency”

KII/JNI/Borno State

83

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 ConclusionsThis evaluation provides required answers to the question around human rights abuses, security actors working in the communities in Adamawa and Borno states, traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses, communication and decision-making on human rights abuses, the media, performance indicators, and progress made so far to implement the project.

Human rights abusesAlthough it may be with less impunity than before, the evaluation found evidence of human rights abuses in the communities despite previous interventions. The types of human rights abuses taking place in the communities in descending order of proportion of respondents are harassment; torture; arbitrary detention; extrajudicial killing; and rape. The places human rights abuses were reportedly taking place in the communities include host community settlement, IDP camps, security agent offices, anywhere of suspected violent attack, public buildings, roadblocks and the markets. Overall, the extent of human rights abuses taking place in the communities was relatively reported as low, medium, and high, by different respondents. However, compared to baseline, the results suggest that the extent of human rights abuses taking place currently in the communities is slightly lower.

The perpetrators of human rights abuses are mostly the military, the police, local vigilantes (civilian joint task force), and Civil Defence Corps. In relation to gender, men and youths were reportedly more involved in human rights abuses. Women, community leaders, and religious leaders were reported by some security respondents as perpetrators of human rights abuses. Although significant proportions of respondents said everyone is a victim of human rights abuses, women were most reported by the security respondents as victims of human rights abuses. Most community respondents reported youths and men as victims of human rights abuses.

Most respondents reported that reliable information can be found on human rights abuses from community leaders, neighbor and close friend, religious leaders, radio, local vigilantes, and the television. Other sources of reliable information reported some respondents are: government security agencies; newspapers; internet; community observers and groups; local government office/officials; text messages; civil society organizations; State Emergency Management Agency/National Emergency Management Agency; viewing center; and marketplace.

On the extent SFCG´s current project has addressed human rights abuses in relevant locations, the collaborative forums between security agencies, communities, and other critical human rights actors SFCG established to facilitate greater dialogue and monitoring, reporting and response to human rights violations, could contribute to reducing the rate of human rights abuses by the security agencies. However, it has not stopped sporadic incidences of human rights abuses. It is important to note that the communities under this study, have been exposed to previous SFCG interventions, having recently benefitted from similar interventions in other 12 months. This evaluation attempted to delineate the beginning of the phase of the current project with reference to time to assess the dynamics of change that target communities have experienced following previous SFCG interventions. Previous SFCG project interventions created the foundation for the implementation of the expanded intervention.

Security actors present in target communitiesThe formal security actors in the communities are the Military, the Police, and the Civil Defence Corps. The Department of State Security, Immigration, and National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) were mentioned by a small proportion of respondents. The informal security actors in the communities are the Local Vigilantes – Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF). Other informal security actors mentioned are

84

the local hunters and “ECOMOG BOYS”. SFCG currently engages with these security actors. The formal and informal security actors are found mainly at places of suspected violent attacks, public buildings, roadblocks, security office station, marketplace, and schools.

The security forces and communities relate to one another by sharing information on security, working together on early warning and response system, and periodic meeting on security and peacebuilding. Most preferred ways of engaging with security actors are by sharing information on security, training on human rights protection, and periodic meeting. Level of collaboration between the security actors and target communities was reported very high and medium. Level of trust between the security actors and the communities was reported very high, high and medium by different respondents across the States.

Traditional systems of dealing with human rights abusesThe predominant traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses are through the traditional leadership/authority system – community and village heads, religious leaders, ward heads, and district heads. The elders’ council and youth leaders also provide mechanisms for dealing with human rights abuses in the communities. The traditional mechanisms of dealing with human rights abuses work through traditional leaders and the councils of elders who preside over issues regarding cases of crime, violations of human rights or local norms, particularly if these cannot be handled by family heads. The council of elders makes and take decisions to settle the cases, based on cultural or religious norms.

The trends with regards to involvement in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses indicate that community leaders, religious leaders, local vigilantes, men, and youths are involved in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses. It was expected as traditional authority systems are the predominant mechanism for dealing with human rights abuses in the communities. More than women, the men and youths are more involved in the traditional systems of dealing with human rights abuses in the community.

Communication and decision makersThe evaluation found that the traditional channels of communication about human rights abuses are through community leaders, religious leaders, neighbors and close friends, local vigilantes, community observers and groups, text messages, and CSOs. The formal channels of communication are through radio, television, the internet, security agencies, local government office, and SEMA/NEMA. The major decision makers about human rights abuses in the communities are the community leaders. Some respondents mentioned that religious leaders, local vigilantes, and security agencies also make decisions on human rights abuses in the communities.

The communication platforms facilitated by SFCG through PAD, CSAD and CRN have contributed to improving relationships, collaborations, and alliances with security agencies. The mechanism is making prompt reporting, improved monitoring, and responses to human rights abuses by security personnel.

Media coverageThe media program was delayed and below the target number of episodes and participants. The radio program is not implemented in Adamawa because the program has not been renewed with the media houses. The interactive radio program is not implemented according to the plan and is less than the target number of episodes and participants.

Progress of project implementationIn general, the project activities were delayed and are not in line with implementation schedules. So far, many of the planned interventions remain to be implemented as at the middle of three out of four quarters.

85

Strengthen the capacity of CSOs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in human rights monitoring, reporting, and advocacy. One of the four pieces of training planned within the period under review was conducted on Conflict and Trauma Sensitive Journalism for Media Stakeholders in both Adamawa and Borno states. The radio program has been delayed and far less than the targeted number of episodes and participants, with only 4 of 26 planned episodes aired. Delay in providing support for the development of a coalition building framework to guide a more strategic engagement of CSOs in the human rights arena is limiting the effectiveness of the established platforms.

Establishing a platform between the NHRC, civil society, and judiciary for effective action. Planned coalition-building activities were ongoing in both Adamawa and Borno states, with the meeting of Peace Architectural Dialogue (PAD) Forums, Community Security Architectural Dialogue (CSAD) running according to plan. The respondents value the PAD forums because it promotes collaboration and ownership by stakeholders, but the approach of the Community Response Networks (CRN) indicates a critical challenge, which may affect the sustainability in the long-term, and by the time SFCG no longer provide stipends to Community Observers to cover for communication and mobilization cost.

The flow of critical human rights issues from the community level up to the state level seems not to be working as expected to cascade issues from CRN to CSAD, and from the latter to the PAD level. There were indications that the agenda at the community level, though based on local realities, seldom influence the issues discussed at other levels. The capacity of dialogue forums to coordinate effective multisectoral response does not match with the expectation. The forums facilitate good reporting and monitoring human rights abuses through security agencies, but often defer actions to an individual or a committee to investigate and respond to issues than as a body.

Improved communication and understanding between affected communities, key stakeholders, and security actors on human rights issues. The PAD, CSAD, and CRN forums have made the communities to engage in collaboration and alliances with security agencies in their domains. It has contributed to prompt reporting, better monitoring, and responses to human rights abuses by security personnel.

Performance indicatorsCurrent percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability was reportedly the same at baseline in Adamawa, but in Borno, currently (97%) less than baseline (100%). The current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs is better compared to the relationship at baseline. The frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state is mainly monthly. The current level of inter-CSO meeting and collaboration were reported mostly very cooperative, and better than baseline. The current level of relationships between NHRC, CSOs, and the Judiciary was more cooperative than baseline. The number of allegations of human rights abuses reported by the CSOs to the NHRC is currently (17) less than the report as at the baseline (36).

5.2 RecommendationsFindings and conclusions above suggest ways SFCG could use the learning to improve on the project. The human rights context has improved from previous interventions, yet issues of human rights abuses by Security Agencies persist in the communities. The following suggest measures to strengthen the project.

1. Review the agenda of the dialogue forums. Human rights feature in the dialogue forums, but the reports suggest that there is a disproportionate deliberation on security and conflict issues to the detriment of human rights issues.

2. Strengthening the capacity of Human Rights groups to create stronger alliances and synergies for collaboration and actions to promote human rights, protection, advocacy, and enforcement.

86

Support coalition building amongst the existing human rights CSOs and networks to synergize action planning and follow-up. The capacity of NHRC to network with CSO platforms is critical and needs to expand the scope, scale of engagement and visibility in the human rights protection, promotion, and enforcement arena.

3. Enhancing Media engagement in reporting, monitoring and awareness creation on human rights abuses by security agencies at the community level. Media role is critical for improving compliance with human rights in conflict. There is the need to encourage deeper engagement of the media in human rights awareness creation, social solidarity building, reporting, and monitoring accountability of government. SFCG needs to increase the human rights radio programming target to strengthen community-level awareness of human rights and uptake of the mechanisms for human rights accountability. Consider using innovative and entertaining media programming, such as radio drama and investment in social media. Similarly, there the need to reinstate the interactive radio program, which was suspended and review the broadcast time to reflect the most suitable time to balance the listenership. The current 25% of female callers might be an indication the airing time does not favor many women to listen.

4. Intensifying follow-up activities on community-level dialogue forums to increase participation, ownership, and sustainability. Further to the packages of training to build capacity and platform of dialogue on human rights, there is the need to implement a robust periodic follow-up, monitoring, and mentoring of the dialogue forum. Involve local CSOs that focus on human rights to ensure local ownership and sustainability of on-going support for community-level dialogue forum, well after the period of SFCG interventions.

5. Strengthen the community level human rights protection and promotion architecture. This could encourage human rights reporting, monitoring and collaboration with security agencies and other critical stakeholders to respond to community-level human rights concerns, alongside activities to strengthen traditional justice system.

6. Increasing the orientation and awareness creation on human rights and humanitarian laws and the practices amongst security agencies. There is the need to design an intervention to strengthen behavior, institution, and legislative reforms for human rights protection in humanitarian arena, targeting security agencies. It could require capacity building and continuous orientation, sensitization, and advocacy actions. The understanding and compliance with international human rights ethics, code of conduct and rules of engagement are crucial.

