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 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 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 Buadiposo-Buntong Focus 11 2 9 Madanding 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 Focus 365 196 170 Macadar (Gandamatu City) Focus 26 9 18 Dalama Lumbatan Focus 30 6 24 Bubong 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.

Analysis focused on the following outputs: (1) the identification and testing of assumptions regarding the drivers of extremism, (2) understanding key issues related to governance and social cohesion in communities hosting large numbers of home-based IDPs, and (3) establishing indices for extremism, governance, and social cohesion to be used as monitoring tools. FIGURE 4: FACTORS DRIVING VE IN MINDANAO

ENGAGE used the regression model employed in the Youth and Violent Extremism in Mindanao research to identify factors associated with support for violence and extreme ideologies. For the second output, descriptive statistics and simple correlations and significance tests were used to explore the data. The analysis compared results across locations, gender and religion to identify key findings.

Comparisons between baseline and endline findings were carried out to determine whether programming in ENGAGE-focused communities had any measurable effect on VE-related outcomes, attitudes, and practices. To achieve this, ANCOVA was used to analyze the baseline and endline CGES data. ANCOVA helps in comparing endline with baseline responses in the focus and control groups, and, more specifically, in identifying changes over time that might confidently be attributed to ENGAGE programming. Research Documents 1. CGE Study Background Statement 5. CGE Enumerator Training Guide 2. CGE Respondent Sample Size 6. CGE Survey Questionnaire Calculation Spreadsheet 7. CGE Survey Questionnaire Instructions 3. CGE Survey Locations and Sampling 8. GPO Interview Guide Plan 9. GPO Interview Instructions 4. Barangay Database ID Codes 10. GOP Interviewer Workshop Outline 2. CGES STUDY FINDINGS

As with the CGES Baseline Study, findings will be presented by the following overarching categories: Conflict, Crime, and Violence; Community Discrimination; Individual Alienation, Marginalization, Isolation; Trust and Satisfaction with Government and Sources of Information; Poverty and Employment; Acceptance of Revenge and Violence; and Ideological Agreement. While these categories remain consistent with those used in the CGES baseline study, some have been combined in order to facilitate the discussion of related variables in a more coherent manner. Overall Comparison with Baseline Results CGES endline results, as compared with Baseline results were collectively negative, meaning that, when controlling for baseline values, there was no significant difference in endline values between focus communities and comparison (counterfactual) communities, the non-focus communities. Using the instrument of the CGES survey, there was no significant difference in the selected indicators between the focus and non-focus communities and as such, there was no measurable impact of ENGAGE programming when measuring values across the general population and in comparison, between focus and non-focus communities.

These findings do not necessarily mean that ENGAGE had no specific impact but rather that impacts were not discernible in the selected indicators at the level of the general population. In line with findings from the Youth and Violent Extremism in Mindanao study, there was impact with direct beneficiaries and participants in terms of changes in attitudes, but these impacts did not extend out to the wider population. This is reflective of the limited scope of ENGAGE interventions and suggests that expanding both number of participants and duration of the intervention could lead to more discernable impacts on attitudes and beliefs at the community level.

Irrespective of the lack of measurable overall impact of ENGAGE intervention of the conditions related to VE among the population, findings of interest were obtained when assessing the opinions and experiences of the communities as a whole, as well as those shared by the GPO interview Key Informants. Findings that deviated from baseline results, along with endline results that varied as compared with the overall sample population are discussed below. Perceptions of Household- Conflict, Crime, and Violence Sixty-one percent of people reported that violence in their community has decreased over the past year. This is in line with baseline results, which found that 56% of people felt violence had decreased. One outlier in the endline study was DBB, where residents reported a 53% increase in violence during the period. Low incidents of conflict were also reported through the GPO KIIs; almost every respondent reported that there was little to no conflict present in their communities. Much of the credit for maintaining peace and order was given to the various Barangay Chairpeople, with respondents frequently citing increased involvement and quick response by these leaders, preemptively addressing sources of conflict within both families and the wider community, before they can take root. FIGURE 5: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO AGREE THAT THEIR COMMUNITY ACCEPTS VIOLENCE AS A WAY TO SETTLE DISPUTES

Along with the increased involvement of Barangay Chairpeople, GPO respondents cited two primary factors for the decrease of conflict and crime within their communities: the implementation of Martial Law and the decrease in the numbers of IDPs in their community. Throughout most of the barangays, but most especially in Balo-I and Lumbatan, respondents cited Martial Law and related restrictions (curfew and inability to carry a firearm), coupled with the increased funding for and presence of the Barangay Peacekeeping Action Team (BPAT) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) as having greatly supported the overall reduction in crime.

