1. Community Governance Extremism Study (Cges)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1. COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE EXTREMISM STUDY (CGES) BACKGROUND In April 2018, ENGAGE designed a mixed methods field study to explore issues of governance, social cohesion and extremism in communities hosting large populations of home-based internally displaced persons (IDPs) following the Marawi crisis (Activity focus areas). The results of the study were subsequently used in designing program activities and to assess the impact of ENGAGE programming in these areas. The study included a quantitative survey of a representative sample of residents, both home-based IDPs and non-IDPs, in the focus areas, and also interviews of a purposive sample of key leaders and community members who are well-placed to understand issues of governance, social cohesion and extremism and to evaluate the impacts of ENGAGE programming. ENGAGE partnered with Mindanao State University (MSU)-Marawi in conducting the various tasks of the study and in the analysis of results. The survey and interviews, and analysis of resulting data, was conducted over a period of about 10 months, during May 2018 to March 2019. The quantitative household survey on governance, social cohesion, and extremism, was fielded as a baseline in May-June 2018, and again as an endline survey in December-January 2018/19 during the completion of programming. The survey was implemented both in ENGAGE focus barangays and in a control group of non-focus barangays to allow ENGAGE to discern the extent of program impact in the focus barangays. The qualitative component included a series of Governance Process and Outcome interviews (hereafter GPO interviews) with barangay officials, clan and traditional leaders, civil society representatives, youth, women and home-based IDPs in a selection of ten focus barangays. GPO interviews were conducted in two iterations – once with the baseline survey in June 2018, and once at the endline after the completion of programming (January 2019). The interviews provided insight in how and why changes took place in local communities in response to ENGAGE programming. Study Objective and Outputs The objectives of the CGES study are twofold: 1. Deepen our understanding of issues of governance, social cohesion, and extremism in communities hosting large populations of home-based IDPs in the Activity focus area; 2. Develop an approach and tools that can be used to measure progress in achieving Project objectives. The specific outputs of the study include: 1. Identification and testing of assumptions regarding the drivers of extremism; 2. Understanding of key issues related to governance and social cohesion in communities hosting large numbers of home-based IDPs; 3. Establishment of indices for extremism, governance and social cohesion that can be used as monitoring tools; 4. An endline assessment that integrates all study components to provide a holistic assessment of the impact of ENGAGE programming in focus barangays. Methodology This study comprised two components and utilized a mixed-methods, iterative approach to achieve its FIGURE 1: CGES FRAMEWORK outputs. The quantitative component included a household survey that explores issues of governance, social cohesion and violent extremism within the ENGAGE focus area. The violent extremism component of the survey borrows the factors and measures from the ENGAGE Youth and Violent Extremism in Mindanao research, fielded in August and September of 2017. The governance and social cohesion sections of the CGES explores issues of governance and social cohesion in these communities and establishes values for two separate indices, used to measure change in these factors as part of an overall program “impact” assessment. The CGES was completed using face- to-face interviews with individuals from randomly selected households in 20 focus barangays and 20 non-focus barangays. The qualitative component of the study consisted of the GPO interviews, conducted with a purposive sample of respondents in ten focus barangays. Respondents included barangay officials, clan and traditional leaders, civil society representatives, youth, women and home-based IDPs. These interviews explored issues of governance and social cohesion by engaging with key individuals who are uniquely placed to understand community challenges and witness the impacts of ENGAGE programming. Interviews focused on identifying processes of change in focus barangays. Interview data complements the CGES, facilitating the identification of processes and reasons behind changes that may or may not have been observed through quantitative survey data. Research Locations and Sampling The sampled population resides within the ENGAGE programming area. This area encompasses seven municipalities and cities, which ENGAGE has divided into five clusters to ease program operations with stakeholders in these areas. In February-March 2018, ENGAGE conducted a census of home-based IDP populations, gathering data from 256 barangays across the seven municipalities and cities. ENGAGE used census data to select 45 focus barangays for program