7. Introduce an innovative framework to guide discussions in the dialogue forums. The forums could benefit from the use of participatory tools such as community human rights mapping, social mobility tools, consensus building, assertiveness, problem tree analysis and solutions, action planning and participatory advocacy tools. Addressing critical issues that underline human rights violations, engaging with community and dialogue platforms in a more creative manner for problem identification, discussion, problem-solving, consensus building, action planning, advocacy and participatory monitoring and evaluation are critical to transforming human rights issues in the target communities.

8. Consider a change in the approach to community-level initiatives, such that local leaders are motivated and encouraged to participate more meaningfully in the community dialogue forums. The level of buy-in of traditional authority figures in the human rights programming is not strong enough to guarantee ownership and sustainability. A more vigorous periodic advocacy and sensitization initiatives could be a useful approach to win over more leaders in the communities.

87

ANNEX 1: PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Project performance indicators at baseline and status tableIndicator Type Baseline

August 2016

2017 Target

2017 Results

2018 Target

F Indicators2.1.4-7: Number of human rights defenders trained and supported. 101 n.a 30Male 65 n.a n.aFemale 36 n.a n.a2.3.1-6: Number of groups trained in conflict mediation/resolution skills or consensus-building techniques with USG assistance.

25 n.a 30

2.1.3-17: Number of USG-assisted campaigns and programs to enhance public understanding of judicial independence and accountability.

54 n.a 7

1.6.1-13: Number of people reached through USG-assisted public information campaigns to support peaceful resolution of conflicts.

n.a n.a TBD

2.1.4-7: Number of security actors trained and supported. 25 n.a 30Male 18 n.a n.aFemale 7 n.a n.a2.3.1-7: # of consensus building forums (civil/security sector, civil/political).

148 n.a 30

Other IndicatorsCurrent percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes.Adamawa 94% 94%Borno 100%, 97%,Current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs.Coalition/network of actors working in rights and advocacy 88% 100%Meeting of inter-CSOs working in rights and advocacy 84% 95%

Current number of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.AdamawaBornoFrequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state.Adamawa Monthly MonthlyBorno Monthly MonthlyCurrent level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations.Very cooperative 41.7% 58.3%Cooperative 16.7% 29.2%Fair cooperation 12.5% 8.3%Poor cooperation 4.2% 4.2%No cooperation 8.3% 0.0%Don’t know 16.7% 0.0%Current level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs and Judiciary.CSOs and NHRCVery cooperative 18.8% 9.1%Cooperative 37.5% 72.7%Fair cooperation 6.3% 18.2%Poor cooperation 18.8% 0.0%

88

Project performance indicators at baseline and status tableIndicator Type Baseline

August 2016

2017 Target

2017 Results

2018 Target

No cooperation 18.8% 0.0%CSOs and JudiciaryVery cooperative 23.5% 29.4%Cooperative 23.5% 29.4%Fair cooperation 23.5% 29.4%Poor cooperation 11.8% 5.9%No cooperation 17.6% 5.9%Current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states.Allegations of human rights abuses reported to NHRC by CSOs 36 17

Source: Table created from project quarterly report and baseline evaluation primary data, May 2017.

89

ANNEX 2: SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION AND INSTRUMENTS

Sample Size DeterminationThe sample size estimate for the survey was 384, which was determined using a sample size table, which is based on a sample size formula3, with 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. Knowing that the indicative targeted total population size was 194,500 across Adamawa and Borno States, the sample size estimate was considered adequate. But with a 10% provision for no response and inadequate responses, the total sample size estimate was increased to 422. The sample size allocations were then based on 70% of the total sample size to community members and 30% to other respondents in the surveys (10% each to the security actors, CSOs and staff of participating government agencies). Table 5 presents the sample size allocations to the respondents by male and female gender. For even allocations, the final targeted sample size was 420, with equal number allocated across the communities.

Table 5: Sample size allocationsLocations Community Members Security Actors CSOs Government Agency Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Adamawa State 60 60 120 8 8 16 8 8 16 8 8 16 168Yola North LGAJambutu 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42Damilu 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42

30 30 60 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 84Girei LGABBC 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42Angwan Lambu 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42

30 30 60 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 84

Borno State 90 90 180 12 12 24 12 12 24 12 12 24 252Maiduguri Municipal Council LGAMaisandari 15 15 30 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 42Shehuri North 15 15 30 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 42Gwange III 15 15 30 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 42

45 45 90 6 6 12 6 6 12 6 6 12 86Jere LGAMairi 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42Old Maiduguri 15 15 30 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 42

30 30 60 4 4 8 4 4 8 4 4 8 84MafaZannari 15 15 30 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 42

Grand Total 150 150 300 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 420Source: Sample size allocation for the evaluation, April 2017. Source: Sample size allocation for the evaluation, April 2017. Note: This sample allocation table was used for the two projects evaluated. The same sample and sampling procedures were used to evaluate both projects. The sample size analyzed for this report is less than the total sample size estimates in the table above.

3 Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W. 1970. Determining sample size.

90

Evaluation Instruments

Desk Review Guide

1. Design and implementation of the projects: What are the focus, objectives, and geographical coverage of the projects? What are the project strategies, approaches and methodologies? What are the progress, achievements, and results of the projects implementation?

2. Communication and decision makers: What are the traditional and formal channels of communication about security and human rights

abuses? Who are the decision-makers? Which government agencies exist with a peace building or security mandate that is present in

communities? How effectively do these peace building or security agencies work with communities? To what extent has SFCG´s formal and informal communication been effective in enhancing

security and solutions to human rights abuses?

3. Traditional systems: Are there traditional ways of dealing with human rights abuses as well as EW/ER? Which ones? How do these mechanisms work?  Are there any trends with regards to involvement and gender? How does SFCG´s work on human rights abuses and EW/ER support or hinder these traditional

systems?

4. Relevant literatures: What are the existing facts about human rights abuses and EW/ER mechanisms in the North-East

Nigeria? What are the existing initiatives and opportunities to addressing the challenges of human rights

abuses and EW/ER in the North-East Nigeria?

Types of documents Terms of Reference (TOR) Pilot quarterly project reports Projects activities reports Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEAL) frameworks, Project concept narrative proposals Papers on peace and conflict analysis in Northern Nigeria. Other

91

Qualitative Interview Guides

IntroductionHello, Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening. My name is ……. I am an independent Research Assistant. I am currently carrying out data collection to evaluate two projects: “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria” and “Early Warning/Early Response Mechanisms in Northern Nigeria”. These projects are implemented in Adamawa and Borno States by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an international non-profit organization that promotes peaceful resolution of conflict. SFCG has hired a consultant to evaluate the projects and I am working with the consultant to carry out the survey data collection. And we have selected you to take part in the survey data collection process.

The purpose of the survey is to collect, analyze, and present information related to the projects that currently is not known, or only partly known to SFCG. It shall provide information of the situation in Borno and Adamawa States. Additionally, as the projects are already being implemented, it will also include information on the progress so far made in the implementation of the project activities. I would like to ask you some questions to get your views about human rights issues, early warning and response system and the relationships with the security actors, among the general population and other stakeholders, to understand the type of security actors operating at the community, systems for dealing human rights issues, early warning and early response, channels of communication and decision making, involvement of the community and the media. Some questions would also be asked to get your basic socio-demographic information and your views on the situations in the community.

Confidentiality and Informed ConsentThis survey is confidential and anonymous. Information collected from you will be combined with information collected from others, and at no point would you be required to disclose your name. Findings will be used to help SFCG and its partners to implement the projects better. You are not under any compulsion to participate in this study and there will be no direct or indirect consequences if you decide not to participate. You should not hesitate to say you do not understand a question, or if you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time. I will however be very grateful if you decide to willingly participate. It will take about 30 minutes to complete the interview. Would you be willing to interview? Yes [___] No [___]

Thank you.

Did the respondent consent to participate? 1. Yes [___] Continue 2. No [___] End (Move to another group)

92

Key Informant Interview Guide for SFCG

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of organizationc. Designation of respondentd. Employment status Full-time – 1 Part-time – 2 Volunteer – 3e. Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female– 2f Date and time of interview

No

QUESTION AND PROBES

General QuestionsPartners

1. Who are the current partners that SFCG works with in rights and advocacy and security and peace building? In addition to current partners, who are there other actors and partners that SFCG could be working with, and

is not? Who are the most relevant partners for the current projects by SFCG?

2. What are the existing avenues for collaboration in place for human rights actors or stakeholders working in human rights and accountability in Adamawa and Borno State? Describe any existing network or coalition Who are the members of the network or coalition? How do the network or coalition function? If there is none should one be created and who should be the members?Security Actors in Conflicts Communities

3. Which security actors that SFCG currently engage with in the communities in Adamawa and Borno state? Current formal security actors in the communities Current informal security actors in the communities

4. Where are the security actors present in the communities? Current formal security actors in the communities Current informal security actors in the communities

“Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse by Security Forces”

Human Rights Abuses and Communication5. To what extent has SFCG’s “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse by Security Forces”

addressed human rights abuses or violations in the communities in Adamawa and Borno state? List the forms of human rights abuses or violations addressed Which communities have human rights abuses or violations been addressed in Adamawa and Borno state? To what extent has SFCG’s formal and informal and informal communications been effective in enhancing

security and solutions to human rights abuses or violations? How does SFCG´s work on human rights abuses support or hinder the traditional systems of dealing with

human rights abuses?Media Coverage

93

6. What is the reach of SFCG´s media programs and profiles of the audience? Can the listeners/ viewers relate to and absorb the messages? Have SFCG’s media programs contributed to any change in attitudes and perceptions of citizens and security

personnel regarding human rights violations? What are the strengths and weaknesses in the current programs?

