Chapter 1
Overview

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. USIP was chartered under Sec. 1701 (“United States Institute of Peace Act”) under Title XVII of the Defense Authorization Act of 1985.

The formal idea of a “peace office” dates back to 1792, when Benjamin Banneker and Dr. Benjamin Rush first proposed the establishment of a Peace Office.1 In the twentieth century, a number of calls for the creation of a peace institute were made. From 1935 to 1976, more than 140 bills were introduced in Congress to establish various peace-related departments, agencies, bureaus, and committees of Congress.

In 1976, Sen. Vance Hartke of Indiana and Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon introduced a bill to create the George Washington Peace Academy. After hearings in the Senate on the Hartke-Hatfield Bill, it was decided that further study was needed. In 1979, a provision was successfully added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriation Bill for the establishment of the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution. A nonpartisan group consisting of appointees named by President Jimmy Carter and the leadership of the House and Senate, the Commission—chaired by Sen. Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii—worked for over a year and a half.

In 1981, after the completion of its deliberations, the Matsunaga Commission issued a final report recommending the creation of a national peace academy. Based upon the recommendations included in the report, bills were subsequently introduced in both houses of Congress under the bipartisan sponsorship of senators Mark Hatfield, Spark Matsunaga, and Jennings Randolph and Congressman Dan Glickman. Three years later, the United States Institute of Peace Act was finally passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. USIP’s Board of Directors was installed and held its first meeting in February 1986. In April of that same year, an initial staff of three people opened the Institute's first office.

The stated goals of the USIP are “to help:

  • Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts

  • Promote post-conflict stability and development

  • Increase conflict management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide

The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peace building efforts around the globe.”2

1

The following material is taken from the USIP website. See also Montgomery (2003) and Weigel (1984/1985).

2

From About USIP factsheet available at: http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/about_usip.pdf.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 7
Chapter 1 Overview THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. USIP was chartered under Sec. 1701 (“United States Institute of Peace Act”) under Title XVII of the Defense Authorization Act of 1985. The formal idea of a “peace office” dates back to 1792, when Benjamin Banneker and Dr. Benjamin Rush first proposed the establishment of a Peace Office.1 In the twentieth century, a number of calls for the creation of a peace institute were made. From 1935 to 1976, more than 140 bills were introduced in Congress to establish various peace-related departments, agencies, bureaus, and committees of Congress. In 1976, Sen. Vance Hartke of Indiana and Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon introduced a bill to create the George Washington Peace Academy. After hearings in the Senate on the Hartke-Hatfield Bill, it was decided that further study was needed. In 1979, a provision was successfully added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriation Bill for the establishment of the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution. A nonpartisan group consisting of appointees named by President Jimmy Carter and the leadership of the House and Senate, the Commission—chaired by Sen. Spark Matsunaga of Hawaii—worked for over a year and a half. In 1981, after the completion of its deliberations, the Matsunaga Commission issued a final report recommending the creation of a national peace academy. Based upon the recommendations included in the report, bills were subsequently introduced in both houses of Congress under the bipartisan sponsorship of senators Mark Hatfield, Spark Matsunaga, and Jennings Randolph and Congressman Dan Glickman. Three years later, the United States Institute of Peace Act was finally passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. USIP’s Board of Directors was installed and held its first meeting in February 1986. In April of that same year, an initial staff of three people opened the Institute's first office. The stated goals of the USIP are “to help: • Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts • Promote post-conflict stability and development • Increase conflict management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peace building efforts around the globe.”2 1 The following material is taken from the USIP website. See also Montgomery (2003) and Weigel (1984/1985). 2 From About USIP factsheet available at: http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/about_usip.pdf. 7

OCR for page 7
The USIP’s overall focus has changed over the years. Perhaps the most substantive change had to do with the end of the Cold War (Wong 1993). In a speech in 2004 USIP Board Chairman Chester Crocker neatly summarized the evolution of issues during the USIP’s existence. Since its inception, the Institute has faced a changing context—just as the nature of international conflict constantly changes—and that context has helped the Institute broaden its reach and develop its capabilities. Think back to the events and issues that have been part of our working environment over the years: • The end of the Cold War and the final collapse of empires. • The rise of so-called ethnic conflict. • The era of peacemaking in the Middle East…and its high-water mark in 1993. • The ongoing debate on humanitarian intervention, and whether the United States should use force to advance its own values and those of the international community. • How to professionalize peacekeeping and get it right, which was the precursor to today’s debates about how to do post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation, and about whether and how to do nation- or state-building. • How to help stabilize and reconcile societies in transition—via programs in the fields of religion, rule of law, public security reform, educational reform, and through skills training in conflict management and problem-solving capabilities. Crocker continued: …September 11, 2001, and our ensuing engagement in coercive regime change is another watershed in the Institute’s evolution. It produced the challenge of relating to post-conflict reconstruction and state building by offering our advisory services to local parties and to our own government at a time when the United States is at war—when we Americans are a direct party to the conflict and when we are in some sense a potential target (Crocker 2004). Jennings Randolph Senior Fellows The Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace was created at the same time as the USIP. The United States Institute of Peace Act notes that “The Institute, acting through the Board, may— (1) establish a Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace and appoint, for periods up to two years, scholars and leaders in peace from the United States and abroad to pursue scholarly inquiry and other appropriate forms of communication on international peace and conflict resolution and, as appropriate, provide stipends, grants, Fellowships, and other support to the leaders and scholars.” According to the USIP Web site: The Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace awards Senior Fellowships to enable outstanding scholars, policymakers, journalists, and other professionals from around the world to conduct research at the U.S. Institute of Peace on important issues concerning international conflict and peace. The 8