Regarding conflict dynamics between host and IDP communities, approximately 15% of respondents have reported that their community has experienced at least some violence during the past year, with the highest proportion of people reporting that this violence occurred between host and IDP groups within their community. It was mentioned by a respondent in Balo-I that conflicts have arisen as a result of uncoordinated relief distribution efforts- both among IDPs and between IDPs and Host community members. As above however, the increased engagement of Chairpeople, along with an increased PNP presence have helped to mitigate these issues. FIGURE 6: IN THE PAST YEAR HAS THERE BEEN VIOLENCE BETWEEN IDP AND HOST COMMUNITIES?

DBB reportedly experienced the lowest frequency of violence overall (less than 5%). Iligan and Balo-I respondents reported the highest frequency of violence- specifically regarding Rido (33%) in Balo-I and between host and IDP groups (32%) in Iligan. GPO KII respondents who responded affirmatively to questions regarding crime and conflict in their communities, frequently cited intra-familial disputes as the cause. In line with baseline findings, nearly half of respondents find revenge seeking acceptable in specific circumstances:

 Family member hurt or killed, 47% agree  Theft of personal property, 44% agree  Family dishonored, 45% agree

Thirty-seven percent of IDPs reported that they had experienced the death or wounding of a member of their community in conflict, as compared with 23% of host community members. Fourteen percent of respondents overall reported the death or wounding of a family member in conflict. In Lumbatan, approximately 45% of respondents reported that it “is appropriate to use violence to protect their community.” Overall, only 8% of respondents agreed that “real power in their community is held by those with guns.” The proportion of respondents that agree with this statement is slightly higher (12%) in Saguiaran and Iligan, but overall still quite a low proportion and very much in line with the numerous GPO respondents citing the inability for people to carry guns (as a result of Martial Law) to be a positive development. Community Discrimination Overall, 80% of respondents reported that their barangay officials are likely to respond to the needs of the community if/when they raise an issue. This is in line with baseline findings (88%). Only in DBB did a slightly higher proportion of respondents (45%) report that it was somewhat unlikely that officials would respond. There was no significant difference in responses to this question between Host and IDP groups. An overwhelming majority of GPO KII respondents across all locations expressed favorable opinions concerning their Barangay Chairpeople regarding responsiveness to community and individual needs and issues.

FIGURE 7: ATTITUDES CONCERNING REVENGE AND VIOLENCE

From a community perspective, 40% of IDPs felt that their community has suffered more historically than others; only 21% of host community members feel this way. Thirty-nine percent and 42% of respondents from Iligan and Lumbatan, respectively, feel that their communities have suffered more than others, proportions that are significantly higher than those from other barangays.

Overall, 62% of respondents agreed that Islam is under threat today in the . This number has risen from 48% reported in the baseline study. However, overall only 18% of people feel that their community is currently under threat, a decrease from 27% reported in the baseline. Where 13% of host community respondents feel their community is threatened, 28% of IDPs reported feeling this way. Perceptions of Households- Individual Alienation, Marginalization, Isolation Eighty-four percent of respondents reported feeling that they can play a strong role in decision making in their barangay. In DBB and Lumbatan, the response was extremely positive, with 75% and 66% of respondents stating that they ‘strongly agree’ that they can play a strong role. Almost every GPO interview respondent stated that they felt they have had the opportunity to participate in the community decision-making and consultation process, in the form of various types of community meetings and forums. There was no significant difference between focus and non-focus communities for this question.

A very positive 98% of respondents feel that their life has purpose and 87% feel that they are in control of the direction of their life. Further, 84% of respondents reported being satisfied with their social lives, in line with baseline findings (86%). There are no meaningful differences between the various respondent groups.