Relationships and Collaborations on Human Rights7 Describe the relationship between the NHRC with relevant CSOs working in rights and advocacy, the Judiciary and

Security in Adamawa and states. Explain if NHRC receive reports of cases of human rights violations from CSOs working in human rights and

advocacy from Adamawa and Borno state? How many reports on an average per month? What actions has the NHRC taken to address the cases of human rights violations reported by CSOs? Explain if there are follow up meetings after report are filled with the CSOs Explain if NHRC meet with CSOs working in rights and advocacy in Adamawa and Borno state?Channels of Communications

8. What programs has SFCG put in place in the communities to create awareness of human rights/judicial process and accountability in Adamawa and Borno state? Who conducts the programs? What are the traditional channels of communication about security and human rights abuses support by SFCG? What are the formal channels of communication about security and human rights abuses use by SFCG? What kind of programs should be done in the communities to promote human rights awareness and judicial

processes, and by who?HR Abuse Indicators

9. What is the current performance level of the project? What is the Current percent of radio listeners who understand judicial accountability processes? What is the current number of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state? What is the frequency of inter-CSO meetings in existence in each state? What is the current level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations? What is the current level of relationship between NHRC, CSOs and Judiciary? What is the current level of relationship between relevant CSOs and other rights and advocacy CSOs? What is the current level of allegations of human rights abuses pursued by the NHRC in target states?

“Early Warning/Early Response Mechanisms in Northern Nigeria”

EW/ER systems9. Which current EW/ER systems are supported by SFCG in the communities in the states?

Since when have they been in place? Which geographic areas do they cover? To what extent are they functional? Who are the actors involved? What types of cases do they report? What are their strengths and weaknesses? How has SFCG been able to leverage on the current EW/ER systems and collaborate with actors involved?EW/ER and Communities

10 What is the communities’ relation and involvement in current EW/ER systems? What type and level of interaction of communities with EW/ER?  What is the gender trend with regards to community involvement in EW/ER? What gaps currently exist that could hinder community involvement in EW/ER? How does SFCG´s work on EW/ER systems support or hinder the traditional systems of EW/ER systems? Which of SFCG current strategies is most effective in supporting community involvement in EW/ER?

END: Thank you for your time.

94

Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic?

95

Key Informant Interview Guide for NHRC

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of organizationc. Designation of respondentd. Employment status Full-time – 1 Part-time – 2 Volunteer – 3e. Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female– 2f Date and time of interview

No

QUESTION AND PROBES

Security Situation1 Which LGAs or communities would you say are more prone to conflict or violence in the state? Why is this so?

Who are the perpetrators of the conflict or violence? Who is/was responsible for stopping the violence or conflict and how?

2 Which security actors are currently involved in peace building in the communities prone to conflicts or violence in the state? Who are the formal security actors and informal security actors Human Rights Abuses

3 Tell us about the cases of human rights violations by security agencies in the state. Which cases of human rights violations are most committed by security agencies? Which security agency is most responsible for human rights violations in the state?

4 How are the cases of human rights violations addressed? Who addresses the cases of human rights violations? Would you consider the measures of addressing human rights violations effective or ineffective and why? What can or should be done differently by the actors addressing human rights violations? What skills do you think will be required by the actors addressing human rights violations to make them

effective in monitoring, documenting and reporting of human rights violations?Relationship and Collaboration on Human Rights

5. What is the current level of relationship and collaboration between the NHRC with relevant CSOs working in rights and advocacy, the Judiciary and security in the states?

6. Tell us about network or coalition or avenues for collaboration between stakeholders working in human rights and accountability in the state. If there is one, who are the members of the network or coalition? How do the network or coalition function? If there is none should one be created and who should be the members?

7 Does the NHRC receive reports of cases of human rights violations from CSOs working in the area of rights and advocacy in the state? If so, how many reports of human rights violation on an average per month? What actions has the NHRC taken to address the cases of human rights violations reported by CSOs in the

state? Explain if there are follow up meetings after report are made by relevant CSOs in the state Does NHRC meet with relevant CSOs working in rights and advocacy in the state?

8. Tell us about the programs put in place in the communities to create awareness of human rights/judicial process and accountability in the state. Who conducts the programs? What kind of programs should be put in place in the communities in the state to promote human rights

awareness and judicial processes? By who?

END: Thank you for your time.

96

Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic? Key Informant Interview Guide for Judiciary

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of organizationc. Designation of respondentd. Employment status Full-time – 1 Part-time – 2 Volunteer – 3e. Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female– 2f Date and Time of interview

No

QUESTION AND PROBES

Security Situation1 Which LGAs or communities would you say are more prone to conflict or violence in the state? Why is this so?

Who are the perpetrators of the conflict or violence? Who is/was responsible for stopping the violence or conflict and how?

2 Which security actors are currently involved in peace building in the communities prone to conflicts or violence in the state? Formal security actors Informal security actors Human Rights Abuses

3 Tell us about the cases of human rights violations by security agencies in the state. Which cases of human rights violations are most committed by security agencies? Which security agency is most responsible for human rights violations in the state?

4 How are the cases of human rights violations addressed? Who addresses the cases of human rights violations? Would you consider the measures of addressing human rights violations effective or ineffective and why? What can or should be done differently by the actors addressing human rights violations? What skills do you think will be required by the actors addressing human rights violations to make them

effective in monitoring, documenting and reporting of human rights violations?Relationship and Collaboration on Human Rights

5. What is the current level of relationship and collaboration between the Judiciary with relevant CSOs working in rights and advocacy, the NHRC and security in the states?

6. Tell us about the network or coalition or avenues for collaboration between stakeholders working in human rights and accountability in the state. Who are the members of the network or coalition? How do the network or coalition function? If there is none, should one be created? Who should be the members?

7. Tell us about the programs you know are in place in the communities to create awareness of human rights/judicial process and accountability in the state. Who conducts the programs? What kind of programs should be put in place in the communities in the state to promote human rights

awareness and judicial processes? By who?

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic?

97

98

Key Informant Interview Guide for Media

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of organizationc. Designation of respondentd. Employment status Full-time – 1 Part-time – 2 Volunteer – 3e. Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female– 2f Date and time of interview

No

QUESTION AND PROBES

Human Rights Abuses1 Tell us about the media program that promote human rights awareness in the state.

What is the content and focus of the media program? Which stations airs the media program in the state? What time is the program aired in the state? Who are the producers of the media program?

2 Tell us about the cases of human rights violations reported in the media. Which cases of human rights violations are most common in the state? Who are most affected in the community by human rights violations in the state? Which cases of human rights violations are most committed by security agencies? Which security agency is most responsible for human rights violations in the state?

3 What are the measures in place to address cases of human rights violations in the state and by whom? Tell us about a network or coalition or avenues for collaboration by human rights actors or stakeholders

working in human rights and accountability in the state? Who are the members of the network or coalition? How do the network or coalition function? If there is none should one be created? Who should be the members?Early Warning/Early Response

4. Tell us about media role in early warning and response system for conflict and violence in the state. How has the media been able to identify early warning signs that can cause violence? How has the media been able to analyze and respond to early warning signs that can cause violence? How can the media better identify, analyze and respond to early warning signs that can cause violence?

5. Tell us about the collaboration with media and other stakeholders to address early warnings signs that can cause violence in the state. How does the collaboration functions in identifying, analyzing, and responding to EWS that can cause

violence? How many networks exist in the communities or state that you are aware of? If there is no network, how can one be created in the state Who should be part of the network?

6. What programs (if any) on radio help dispel rumors which can lead to violence in the state? Describe the target and reach SFCG’s media program in the state Explain the relevance and appropriateness of messages in terms of awareness creation? Contribution to change in attitudes and perceptions of citizens and security personnel regarding human rights

violations and security? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the media programs?

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic?

99

In-Depth Interview Guide for Leaders in the Community

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of LGA Yola North – 1 Girei – 2 MMC – 3 Jere – 4 Mafa – 5 c. Name of communityd. Position of respondent in the communitye. Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female– 2f. Age of respondentg Date and time of interview

A. Security and Human Rights Context1. How would you describe the Security Situation in your community in general?

a. How have the security situation specifically affected your community?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

c. What do you consider the major factors/causes or drivers of the present state of security?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

e. How have the Security situation changed in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

g. What do you think have been the factors responsible for the change in the security situation?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

i. What can you say about the role of SFCG in changing the security situation?

Answers:

Interesting quote:k. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:

m. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you consider the most beneficial to changing the security situation in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

2. How would you describe the Human Rights situation in your community?

a. Which are the main Human Rights problems you have observed in your community, in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

c. What do you think are the main factors/causes or drivers of Answers:

100

the Human Rights problems in your community?Interesting quote:

e. How have things changed regarding the Human Rights problems in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:g. What have been the major factors that contributed to the

change in the Human Rights situation in your communities? Answers:

Interesting quote:i. What can you say about the role of SFCG in changing the

Human Rights situation in your community? Answers:

Interesting quote:k. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:m. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you

consider the most beneficial to changing the Human Rights situation in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

B. Human Right Context and Security Agencies1. What would you like to say about the role of Security Agencies in the Human Rights situation in your community? (Different types of Security Agencies currently operating in the Community)a. How have the security agencies contributed to and/or

reduced the Human Rights problems in your community? (Roles of each of the security agencies mentioned)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

c. What are the specific Human Rights related problems your community have encountered with Security Agencies in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

e. Which segment of the population in your community have been affected the most by the Human Rights issues associated with Security Agencies? why is this so? (How are women and girls specifically affected?)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

g. Describe the mechanisms by which Human Rights problems related to the Security Agencies are addressed in your community? (Who are the people involved in the community mechanism and what are their specific roles?)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

i. How effective are these mechanisms? And what challenges exist?