activities. ENGAGE’s selection was based on a number of factors including total IDP population in the barangay, the proportion of home-based IDPs to host community residents in the barangay, access and security concerns, and the presence of other donors in the barangay. For the GPO interviews, a total of fifty individuals from ten different barangays were interviewed at three points throughout the project. The same fifty respondents were interviewed during each iteration. The fifty respondents were chosen from ten purposively selected barangays from among ENGAGE’s 45 focus barangays. ENGAGE contacted government officials and CSO leaders for recommendations on persons to interview. Care was taken to ensure that the group of respondents contained representation from youth, women, and other marginalized groups. FIGURE 2: CGES STUDY LOCATIONS For the CGES, 40 barangays were randomly selected for sampling. Twenty barangays were randomly selected from among ENGAGE’s focus barangays, and 20 others were randomly selected as a control group from within the same municipalities/cities and that had similar numbers of home-based IDPs but would not receive ENGAGE assistance. Based on the total population of the 40 selected sample barangays, a target respondent sample size of 1,843 persons was calculated based on a confidence interval of 99% and margin of error or +/- 3%. This sample size exceeded the minimum required by the statistical power analysis required for use in the statistical method analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which will be conducted following the endline survey. Table 1: Sample Locations and Sizes (not including additional 5% to account for possible error) Total Sample Sample Barangay LGU Status Sample Size IDPs Non-IDPs Abaga Balo-I Focus 67 15 52 Sandor (Daduan) Balo-I Focus 43 16 26 Mamaanun Balo-I Focus 57 13 44 Maria Cristina Balo-I Focus 140 27 113 Total Sample Sample Barangay LGU Status Sample Size IDPs Non-IDPs Angayen (Balut) Balo-I Focus 50 15 35 Pualas Buadiposo-Buntong Focus 11 2 9 Madanding Bubong Focus 19 6 13 Montiaan Bubong Focus 17 7 11 Batangan Bubong Focus 26 8 18 Pindoguan Bubong Focus 22 3 19 Darimbang Ditsaan-Ramain Focus 10 3 7 Pagalongan Buadi Dingan Ditsaan-Ramain Focus 13 4 9 Santa Elena Iligan Focus 365 196 170 Macadar (Gandamatu City) Lumbatan Focus 26 9 18 Dalama Lumbatan Focus 30 6 24 Bubong Saguiaran Focus 51 26 25 Limogao Saguiaran Focus 16 7 9 Pawak Saguiaran Focus 64 24 40 Pantaon Saguiaran Focus 19 7 13 Mipaga Saguiaran Focus 20 9 10 Cadayonan Balo-I Control 35 3 32 Lumbac Balo-I Control 49 10 39 Batolacongan (Basagad) Balo-I Control 42 4 37 Pacalundo Balo-I Control 113 15 98 Landa (Gadongan) Balo-I Control 61 12 49 Angandog (Bulao) Balo-I Control 34 9 25 Minanga (Buntong) Buadiposo-Buntong Control 8 3 5 Tarik Buadiposo-Buntong Control 12 3 9 Tangcal Buadiposo-Buntong Control 10 2 8 Malungun Bubong Control 13 5 8 Masorot Bubong Control 10 4 6 Dimayon Proper Bubong Control 13 5 8 Dado Ditsaan-Ramain Control 13 3 9 Saray-Tibanga (Saray) Iligan Control 234 56 177 Dago-ok Lumbatan Control 39 5 33 Picotaan Lumbatan Control 21 4 17 Total Sample Sample Barangay LGU Status Sample Size IDPs Non-IDPs Cadingilan Saguiaran Control 14 3 10 Comonal Saguiaran Control 17 5 12 Batangan Saguiaran Control 25 11 14 Pantao Raya Saguiaran Control 16 6 9 TOTAL: 1,843 571 1,272 The barangay was the primary sampling unit for this survey. To select households for survey interviews, each survey team used a standard house skip methodology and random selection of starting points. Barangays were grouped into five separate clusters for the purposes of geographic comparisons. Four of these clusters – Balo-I, Iligan, Saguiaran, and Lumbatan – correspond to specific local government units, while the fifth, referred to hereafter as DBB, includes barangays from three different LGUs – Ditsaan- Ramain, Bubong, and Buadiposo-Buntong. To ensure the minimum sample size is met, the number of survey interviews conducted was increased by 5% above the amount required to allow for the discarding of inaccurate or incomplete forms (note that the sample sizes indicated in Tables 1 do not include the additional 5% sample). Designated and trained by ENGAGE and senior research team members, field supervisors witnessed a minimum of 10% of all interviews to verify that the correct and standard interview approach was followed, and that data were accurately entered on the interview form. FIGURE 3: GENDER BREAKDOWN OF CGES SAMPLE, BY BARANGAY CLUSTER Data Processing and Analysis For the GPO interviews, MSU-Marawi oversaw the interviewing process and provided English transcriptions for each interview. ENGAGE conducted a qualitative analysis of the transcripts to explore themes and trends emerging from the data. For the CGES, ENGAGE staff completed all data processing and statistical analysis tasks, in close coordination with MSU-Marawi. Upon completion of field work, MSU-Marawi sent completed survey forms to ENGAGE in Davao for processing. ENGAGE then established and managed a database for the survey results, using trained data entry clerks to enter the data and a supervisor to provide quality control.