Ninety-six percent of respondents have overall trust in the members of their community; 74% do not have trust in strangers whom they meet. Thirty-seven percent of respondents do not have trust in IDPs living in their community; distrust in IDPs has risen since the baseline study (26%). Perceptions of Households- Trust and Satisfaction with Government and Sources of Information More than 89% of respondents report having trust in the national government. The most trusted institution however is the barangay leadership with 97% of respondents having trust in these leaders. Ninety-five percent of respondents feel that the police and military in their community respect human rights- in line with the GPO interview findings that demonstrate a high proportion of people throughout all barangays appreciate the increased presence of the groups in the furtherance of maintaining peace and order.

Satisfaction with service provision in communities is one of the most important factors when considering whether a community has trust in their local leadership. With few exceptions, GPO informants cited at least two significant improvements to either infrastructure or services during the past eight months which they themselves had prioritized. Road improvements were cited in Balo-I and Ditsaan-Ramain as critical updates that facilitated increased trade and more favorable livelihoods conditions. Additionally, in Balo-I improvement to potable water and electricity availability, the latter of which is now free to the community, have been exceedingly helpful to improving the overall conditions in the barangay. Community safety and beautification efforts have also been quite successful in places like Lumbatan’s Lumbac Bacayawan, where mosque renovation and public lighting have been completed and in Bubong, where a new housing project has been completed and the Chairman himself sometimes goes door-to-door eliciting feedback from the community. A striking finding was the frequency in which the Chairmen of some of the various barangays would become personally involved in helping his community members. In Pagalamatan (Saguiaran), the chairman donated land for new housing to be built on, and in (Saguiaran), respondents also cited an example of the Chairman providing free medication for those in need. Also, in Lumbac Bacaywan, the Chairman has personally donated a car for people to use as transport in the event of a medical emergency. FIGURE 8: HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT?

All of these examples provide anecdotal support as to why the Barangay Chairs are among the most trusted people within most communities: in line with baseline findings, Family Members (99%), Religious Leaders (98%), Religious Teachers (98%), Barangay Chairs (96%), and Teachers (95%) were the most trusted to solve conflicts in communities. Trial Courts (79%) and the Military (84%) were the least trusted groups to resolve conflict. The proximity and frequency of interaction with the Barangay Chairs is also important: 65% of respondents reported that they interact with municipal/city officials on community issues less than once per month. However, interaction with barangay officials is more frequent, with 53% of people stating they speak with them at least once per month, and 15% on a weekly basis. This reflects the finding mentioned previously that it is the Barangay Chairpeople that have the most impact on the lives of community members.

FIGURE 9: IN THE LAST YEAR HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?

Negative experiences and perceptions may also have a strong effect on people’s perceptions of local government. As in the baseline study, few respondents reported personal experience with corruption, with only 20% indicating that in the past year they had to pay a fixer and 10% a bribe. However, 57% reported hearing about an incidence of corruption in the national government, and 42% in the local government- both increases from the baseline. One GPO respondent from Lumbatan (Lunay) did cite ”government kickbacks and corruption” as an existing issue but this was an outlier and not mentioned elsewhere. However, respondents from the same Barangay Cluster did reference that individuals with personal connections (to the mayor/those in government) were more likely to have their concerns addressed and to receive support. In Saguiaran, multiple respondents cited negative perceptions and experiences with the local government unit and municipality regarding relief distributions. An IDP representative stated: “relief goods are given to the municipality. Every time we go there to claim our goods, all of it has been distributed to other barangays and nothing is left for us. [Relief] should be directly distributed to each barangay.” Another respondent stated: “It is common knowledge that the LGU [local government unit] cuts budgets from the supposed allotment. It would be better if the NGOs coordinate directly with the barangay government." These sentiments were echoed by five different Saguiaran KII participants.