Answers:

Interesting quote:k. What can you say about SFCG’s program contribution to

addressing the Human Rights problems related with Security Agencies in your community?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

m. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:

o. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you consider the most beneficial to changing the Human Rights problems specifically related to Security Agencies in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

p. What are your suggestions for improving SFCG’s Answers:

101

programming in the area of Human Rights promotion and protection in your community? Interesting quote:

C. Early Warning and Early Response Mechanisms (Community)1. How would you describe the Conflict Situation in your community in the last 12 months? (Boko Haram/Inter-communal Crises and other crises with herdsmen or tribal)

a. How have conflicts specifically affected your community? (Different types and timelines of conflicts-external/internal)

Answers:Interesting quote:

c. What do you consider the major factors/causes or drivers of conflict in your community? (Drivers of external and internal conflicts for each type of conflict mentioned)

Answers:Interesting quote:

e. Who are the most affected by conflicts in your community? and Why? [Different impact on men/women/girls/children and youths (males)]

Answers:Interesting quote:

g. What are the mechanisms for Conflict containment and resolutions in your community? (Who is involved and the processes for conflict risk detection/reporting/monitoring/ resolution/response communication and monitoring)

Answers:Risk detection/AwarenessRisk reporting/Communication channelsRisk Monitoring/AnalysisRisk response/resolution communicationRisk response planning/implementation and monitoringInteresting quote:

n. What are the other stakeholders outside your community that this mechanism collaborates with? [Explore the characteristics and roles of these external linkages]

Answers:Interesting quote:

p. How effective is this community conflict containment and resolution system? [Give concrete examples and the weaknesses or challenges).

Answers:Interesting quote:

r. What can you say about SFCG interventions on Conflict resolution and Peace promotion in your community? (Awareness of project interventions, community participation and perspectives on effectiveness)

Answers:

s. In what ways is SFCG project intervention in your community linked to and supportive of the existing community-based conflict resolution and peace building systems?

Interesting quote:

t. What have been the major changes/benefits to the community in terms of the Conflict situation since the SFCG program started?

Frequency of conflictsPrompt detection of conflict/security risksPrompt reporting Improved MonitoringPrompt response feedbackPrompt Response ActionInteresting quote:

aa. What SFCG interventions do you think contributed the most to this change? and What did not benefit the community?

Answers:Interesting quote:

cc. What are your suggestions for improving SFCG conflict resolution and peace building programming in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:Interesting quote:

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic?

102

Focus Group Discussion Guide for Community Members and Groups

No

Question Filters Answers and Coding

Demographicsa. State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2b. Name of LGA Yola North – 1 Girei – 2 MMC – 3 Jere – 4 Mafa – 5 c. Name of communityd. Name of Group/Memberse. Sex of participants Male – 1 Female– 2f. Total number of participantsg Age rangeh Date and time of discussion

A. Security and Human Rights Context1. How would you describe the Security Situation in your community in general?

n. How have the security situation specifically affected your community?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

p. What do you consider the major factors/causes or drivers of the present state of security?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

r. How have the Security situation changed in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

t. What do you think have been the factors responsible for the change in the security situation?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

v. What can you say about the role of SFCG in changing the security situation?

Answers:

Interesting quote:x. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:

z. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you consider the most beneficial to changing the security situation in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

2. How would you describe the Human Rights situation in your community?

n. Which are the main Human Rights problems you have observed in your community, in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

p. What do you think are the main factors/causes or drivers of Answers:

103

the Human Rights problems in your community? Interesting quote:

r. How have things changed regarding the Human Rights problems in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:t. What have been the major factors that contributed to the

change in the Human Rights situation in your communities? Answers:

Interesting quote:v. What can you say about the role of SFCG in changing the

Human Rights situation in your community? Answers:

Interesting quote:x. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:z. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you

consider the most beneficial to changing the Human Rights situation in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

B. Human Right Context and Security Agencies1. What would you like to say about the role of Security Agencies in the Human Rights situation in your community? (Different types of Security Agencies currently operating in the Community)q. How have the security agencies contributed to and/or

reduced the Human Rights problems in your community? (Roles of each of the security agencies mentioned)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

s. What are the specific Human Rights related problems your community have encountered with Security Agencies in the last 12 months?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

u. Which segment of the population in your community have been affected the most by the Human Rights issues associated with Security Agencies? why is this so? (How are women and girls specifically affected?)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

w. Describe the mechanisms by which Human Rights problems related to the Security Agencies are addressed in your community? (Who are the people involved in the community mechanism and what are their specific roles?)

Answers:

Interesting quote:

y. How effective are these mechanisms? And what challenges exist?

Answers:

Interesting quote:aa. What can you say about SFCG’s program contribution to

addressing the Human Rights problems related with Security Agencies in your community?

Answers:

Interesting quote:

cc. Have the SFCG program been effective? How? Answers:

Interesting quote:

ee. Which of the interventions implemented by SFCG do you consider the most beneficial to changing the Human Rights problems specifically related to Security Agencies in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:

Interesting quote:

ff. What are your suggestions for improving SFCG’s programming in the area of Human Rights promotion and

Answers:

104

protection in your community? Interesting quote:

C. Early Warning and Early Response Mechanisms (Community)1. How would you describe the Conflict Situation in your community in the last 12 months? (Boko Haram/Inter-communal Crises and other crises with herdsmen or tribal)

dd. How have conflicts specifically affected your community? (Different types and timelines of conflicts-external/internal)

Answers:Interesting quote:

ff. What do you consider the major factors/causes or drivers of conflict in your community? (Drivers of external and internal conflicts for each type of conflict mentioned)

Answers:Interesting quote:

hh. Who are the most affected by conflicts in your community? and Why? [Different impact on men/women/girls/children and youths (males)]

Answers:Interesting quote:

jj. What are the mechanisms for Conflict containment and resolutions in your community? (Who is involved and the processes for conflict risk detection/reporting/monitoring/ resolution/response communication and monitoring)

Answers:Risk detection/AwarenessRisk reporting/Communication channelsRisk Monitoring/AnalysisRisk response/resolution communicationRisk response planning/implementation and monitoringInteresting quote:

qq. What are the other stakeholders outside your community that this mechanism collaborates with? [Explore the characteristics and roles of these external linkages]

Answers:Interesting quote:

ss. How effective is this community conflict containment and resolution system? [Give concrete examples and the weaknesses or challenges).

Answers:Interesting quote:

uu. What can you say about SFCG interventions on Conflict resolution and Peace promotion in your community? (Awareness of project interventions, community participation and perspectives on effectiveness)

Answers:

vv. In what ways is SFCG project intervention in your community linked to and supportive of the existing community-based conflict resolution and peace building systems?

Interesting quote:

ww.What have been the major changes/benefits to the community in terms of the Conflict situation since the SFCG program started?

Frequency of conflictsPrompt detection of conflict/security risksPrompt reporting Improved MonitoringPrompt response feedbackPrompt Response ActionInteresting quote:

ddd.What SFCG interventions do you think contributed the most to this change? and What did not benefit the community?

Answers:Interesting quote:

fff. What are your suggestions for improving SFCG conflict resolution and peace building programming in your community? (Give reasons).

Answers:Interesting quote:

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic? Questionnaire for Security Actors Introduction

105

Hello, Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening. My name is ……. I am an independent Research Assistant. I am currently carrying out data collection to evaluate two projects: “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria” and “Early Warning/Early Response Mechanisms in Northern Nigeria”. These projects are implemented in Adamawa and Borno States by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an international non-profit organization that promotes peaceful resolution of conflict. SFCG has hired a consultant to evaluate the projects and I am working with the consultant to carry out the survey data collection. And we have selected you to take part in the survey data collection process.

The purpose of the survey is to collect, analyze, and present information related to the projects that currently is not known, or only partly known to SFCG. It shall provide information of the situation in Borno and Adamawa States. Additionally, as the projects are already being implemented, it will also include information on the progress so far made in the implementation of the project activities. I would like to ask you some questions to get your views about human rights issues, early warning and response system and the relationships with the security actors, among the general population and other stakeholders, to understand the type of security actors operating at the community, systems for dealing human rights issues, early warning and early response, channels of communication and decision making, involvement of the community and the media. Some questions would also be asked to get your basic socio-demographic information and your views on the situations in the community.

Confidentiality and Informed ConsentThis survey is confidential and anonymous. Information collected from you will be combined with information collected from others, and at no point would you be required to disclose your name. Findings will be used to help SFCG and its partners to implement the projects better. You are not under any compulsion to participate in this study and there will be no direct or indirect consequences if you decide not to participate. You should not hesitate to say you do not understand a question, or if you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time. I will however be very grateful if you decide to willingly participate. It will take about 30 minutes to complete the interview. Would you be willing to interview? Yes [___] No [___]

Thank you.

Did the respondent consent to participate? 1. Yes [___] Continue 2. No [___] End (Move to another group)

Note: Please, Interviewer: Fill out 100–108 before the interview proper. Supervisor: Fill 109–111 after review of questionnaire. Data entry staff: Fill out 112 –114 after entry the answers into the database.

Module 1: Survey Summary and IdentificationNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Question Filters Answers and Coding100 Name of

Interviewer106 Community/village name

101 Date of interview ______/_______ /______ 107 Local Government Area102 Interview start time 108 State Adamawa – 1 Borno – 2103 Interview end time 109 Name of supervisor104 Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female – 2 110 Complete questionnaire Yes – 1 No – 2105 Security force The Military 1 111 Date of review _____/______

/_____The Police 2 112 Name of data entry staffCivil Defense Corps 3 113 Data entry date _____/______

/_____Local Vigilantes (Civilian 4 114 Data entry number

106

JTF)Other (specify):

Module 2: DemographicsNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip200 Language used201 Tribe/Ethnicity202 Religion

Please cycle/tick one answer

Christianity 1Islam 2Traditional 3None 4Other (specify):

203 Marital status

Please cycle/tick one answer

Married (monogamous) 1Married (polygamous 2Informal union 3Divorced 4Separated 5Widowed 6Never married 7

204 Age as at your last birthday Record the number of years:205 Highest educational level completed

Please cycle/tick one answer

No qualification 1Arabic education 2Islamiya/Qur’anic 3Primary school certificate 4SSCE/WAEC 5OND/NCE 6HND/BSc 7Postgraduate certificate/degree 8Other (specify):

206 Position/category of rank in the force

Please cycle/tick one answer

No Ranking 1Flat Officer/No Rank or its Equivalent 21-2 stripe Officer or its Equivalent 3Sergeant Officer or its Equivalent 4Inspector or its Equivalent 5Above Inspector or its Equivalent 6Captain/Senior Officer or its Equivalent 7Most Senior Officer 8Other (specify):

Module 3: Profile of Security ActorsNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip300 How long have you worked here, in the

community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Less than 1 month 11 – 3 months 24 – 6 months 37 – 9 months 4One year 5One year plus – 3 years 6More than 3 years 7

301 Besides your security force, which other security agencies work in the community? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9

months Cycle/tick Yes/No under a & b for 1-4

1 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Civil Defense Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 2

107

respectively

4 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 Other (specify):

302 Where does the security forces often performed their operations in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No for 1-5 respectively

1 Road blocks Yes – 1 No – 22 Mosque, Church, Government Office, etc. Yes – 1 No – 23 Security Agents office station Yes – 1 No – 24 Market place Yes – 1 No – 25 Anywhere of suspected violence Yes – 1 No – 26 Other (specify):

303 Do the security forces engage with the CSO/NGO in the community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DK307304 If yes to 303, which CSO/NGO is the security

forces engaging with in the community?Write the answer

305 How do the security forces and CSO/NGO engage one and another in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Sharing information on security 1Periodic meeting on security and peace building 2Collaboration for solutions to human rights abuses/violation

3

Working together for early warning and response system

4

Training on human rights protection 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

306 What is your most preferred way to engage with CSO/NGO and the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Sharing information on security 1Periodic meeting on security and peace building 2Collaboration for solutions to human rights abuses/violation

3

Working together for early warning and response system

4

Training on human rights protection 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

307 Does the security actors and the community relate to one another?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK310

308 If yes to 307, how do the security actors and community relate to one and another?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Sharing information on security 1Periodic meeting on security and peace building 2Collaboration for solutions to human rights abuses/violation

3

Working together for early warning and response system

4

Training on human rights protection 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

309 What is the current level of collaboration and work between security forces and the community? 

Please cycle/tick one answer

Very low 1Low 2Medium 3High 4Very high 5Don’t Know 98

310 What is your current level of trust in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Very low 1Low 2Medium 3High 4Very high 5

108

Don’t Know 98

109

Module 4: Human Rights AbusesNo Question Filter Answers and Coding Skip400 From your experience, would you say human rights abuses/violations take place in the community

…a During the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK408b Before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK408

401 If yes to 400, what kind of human rights abuse/violation most often took place in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-6 respectively

1 Rape Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Extra judicial killings Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Torture Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Arbitrary detention Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Extortion Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Harassment Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Other (specify):

402 Where does the human rights abuse/violation most take place?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-7 respectively

1 Security Agents office station Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Important building (Mosque, Church, Govt Office,

etc.) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

3 Road blocks Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 IDP Camps and settlements Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Host community settlements Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Market place Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Anywhere of suspected violence attack Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 Other (specify):

403 How would you rate the extent to which human rights abuses/ violations take place in the community? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9

months Please cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very low 1 1Low 2 2Medium 3 3High 4 4Very high 5 5Don’t Know 98 98

404 In your opinion, who would you say is most responsible for human rights abuses in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-9 respectively

1 Men Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Women Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Youth Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Civil Defense Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 Civil Society Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 Other (specify):405 Who is most affected in the community by human

rights abuses/violations?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Men 1Women 2Youth 3Children 4Disabled 5Women and Children 6Everyone 7Don’t know 98Other (specify):

110

406 Which community groups are most affected by human rights abuses/violations?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Christian communities 1Muslim communities 2Both communities 3Don’t know 98Other (specify):

407 Which community settlement is most affected by human rights abuses/violations?

Please cycle/tick one answer

IDP communities 1Host communities 2Both community settlements 3Don’t know 98Other (specify):

408 Do you know of programs addressing security and human rights abuses/violations in the community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK412

409 If yes to 408, what action is most taken to address security and human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-6 respectively

1 Documentation of cases Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Case report to security personnel Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Case report to community/traditional leader Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Case report to religious leader Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Court case Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Nothing Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Other (specify):

410 Who takes actions to address security and human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick one (most appropriate)

The Abused 1Family members 2Community & Religious leaders 3Judiciary 4The Police 5The Military 6Civil Defense Corps 7Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) 8CSO/NGO 9Media 10Combined actions (specify who): 11Don’t know 98Other (specify):

411 How effective are the actions taken for security and solutions to human rights abuses/violation? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9

monthsPlease cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very effective 1 1Effective 2 2Okay 3 3Not effective 4 4Very ineffective 5 5Don’t know 98 98

412 In your view, would you agree or disagree that security personnel respect human rights in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Strongly agree 1Agree 2Neither agree nor disagree 3Disagree 4Strongly disagree 5Don’t know 98

413 Do you know where to find reliable information on human rights abuse/violation in the community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK

500

111

414 If yes to 413, how can you get information on human rights abuse/violations in the community?

a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 monthsPlease cycle/tick Yes/No for 1-12 respectively

1 Neighbor/close friend Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 Community leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 24 Market places Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 Newspaper Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 26 Television (TV) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 27 Radio Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 28 Internet on phone/other internet access Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 29 CBO/NGO/CSO Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 210 Text message Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 211 Joints/Viewing Center Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 212 Local Government Office/Official Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 213 Other (specify under each timeline):415 What action would you take, if you witness a

case of human rights abuse/violation in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Document the case 1Report the case 2Nothing 3Don’t know 98Other (specify):

Module 5: Media Consumption

No Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip500 Do you listen to radio at least once per week? Yes – 1 No – 2 2 End501 If yes to 500, when do you listen more to the

radio?Please cycle/tick one

(1) Weekdays 1(2) Weekends 2(3) Every day 3

502 What hours do you listen most?

Please cycle/tick one answer

5-7 am 17-9am 29-12 am 312-1pm 41-6pm 56-9pm 69-12pm 7Other (specify):

503 Write the name of the radio station you prefer to listen to the most

504 Which type (s) of radio programs do you like? Please cycle/tick Yes/No for 1-6 respectively

1 News Yes – 1 No – 22 Talk Shows Yes – 1 No – 23 Request show (Phone-in) Yes – 1 No – 24 Drama Yes – 1 No – 25 Music Yes – 1 No – 26 Sports Yes – 1 No – 27 Other (specify):

505 Which language would you like to hear more on the radio?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Hausa 1English 2Kanuri 3Fulfude 4Other (specify):

112

506 Are there programs for security and human rights abuses or violations awareness on the radio?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK512

507 How often do you listen to such programs on radio in a month?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Daily 11-2 times a week 22 times per month 3Once a month 4Less than once a month 5

508 How long have you been listening to programs for security and human rights abuses or violations awareness on radio?

1–9 months as at today 1 Cycle/tick one answer

More than 9 months as at today 2Don’t know 98

509 How would you rate the programs? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months

Excellent 1 1 1 510Very good 2 2 2 510Good 3 3 3 510Okay 4 4 4 512Not so good 5 5 5 511Bad 6 6 6 511Don’t know 98 98 98 512

510 Why do you think the program is excellent, very good, or good? 510 512

511 Why do you think the program is bad or not so good? 511 512

512 Are there programs on radio for promoting judicial accountability process awareness? a Last 1–9 months Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DKEndb Before last 9 months Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DKEnd513 If yes to 512, would you say you understand

the judicial accountability process? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98Cycle/tick one answer

END: Thank you for your time. Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the topic above?

113

Questionnaire for CSOsIntroductionHello, Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening. My name is ……. I am an independent Research Assistant. I am currently carrying out data collection to evaluate two projects: “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria” and “Early Warning/Early Response Mechanisms in Northern Nigeria”. These projects are implemented in Adamawa and Borno States by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an international non-profit organization that promotes peaceful resolution of conflict. SFCG has hired a consultant to evaluate the projects and I am working with the consultant to carry out the survey data collection. And we have selected you to take part in the survey data collection process.

The purpose of the survey is to collect, analyze, and present information related to the projects that currently is not known, or only partly known to SFCG. It shall provide information of the situation in Borno and Adamawa States. Additionally, as the projects are already being implemented, it will also include information on the progress so far made in the implementation of the project activities. I would like to ask you some questions to get your views about human rights issues, early warning and response system and the relationships with the security actors, among the general population and other stakeholders, to understand the type of security actors operating at the community, systems for dealing human rights issues, early warning and early response, channels of communication and decision making, involvement of the community and the media. Some questions would also be asked to get your basic socio-demographic information and your views on the situations in the community.

Confidentiality and Informed ConsentThis survey is confidential and anonymous. Information collected from you will be combined with information collected from others, and at no point would you be required to disclose your name. Findings will be used to help SFCG and its partners to implement the projects better. You are not under any compulsion to participate in this study and there will be no direct or indirect consequences if you decide not to participate. You should not hesitate to say you do not understand a question, or if you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time. I will however be very grateful if you decide to willingly participate. It will take about 30 minutes to complete the interview. Would you be willing to interview? Yes [___] No [___]

Thank you.