Religious leaders are by far seen as the most important sources of information regarding local events, with 83% of respondents stating that they are “Very Important”, followed by 65% of respondents citing Government Information offices as “Very Important” sources of information. Religious leaders are also the most trusted source of information, with 99% of respondents reporting that they place either a “great deal” or “some” trust in religious leaders in terms of the information they provide. “Social media” was the only information source type where people responded that they “Had no trust at all” (12.3%) in it, and it is “not important at all” (11%). These findings are in line with those from the baseline study. Perceptions of Households- Poverty and Employment Across all barangays and all GPO KII respondent types, the lack of sufficient livelihoods opportunities was the most frequently cited as the biggest issue that their community is facing. This was reflected in the CGES quantitative survey findings as well. Overall, 73% of respondents believe they need to go abroad to find job opportunities which match their training and interests. This has increased from 63% reported in the baseline.

FIGURE 10: THE JOBS IN MY BARANGAY PAY ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES

Poverty conditions in the various barangays also remain of concern with 55% of respondents reporting that the number of poor people has increased in their community over the past five years (52% Host vs. 62% IDP). However, 41% are hopeful that the number of poor will decrease over the next five years. This is a positive deviation from the baseline, when 41% of respondents felt that poverty will increase over the next five years.

The majority of respondents (66%) do not feel that there are sufficient job opportunities in their communities. In Saguiaran especially, the negative responses were overwhelmingly high at 88% of people reporting insufficient job opportunities available. Interestingly however was that GPO key informants from this barangay were some of the only to cite positive livelihoods developments in their communities. More than one person mentioned to interviewers that “youth [in Saguiaran] have become more active in the community and are more proactive and motivated in job seeking.” These negative responses also conflict with another positive study finding from Saguiaran; respondents there have reported the highest satisfaction with wages (82%). Also discussed were the creation of a market and the introduction of pop-up stores (small vendors), both of which have contributed to the “significant improvement of livelihoods conditions” in the barangay over the last eight months. The lowest reported satisfaction with wages is in DBB (46%) and overall, 56% of respondents feel that the jobs in their communities pay enough to be considered a living wage. There is no meaningful difference between focus and non-focus communities.

Numerous respondents credited NGO livelihoods programming, namely Catholic Relief Services (CRS), along with vocational training and support to farmers through Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), for helping to rebuild the struggling economy in their barangays. Balo-I respondents in particular praised the NGO support, provided in the form of communal gardening, sari- sari-stores, and limited support to farmers.

Community members from Ditsaan-Ramain (DBB Cluster) overwhelmingly cited the reopening of the road to Ground Zero as the most positive factor associated with economic improvement facilitating increased trade. In a similar vein, the reduced cost of transportation fees has helped individuals with small-scale trade in Balo-I. FIGURE 11: LIVELIHOODS CONDITIONS IN DBB

Interestingly, in Lumbatan, while 65% reported lack of opportunity, 86% reported having the requisite skills to find employment. This is in line with findings in Balo-I; 91% of respondents feel they have the necessary skills and 71% feel that there aren’t enough job opportunities. Lumbatan findings may be reflective of the need in this barangay for significant support to farmers. Numerous respondents in Lumbatan, as well as in Buadiposo-Buntong and Bubong, cited lack of direct support to farmers in the form of agricultural inputs and supplies, framing the situation as urgent in terms of need. Perceptions of Households- Ideological Agreement

FIGURE 12: IDP VIEWS Eighty-three percent of respondents overall believe that Shariah Law should be strictly enforced within their community. 99% of respondents in DBB and 97% in Saguiaran believe that Shariah should be enforced. Thirty-nine percent of non-Muslims who responded to this question believe this. GPO KII respondents from Saguiaran reported that in general, people in their community are becoming more observant and diligent with regards to their religious beliefs and studies, citing this as one of the main reasons for a decrease in crime and conflict. One question that was not asked as part of this study but perhaps could lend valuable insight into the findings above is how people interpret Shariah Law, with the objective being to determine whether respondents supporting enforcement interpret Shariah and fiqh (Islamic Rules of Right Action) in the traditional sense- divine, philosophical guidance- or in the way that extremist groups have perverted the meaning and implementation. As 90% of respondents believe that democracy is the best form of government for their community, this would indicate that the former, not the extremist interpretation, is the prevalent understanding since democracy would be fundamentally incompatible with the associated beliefs. Situation for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) Overall, 51% of people stated that they believe the local government is not doing enough to support IDPs; 43% believe they are doing enough. However, findings vary by barangay and by displacement status:

 67% of people in Balo-I believe the local government isn’t doing enough to support IDPs, the highest of any barangay;  Only 25% of host community respondents in Iligan do not believe the local government is doing enough, however 77% of IDPs do not believe they are. FIGURE 13: SUFFICIENCY OF SUPPORT PROVIDED TO IDPS, BY BARANGAY CLUSTER

In Balo-I, CGES findings differ slightly from responses provided during the GPO interviews. IDPs interviewed felt quite positively that the local [barangay] leadership was doing what they could to support them. Deficiencies were not due to apathy, but rather to lack of resources and funds. In Iligan however, the collective KII responses indicated that there has been tensions between the IDPs (Maranaw) and the host community since the beginning of the crisis. Due to both religious and language differences, some of the Maranaw have faced challenges integrating into the community. This dynamic may well reflect the disparity noted above concerning views of the sufficiency of support to IDPs. When asked about their family’s plans for a long-term residence, the majority of IDP respondents stated that they want to return to their home in Marawi. Interestingly, 37% of IDPs currently in DBB have said they would like to remain in the barangay regardless of the conditions in Marawi.

FIGURE 14: WHAT IS YOUR FAMILY'S PLAN FOR LONG-TERM RESIDENCE?

RESULTS: Drivers of Extremism Analysis To expand from the results of the 2017 Study “Youth and Violent Extremism in Mindanao, Philippines,” the survey instrument from the youth survey was re-administered as part of the CGES survey. The purpose of this was to expand the results and findings to the general population, whereas the original survey only polled youth in high schools and universities and as such the findings could not be generalized across the entire population. Fielding the extremism survey instrument in the CGES survey allows us to explore if there are different potential drivers of extremism in the general population as those identified in the original youth study. For a full explanation of the methodology of the drivers of extremism study, please see the final report from the “Youth and Violent Extremism in Mindanao, Philippines.”

Overall, the findings from the household survey overlap with those of the in-school youth survey regarding the drivers of extremism – but there are some differences. Conflict factors are consistently the strongest predictors of support for violence and extreme ideologies in both household and in-school youth samples. Revenge is a strong predictor of both, while gun culture predicts only support for violence. Social conflict is a significant predictor of both in the household sample, but not in the in- school youth survey. Individual-level factors are strong predictors. Individual marginalization is a significant predictor of support for violence in the household survey, highlighting the need to ensure individuals have productive avenues for engagement in community affairs. Social isolation, a strong negative predictor for in-school youth, is not significant in the household sample. Lack of self-efficacy remains a strong predictor of violence, though it becomes a negative predictor of extreme ideologies in the household sample. Community marginalization and Islam under attack remain strong predictors in both models.

Government variables continue to show negative correlations with support for violence and extreme ideologies, challenging our assumptions that issues such as trust in government, corruption, essential services and human rights are important drivers of extremism.

Economic variables remain mostly negative predictors of support for violence, suggesting that the role of economic factors in driving extremism is contrary to our assumptions. While poverty and lack of a living wage are negative predictors of violence and extreme ideologies in the household sample, perceptions of employment prospects does correlate with more support for violence (though not extreme ideologies). While lack of income data preclude testing, these contradictory findings could be an indication of higher risk for extremism among the middle class where concerns about poverty and a living wage are less acute, though concerns about employment remain.

A full display of the regression results is included here:

Overall, variables related to conflict remained the strongest predictors of support for violence and extreme ideologies, much as in the youth sample. Although IDPs are more likely to report the impact of conflict on themselves and their communities, they are not more likely to support violence when controlling for all other variables in the model. In fact, IDPs are slightly less likely than the wider population to support violence. Any programming addressing the impact of conflict or trauma should address both IDP and non-IDP populations.

Economic factors remained poor predictors of support for violence and extreme ideologies, challenging our assumptions about the role of unemployment and poverty play in relation to extremism in the region. The negative and contradictory findings around the economic drivers confirms that joblessness and poverty are likely not the most significant drivers of extremism in the region. The correlations that were found are very small compared to the impact of the conflict, individual and community-level variables.