Did the respondent consent to participate? 1. Yes [___] Continue 2. No [___] End (Move to another group)

Note: Please, Interviewer: Fill out 100–107 before the interview proper. Supervisor: Fill 108–110 after review of questionnaire. Data entry staff: Fill out 111 –113 after entry the answers into the database

Module 1: Survey Summary and IdentificationNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Question Filters Answers and Coding100 Name of Interviewer 107 State Adamawa – 1 Borno –

2101 Date of interview ______/_______

/______108 Name of supervisor

102 Interview start time 109 Complete questionnaire

Yes – 1 No – 2

103 Interview end time 110 Date of review _____/______ /_____104 Sex of respondent Male – 1 Female – 2 111 Name of data entry

staff

114

105 Community/village name

112 Data entry date _____/______ /_____

106 Local Government Area 113 Data entry numberModule 2: Collaboration on Human Rights, Security and Peace BuildingNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip200 Name of Civil Society Organization (CSO)?201 Type of CSO?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Community Based Organization

1

Non-Governmental Organization

2

Faith Based Organization (FBO)

3

Other (specify):202 Legal status of CSO?

Please cycle/tick one answer

CAC Registration 1State Registration 2Local Government Registration

3

Other (specify): 4203 Date of registration ______/_______ /______204 Designation of respondent in the CSO?

205 Employment status of respondent?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Full-time 1Part-time 2Volunteer 3

206 What is the primary focus of your organization?1 Humanitarian interventions Yes – 1 No – 22 Peace building and security Yes – 1 No – 23 Community development Yes – 1 No – 24 Human rights and advocacy Yes – 1 No – 25 Other (specify):

207

Does your organization work in rights and advocacy or security and peace building? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK300

208

If yes to 207, how many years have your organization worked in human rights and advocacy or security and peace building in the North-East Nigeria?

Please cycle/tick one answer

None 1Less than one year 21 – 2 years 32 years plus – 5 years 4More than 5 years 5Don’t know 98

209

Is your organization involved with other CSOs in rights and advocacy or security and peace building work?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK211

210

List the names of the major CSOs your organization is involved with in rights and advocacy or security and peace building work

Please write the answer

a.

Please write the answers

b.c.d.e.DK 98

211 Is there a coalition or network of actors working in rights and advocacy or security and peace building in the State?

a In the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98b Before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

212 Is there any existing meeting of inter-CSOs working in rights and advocacy or security and peace building in the state?

115

a In the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK215b Before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK215

213 If yes to 212, how often do the inter-CSO meeting hold?

a. Last 1-9 months

b. Before the last 9 months Please

cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Biweekly 1 1Monthly 2 2Quarterly 3 3Yearly 4 4Never 5 5Don’t know 98 98Other (specify):

214 How would you rate the level of inter-CSO meetings and collaborations in the State?

a. Last 1-9 months

b. Before the last 9 months Please

cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very cooperative 1 1Cooperative 2 2Fair cooperation 3 3Poor cooperation 4 4No cooperation 5 5Don’t know 98 98

215 Would you like to see increased collaboration between your organization and other CSOs? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK217

216 If yes to 215, in what ways would you like to see increased collaboration between your organization and other CSOs in rights and advocacy work?

Networking & Coalitions 1Please cycle/tick one answer

Support in programming 2Information sharing 3Coordination 4Other (specify):

217 What skill do you think is most important and required for actors/CSOs working on rights and advocacy?

Write the answer

218 Does your organization, NHRC and Judiciary relate to one another?a During the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK300b Before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK300

219 If yes to 218, have you ever filed a report to the NHRC? Yes – 1 No – 2 2 222

220 If yes to 219, how many reports did you file on average in a month?a During the last 1-9 months?b Before the last 9 months?

221 What kinds of actions have the NHRC taken on the reports you filed?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Mediate 1Report to appropriate channel

2

Observe 3Report to Legal Aid 4Gave advice 5Other (specify):

222 How would you describe the relationship between your organization and the NHRC?

a. Last 1-9 months

b. Before the last 9 months Please

cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very cooperative 1 1Cooperative 2 2Fair cooperation 3 3Poor cooperation 4 4No cooperation 5 5Don’t know 98 98

223 How would you describe the relationship between a. Last 1-9 b. Before the

116

your organization and the judiciary? months last 9 months Please cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very cooperative 1 1Cooperative 2 2Fair cooperation 3 3Poor cooperation 4 4No cooperation 5 5Don’t know 98 98

224 Would you like to see increased collaboration between your organization, the NHRC and the Judiciary?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98Cycle/tick one answer

117

Module 3: Involvement with Early Warning and Early Response SystemNo Question Filter Answers and Coding Skip300 Does your organization get conflicts, violence, or security

warning information in the communities? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DKEnd

301 Did your organization receive conflicts, violence, or security warning information…a during the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DKEndb before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DKEnd302 If yes to 301, how many conflicts, violence, or security

warning information was received…a. in the last 1-9

months?b. before the last 9

months?Write the number of cases or 0 under a & b for 1-5 respectively

1 Boko Haram Attack2 Disasters (Flood/Drought)3 Intercommunal/other Religious crises4 Other (specify under each timeline)5 Total

303 Did your organization analyze the conflicts, violence, or security warning information that was received? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK308

304 Who were involved with your organization in the analysis of the conflicts, violence, or security warning information? Please

cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-12 respectively

1 Security actors Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Other CSOs including CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Peace Committee Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Appointed Individuals Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 EW/ER Network members Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 LG Officials Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 UN Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 WANEP/ECOWAS Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9812 INGOs Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9813 Other (specify):305 Did your organization respond to the conflicts, violence,

or security warning information? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK308

306 How was the decision made to respond to the conflicts, violence, or security warning information?

Based on the analysis of information 1 Please cycle/tick one answer

Instructed by superior organization 2Other (specify):

307 Who were involved with your organization in the response to the conflicts, violence, or security warning information? Please

cycle/tick Yes/No for 1-12 respectively

1 Security actors Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 CSOs including CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Peace Committee Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Appointed Individuals Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 EW/ER Network members Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 LG Officials Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 UN Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 WANEP/ECOWAS Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9812 INGOs Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9813 Other (specify):

118

308 What mechanisms are used by your organization to get reliable conflicts, violence, or security warning information in the communities?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No under a & b for 1–15 respectively

Channels of Information a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months1 Neighbor or close friend Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 Community leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 24 Appointed individual/group Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 Newspaper Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 26 Television (TV) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 27 Radio Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 28 Internet on phone or other internet access Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 29 CSO/CBO/FBO/NGO Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 210 Text message Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 211 Government Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 212 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 213 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 214 Local Government Office/Official Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 215 Private organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 216 Other (specify under each timeline):309 What mechanisms are used by your organization to give alerts on conflicts, violence, or security

warning information in the communities?Please cycle/tick Yes/No under a & b for 1–15 respectively

Channels of Communication a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months1 Neighbor or close friend Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 Community leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 24 Appointed individual/group Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 Newspaper Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 26 Television (TV) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 27 Radio Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 28 Internet on phone or other internet access Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 29 CSO/CBO/FBO/NGO Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 210 Text message Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 211 Government Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 212 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 213 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 214 Local Government Office/Official Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 215 Private organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 216 Other (specify under each timeline):310 How effective are the mechanisms use by your organization for

conflicts, violence or security warning information and response?

a. Last 1-9 months

b. Before last 9 months

Please cycle one answer under a & b respectively

Very effective 1 1Effective 2 2Okay 3 3Not effective 4 4Very ineffective 5 5Don’t Know 98 98

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the topic above?

119

Questionnaire for Community Members IntroductionHello, Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening. My name is … I am an independent Research Assistant. I am currently carrying out data collection to evaluate two projects: “Expanding Initiatives to Reduce Human Rights Abuse in Northern Nigeria” and “Early Warning/Early Response Mechanisms in Northern Nigeria”. These projects are implemented in Adamawa and Borno States by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), an international non-profit organization that promotes peaceful resolution of conflict. SFCG has hired a consultant to evaluate the projects and I am working with the consultant to carry out the survey data collection. And we have selected you to take part in the survey data collection process.

The purpose of the survey is to collect, analyze, and present information related to the projects that currently is not known, or only partly known to SFCG. It shall provide information of the situation in Borno and Adamawa States. Additionally, as the projects are already being implemented, it will also include information on the progress so far made in the implementation of the project activities. I would like to ask you some questions to get your views about human rights issues, early warning and response system and the relationships with the security actors, among the general population and other stakeholders, to understand the type of security actors operating at the community, systems for dealing human rights issues, early warning and early response, channels of communication and decision making, involvement of the community and the media. Some questions would also be asked to get your basic socio-demographic information and your views on the situations in the community.

Confidentiality and Informed ConsentThis survey is confidential and anonymous. Information collected from you will be combined with information collected from others, and at no point would you be required to disclose your name. Findings will be used to help SFCG and its partners to implement the projects better. You are not under any compulsion to participate in this study and there will be no direct or indirect consequences if you decide not to participate. You should not hesitate to say you do not understand a question, or if you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time. I will however be very grateful if you decide to willingly participate. It will take about 30 to 60 minutes to complete the interview. Would you be willing to interview? Yes [___] No [___]

Thank you.

Did the respondent consent to participate? 1. Yes [___] Continue 2. No [___] End (Move to another respondent)

Note: Please, Interviewer: Fill out 100–108 before the interview proper. Supervisor: Fill 109–111 after review of questionnaire. Data entry staff: Fill out 112 –114 after entry the answers into the database

Module 1: Survey Summary and Identification

No Question Filters Answers and Coding Question Filters Answers and Coding100 Interviewer’s name 108 State Adamawa – 1 Borno –

2101 Date of interview ______/_______

/______109 Name of supervisor

102 Interview start time 110 Complete questionnaire

Yes – 1 No – 2

103 Interview end time 111 Date of review _____/______ /______104 Gender/Sex Male – 1 Female –

2112 Name of data entry

staff105 Person with disability Yes – 1 No – 2 113 Data entry date _____/______ /_____

120

106 Community/village name

114 Data entry number

107 Local Government Area

Yola North – 1 Girei – 2 MMC – 3 Jere – 4 Mafa – 5

Module 2: DemographicsNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip200 Language used201 Displacement status Displaced person –

1Non-Displaced person – 2

2 203

202 If displaced, which place you where before?

203 How long have you lived here, in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Less than one year 11–2 years 22 years plus – 5 years 35 years plus – 10 years 4More than 10 years 5

204 Tribe/Ethnicity205 Religion

Please cycle/tick one answer

Christianity 1Islam 2Traditional 3None 4Other (specify):

206 Marital status

Please cycle/tick one answer

Married (monogamous) 1Married (polygamous 2Informal union 3Divorced 4Separated 5Widowed 6Never married 7

207 Age as at your last birthday Record the number of years:208 Highest educational level completed

Please cycle/tick one answer

No qualification 1Arabic education 2Islamiya/Qur’anic 3Primary school certificate 4SSCE/WAEC 5OND/NCE 6HND/BSc 7Postgraduate certificate/degree 8Other (specify):

209 Have you worked in the last 12 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 2 300210 If yes, what was your work status? Full-time work – 1 Part-time work – 2211 What is your

major occupation?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Student/Apprentice 1Government worker (Public/Civil servant, Teacher, Nurse, etc.) 2Private sector employee (Company, Bank, etc.) 3Development worker (CSO/NGO/Agency employee) 4Self-employed (Professional, consultant, artisan, etc.) 5Self-employed (Trader, Small business operator, Farmer, Herder etc.)

6

Security services (Police, Military, Civil defense, Private guards, etc.)

7

Transport (Motor driver/Motoycle rider) 8

121

Volunteer/ House help 9Daily labourer, Hunting 10Other (specify):

122

Module 3: Profile of Security ActorsNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip300 Who are the security actors involved in

peace building in your community? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK under a & b for 1–5 respectively

1 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

2 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

3 Civil Defense Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

4 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

5 DSS Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

6 Other (specify under each timeline):301 Where are the security actors currently present in the community?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–5 respectively

1 Road blocks Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Mosque, Church, and Government

Offices.Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

3 Office station Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Market place Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Everywhere of suspected violence Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Other (specify):

302 Does the security actors and community relate to one another? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DK306303 If yes to 302, how do the security actors and community relate to one and another?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–5 respectively

1 Sharing information on security Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Periodic meeting on security and peace building Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Collaboration for solutions to human rights

abuses/violationYes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

4 Working together for early warning and response system

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

5 Training on human rights protection Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Other (specify):

304 How effective is the security actors working with the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Very effective 1Effective 2Okay 3Not effective 4Very ineffective 5Don’t Know 98

305 How would you rate the level of collaboration between security actors and the community? 

Please cycle/tick one answer

Very low 1Low 2Medium 3High 4Very high 5Don’t Know 98

306 What is your most preferred way to engaging with security actors in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Sharing information on security 1Periodic meeting on security and peace building

2

Collaboration for solutions to human rights abuses/violation

3

Working together for early warning and response system

4

123

Training on human rights protection 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

307 What is the current level of trust in the security agents working in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

None 0Very low 1Low 2Medium 3High 4Very high 5Don’t Know 98

308 In your view, would you agree or disagree that security personnel respect human rights in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Strongly agree 1Agree 2Neither agree nor disagree 3Disagree 4Strongly disagree 5Don’t know 98

309 Aside the security actors, which other actors are important to work with in the prevailing context of peace building in the community?

Please write the answers

Module 4: Early Warning/Early Response ContextNo Question Filter Answers and Coding Skip400 Please recall, have there been conflicts, violence or emergencies in this community…

a During the last 1-9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK408b Before the last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK408

401 If yes to 400, how many cases of conflicts, violence or emergencies in this community…? Please write the number of cases or 0 under a & b for 1-5 respectively

Cases a. During last 1-9 months b. Before last 9 months

1 Boko Haram Attack2 Disasters (Flood/Drought)3 Intercommunal/other Religious crises4 Other (specify under each timeline)5 Total

402 Who was most responsible for bringing the conflict or violence under control?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–7 respectively

1 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Civil Defense Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Civil Society Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 Other (specify):

403 How long did the conflict or crises last in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Less than one week 11–2 weeks 2Two weeks plus – one month 3One month plus – 6 months 4Six months plus – one year 5Over one year 6

124

Don’t know 98404 Who are most responsible for conflicts and

violence in this community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Men 1Women 2Youth (Boys/Girls) 3Differently Abled 4Everyone 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

405 Which community group is most affected by conflicts and violence in this community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Christian communities 1Muslim communities 2Both communities 3Don’t know 98Other (specify):

406 Which gender group/people are most affected by conflicts or violence in this community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Men 1Women 2Children 3Elderly 4Differently Abled 5Youth (Boys/Girls) 6Everyone 7Don’t know 98Other (specify):

407 What is your reason for the people you think are most affected by conflicts or violence in this community?

Please write the answers

408 Is there traditional system of addressing conflicts or violence in this community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK500

409 If yes to 408, what is the system of addressing conflicts or violence in the community?

410 Who is most involved in the system of addressing conflicts or violence in this community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–11 respectively

1 Men Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Women Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Youth Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Civil Defence Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9812 Other (specify):411 How effective is the system for addressing

conflicts or violence in the community? a. Last 1-9 months b. Before last 9 months

Answer for a & b

Very effective 1 1 1 412Effective 2 2 2 412Okay 3 3 3 414Not effective 4 4 4 413Very ineffective 5 5 5 413Don’t Know 98 98 98414

412 Why is the system very effective or effective for addressing conflicts or violence in the community? 412 414

125

413 Why is the system not effective or infective for addressing conflicts or violence in the community? 413 414

414 Do you know of any other type of conflict resolution program operating in this community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK500

415 If yes to 414, does the program works with existing community system or differently in the community?Please cycle/tick one answer

Works with Community system 1Differently from community systems 2Don’t know 98

416 Describe the way the program works in this community

Write the answers

417 Which organization implements the program in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

A United Nation (UN) system 1SFCG/CSO Partner 2Other CBO/NGO/CSO 3Security Agencies 4Government agencies 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

418 Who is involved in the program in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–10 respectively

1 Community Men Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Religious Leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Traditional Leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Community Women Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Community Youths Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Government Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 International Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 Other (specify):419 How long has the program lasted/been

implemented in the community?Please cycle/tick one answer

1–9 months as at today 1More than 9 months as at today 2Don’t know 98

420 Has the community benefited from the program? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK500421 If yes to 420, how does the community benefit

from the program?Write the answers

422 How would you rate the program for addressing conflicts or violence in the community? a. Last 1-9 months b. Before last 9

monthsPlease cycle one answer under a & b respectively

Excellent 1 1Very good 2 2Good 3 3Okay 4 4Not so good 5 5Bad 6 6Don’t know 98 98

423 Is there public campaign (such as community forum) to promote awareness about how to address conflicts or violence in the community?

Yes 12/DK500No 2

DK 98424 If yes to Q423, how would you rate the

campaigns? a. Last 1-9 months b. Before last 9 months

Please cycle one answer under a & b respectivel

Very effective 1 1Effective 2 2Okay 3 3Not effective 4 4

126

yVery ineffective 5 5Don’t Know 98 98

127

Module 5: Human Rights Abuses or ViolationsNo Question Filter Answers and Coding Skip500 Have you experienced human rights abuses/violations in your community…

a During the last 1–9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK509b Before last 9 months? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK509

501 What is the extent of the human rights abuses/ violations taking place in the community? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months Please

cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Very low 1 1Low 2 2Medium 3 3High 4 4Very high 5 5Don’t know 98 98

502 During which period/time most human rights abuses/violations take place in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-6 respectively

1 During violence conflict and attack Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 During political campaign Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 During election/voting Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 During post-election/voting Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Occasionally other times Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 All the time Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Other (specify):

503 What kind of human rights abuses/violations are mostly taking place in the community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-6 respectively

1 Rape Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Extra judicial killings Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Torture Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Arbitrary detention Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Extortion Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Harassment Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Other (specify):

504 Who most commit/perpetrate the human rights abuses/violations in the community?1 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-8 respectively

2 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Civil Defence Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Civil Society Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 Other (specify):

505 What action is most commonly taken to address human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Case documentation 1Report case to security agents 2Report to community/traditional leader 3Report to religious leader 4Take case to court 5Nothing 6Don’t know 98Other (specify):

128

506 Who often take the action to address human rights abuses or violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick one (most appropriate) answer

The Abused 1Family members 2Community & Religious leaders 3Judiciary 4The Police 5The Military 6Civil Defense Corps 7Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF) 8CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO 9Media 10Combined actions (specify who) _________________ 11Don’t know 98Other (specify):

507 Which community group is most affected by human rights abuses/ violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Christian communities 1Muslim communities 2Both religion communities 3Don’t know 98Other (specify):

508 Which gender group is most affected by human rights abuses/ violations in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Men 1Women 2Youth (Boys & Girls) 3Children 4Differently abled 5Women and Children 6Everyone 7Don’t know 98Other (specify):

509 Is there traditional system of addressing human rights abuses/violation in this community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK600

510 If yes to 509, what is the system of addressing human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Write the answers

511 Who is most involved in the systems of addressing human rights abuses/violations in this community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1-10 respectively

1 Men Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Women Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Youth Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Community leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 Civil Defence Corps Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Local vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 The Police Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 The Military Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9812 Other (specify):512 Is the system effective for addressing human

rights abuses/violations in the community? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2 514DK600

513 If yes to 512, why is the system effective for addressing human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Write the answers

129

514 If No to 512, why is the system not effective for addressing human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Write the answers

515 Do you know of any other type of program for addressing human rights abuses/violations in this community?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK600

516 Does the program works with existing community system or differently in addressing human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Works with Community system 1 Please cycle/tick one answer

Differently from community systems 2Don’t know 98

517 Describe the way the program works in the community

Write the answers

518 Which organization implements the program in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

A United Nation (UN) system 1SFCG/CSO Partner 2Other CBO/NGO/CSO 3Security Agencies 4Government agencies 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

519 Who is involved in the program in the community? Please

cycle/tick Yes/No/DK for 1–10 respectively

1 Community Men Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 982 Religious Leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 983 Traditional Leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 984 Community Women Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 985 Community Youths Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 986 CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 987 Government Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 988 International Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 989 Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9810 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 9811 Other (specify):520 How long has the program lasted/been

implemented in the community?Please cycle/tick one answer

1–9 months as at today 1More than 9 months as at today 2Don’t know 98

521 Has the community benefited from the program? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK600

522 If yes, describe one benefit of the program to the community.

Write the answers

523 How would you rate the program for addressing human rights abuses/violations? a. Last 1-9 months b. Before last 9 months Please

cycle/tick one answer under a & b respectively

Excellent 1 1Very good 2 2Good 3 3Okay 4 4Not so good 5 5Bad 6 6Don’t know 98 98

524 Is there public campaign (such as community forum) to promote awareness of ways to deal with human rights abuses/violations in the community?

Yes 12/DK600No 2

DK 98

130

525 If yes to Q524, how would you rate the campaigns?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Very effective 1Effective 2Okay 3Not effective 4Very ineffective 5Don’t Know 98

Module 6: Channels of CommunicationsNo Question Filter Answers and Coding Skip600 Are there ways people can get and provide reliable

information about concerns over conflicts, violence, security and human rights abuses/violations in this community?

Yes 1

2/DK700No 2DK 98

601 If yes to 600, how can people find reliable information about concerns over conflicts, violence, security, and human rights abuses/violations in this community?

Please cycle/tick Yes/No under a & b for 1–16 respectively

Channels of Information a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months1 Neighbor or close friend Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 Community leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Religious leaders Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 24 Appointed individual/group Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 Newspaper Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 26 Television (TV) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 27 Radio Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 28 Internet on phone or other internet access Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 29 CSO/CBO/FBO/NGO Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 210 Text message Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 211 Joints/Viewing Center Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 212 Government Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 213 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 214 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 215 Private organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 216 Local Government Office/Official Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 217 Other (specify under each timeline):602 Who can people report their concerns over conflicts, violence, security, and human rights

abuses/violations to in this community?Please cycle/tick Yes/No under a & b for 1–11 respectively

Communication Channels a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months1 Neighbor or close friend Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 22 Community leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 23 Religious leader Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 24 Appointed individual/group Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 25 CSO/CBO/FBO/NGO Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 26 Government Security Agencies Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 27 Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 28 SEMA/NEMA Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 29 Media (TV, Radio) Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 210 Private Organizations Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 211 Local Government Office/Official Yes – 1 No – 2 Yes – 1 No – 212 Other (specify under each timeline):

131

603 What action is usually taken if people report concerns over conflicts, violence, security, and human rights abuses/violations in this community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Document the report 1Analyze the report 2Immediately respond 3Document, analyze and respond 4Do nothing about the report 5Don’t know 98Other (specify):

604 Who often make the decision of what to do in response to concerns over conflicts, violence, security and human rights abuses/violations in this community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Neighbor or close friend 1Community leader 2Religious leader 3Appointed individual/group 4CSO/CBO/NGO/FBO 5Government Security Agencies 6Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) 7SEMA/NEMA 8Private Organizations 9Don’t know 98Other (specify):

605 How are warnings most communicated to alert people about impending conflicts, violence, and disasters in the community?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Community leader 1Religious leader 2Appointed individual/group 3CSO/CBO/FBO/NGO 4Government Security Agencies 5Local Vigilantes (Civilian JTF) 6SEMA/NEMA 7Media (TV and Radio) 8Private Organizations 9Don’t Know 98Other (specify):

Module 7: Media ConsumptionNo Question Filters Answers and Coding Skip700 Do you listen to radio at least once per week? Yes – 1 No – 2 2 End

701 If yes to 700, when do you listen more to the radio?

Please cycle/tick one answer

(4) Weekdays 1(5) Weekends 2(6) Everyday 3

702 What hours do you listen most?

Please cycle/tick one answer

5-7 am 17-9am 29-12 am 312-1pm 41-6pm 56-9pm 69-12pm 7Other (specify):

703 Write the name of the radio station you prefer to listen to the most

Write the answers

132

704 Which type (s) of radio programs do you like? Please cycle/tick Yes/No for 1-6 respectively

1 News Yes – 1 No – 22 Talk Shows Yes – 1 No – 23 Request show (Phone-in) Yes – 1 No – 24 Drama Yes – 1 No – 25 Music Yes – 1 No – 26 Sports Yes – 1 No – 27 Other (specify):

705 Which language would you like to hear more on the radio?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Hausa 1English 2Kanuri 3Fulfude 4Other (specify):

706 Are there programs for security and human rights abuses/violations, conflicts, violence, and disasters awareness on the radio?

Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK 712

707 If yes to 706, how often do you listen to such programs on radio in a month?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Daily 11-2 times a week 22 times per month 3Once a month 4Less than once a month 5

708 How long have you been listening to the programs for security and human rights abuses/violations awareness on radio?

1–9 months as at today 1 Please cycle/tick one answer

More than 9 months as at today

2

Don’t know 98709 How would you rate the programs? a. Last 1–9 months b. Before last 9 months

Excellent 1 1 1 710Very good 2 2 2 710Good 3 3 3 710Okay 4 4 4 712Not so good 5 5 5 711Bad 6 6 6 711Don’t know 98 98 98 712

710 Why do you think the program is excellent, very good, or good? 710 712

711 Why do you think the program is bad or not so good? 711 712

712 Is there program on radio for promoting awareness on judicial accountability process? a Last 1–9 months Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DK714b Before last 9 months Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/

DK714713 If yes to 712, would you say you understand

the judicial accountability process? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98

714 Is there program which discusses issues facing displaced people on radio? Yes – 1 No – 2 DK – 98 2/DK

718715 What kind of program which discusses issues

facing displaced people on radio?

Please don’t give the options but cycle/tick the right option after respondent answer

Talk show 1Phone in program 2Drama 3Documentary 4Other (specify):

716 What kind of issues are discussed by the programs?

Violation of Basic Rights 1Judicial Processes 2

133

Please cycle/tick one answer Other (specify):

717 How long have you been listening to the program which discusses issues facing displaced people on radio?

1–9 months as at today 1 Please cycle/tick one answer

More than 9 months as at today

2

Don’t know 98718 What kind of programs should be aired to deal

with issues that affect displaced people?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Talk show 1Phone in program 2Drama 3Documentary 4Other (specify)

719 What should these programs discuss?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Human rights 1Judicial processes 2Other (specify)

720 Which type of media do you trust the most?

Please cycle/tick one answer

Social media 1Television (TV) 2Radio 3Newspapers 4Other (specify):

END: Thank you for your time.Conclusion: Do you have any question for me on the above topic?

134

ANNEX 3: BIOGRAPHY OF EVALUATORS

Stanley Aifuwa Garuba (Lead Evaluator).Stanley Aifuwa Garuba holds a Ph.D. degree in Sociology and over 16 years’ record of achievement and success driving social research in the development and humanitarian arena; particularly in monitoring and evaluation, impact and outcome assessments and shared learning. He has proven skills in tailored technical assistance on assessments, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, research, strategy development, program development and program management. Stanley has worked extensively for the World Bank both as staff and consultant, providing technical support in the design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of social protection programs, policy discourse and dialogue with governments and development partners. Previously Impact Assessment and Shared Learning Coordinator in ActionAid Nigeria and Catholic Relief Services respectively, overseeing monitoring and evaluation activities, providing leadership support on overall performance management, planning, program development, strategy development, and technical support to the thematic leads. He led the development and institutionalization of social performance management system, including impact monitoring, planning, and research activities in the Lift Above Poverty Organization. Stanley specializes in operational research approaches to development and humanitarian program effectiveness, focusing on social protection, employment, education, health and HIV, governance, human security in conflict and emergencies, women empowerment and microfinance program. Stanley has executed various evaluation research works for different organizations including Save the Children International, Mercy Corps, International Rescue Committee, DFID, and USAID.

Dr. Chinedu Monye (Co-Lead/Principal Associate, MB; BS; MA Humanitarian Assistance Spain).Dr. Monye is a medical doctor and development specialist with over 13 years of multidisciplinary and integrated experience in International Development and in the humanitarian sector in Nigeria. His experiences span Development research, Impact assessments and Evaluations, Stakeholders’ landscaping and Institutional Capacity Assessments, Performance Appraisals, Quality Assurance and Improvement assessments, Policy analysis, and development, Strategy development and Assessments, Documentation and Shared learning, civil society strengthening as well as Capacity Development. He is very experienced conducting high quality and bespoke qualitative evaluations for donor-funded projects; and has strong experience consulting for International development agencies including the World Bank, Options UK, WHO, DFID, USAID, ActionAid, Christian-aid, Futures Group, Society for Family Health, Winrock International, UNDP, Capacity-Plus, Intra-Health International, ABT associates, Girl Hub International, Mercy Corps, Save the Children and International Rescue Committee. He also has solid experience providing technical services to Government MDAs and the Cognate Private Sectors; including Civil Society. Dr. Chinedu led the donor and program landscaping of Adolescent girls programming in Nigeria for Girls Hub International and has just concluded an Assessment of the effectiveness of a community-based project for IDPs living in host communities and informal settings in North-eastern Nigeria for IRC, Landscaping of local humanitarian actors in North-eastern Nigeria for Mercy Corps and the final evaluation of the Dutch Relief Funded National Humanitarian Joint Response in Nigeria FOR Save the Children International and Consortium partners. Recently Dr. Monye led the Outcome tracking and attribution mapping for the V4C project in South Eastern Nigeria for Palladium Group International. He is an excellent and amiable facilitator, with excellent experience in Community participatory approaches coupled with great interpersonal and group communication skills. He is engaging and creative, very organized and efficient with time and resources. Dr. Monye is a professional member of the International OD Network. He currently heads the International Bureau of the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation in the UK.

135