OCR for page 7
program integrates the work of Senior Fellows into the Institute's education, research, training, and operational activities. It also works closely with USIP’s staff to disseminate knowledge from these projects to policymakers, researchers, educators, and the general public through a combination of policy briefings, public events, media appearances, and published materials—including books and reports. Since 1987, the Jennings Randolph Program has awarded over 200 Senior Fellowships and has established itself since its founding as one of the nation's premier Fellowship programs for research on international conflict management and peace building.3 Characteristics of the program include: • Location: Fellows carry out their projects in residence at USIP in Washington, D.C. • Duration: Fellowships are usually awarded for ten months, beginning in October. Shorter-term residencies are also available. • Citizenship: Fellowships are open to citizens of any country. Many Jennings Randolph Senior Fellows are foreign nationals. • Salary and benefits: The program attempts to match the income earned by the recipient during the year preceding the Fellowship, up to a maximum of $80,000 for ten months. The award covers health insurance premiums (80 percent), travel to and from Washington for Fellows and dependents, and a half-time research assistant. (The committee notes that although the cost of living in Washington, DC has risen in recent years, salaries for Fellows have not increased in some years.) Applications are reviewed once per year; the submission deadline is in the Fall. Applicants to the Fellowship download the application form from the USIP Web site and submit their applications. For administrative purposes, USIP stores selected information from the applications in a database. Fellows are selected through a rigorous, multi-stage review process that involves external reviewers, staff, and the USIP executive office and Board of Directors. Applications are first reviewed by staff. In particular, the USIP staff looks for areas of overlap between the research topic areas proposed by each applicant and USIP’s current focus. The USIP staff comments on the applications at this stage. The applications are then sent out for external review by a panel of experts, including former Fellows. This process leads to a ranking of the applicants. Next, the applications are reviewed at the executive level of USIP. USIP board members conduct phone or face-to-face interviews with the applicants and pick primary and alternate candidates to receive the Fellowship. Finally, the full board votes on the slate. Offers are made to selected applicants; most accept, though in the past one or two have declined each year. During their residency, Fellows are engaged with USIP in two ways: by generating products related specifically to their research or to their interests more generally, and by participating in USIP activities. As noted in the application: In keeping with its legislative mandate to support “scholarly inquiry and other appropriate forms of communication,” the Jennings Randolph Program invites 3 Available at http://www.usip.org/fellows/index.html. 9

OCR for page 7
proposals that would produce Institute publications. The editorial staff of the Institute works closely with Fellows to develop manuscripts for consideration by the Institute Press or for publication as Institute reports. Fellowship products may include the following: • Books or monographs published by USIP Press; • Peaceworks reports or Special Reports published by the Institute; • Articles for professional or academic journals; • Op-eds and articles for newspapers or magazines; • Radio or TV media projects; • Demonstrations or simulations; • Teaching curricula; Lectures, workshops, seminars, symposia, or other public speaking.4 • Additionally, Fellows may participate in various USIP activities. Some of these, such as giving lectures or briefings, overlap with these outputs. Of course, Fellows also take advantage of events that occur in Washington, such as attending Congressional hearings or lectures at other think tanks or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and networking with the many stakeholders in the area. The program has received little attention in terms of an evidence-based evaluation of its merits and accomplishments.5 USIP would benefit from a program evaluation in a number of ways. First, it would validate the benefits of the program by assessing the views of both participants and external observers. Second, it would facilitate greater efficiency in the process of disseminating information about the program, the application process, the selection process, and the experience of the Fellows. Third, it would facilitate greater effectiveness. Fourth, and finally, an evaluation would provide staff, other stakeholders, and potential Fellows with important information about the program. THE COMMITTEE’S CHARGE The National Research Council (NRC) appointed an ad hoc committee to conduct the assessment of the Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace Senior Fellowships (see Appendix A for committee member bios). The committee was asked to develop methodologies for conducting the assessment; to advise on data collection; to review data; to review findings about the Fellowship Program; and to provide recommendations for possible future assessments. The committee specifically addressed the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Senior Fellows and how have those characteristics changed over time? 2. What issues do Fellows research and how do those issues relate to the mandate of the USIP and to U.S. foreign policy? 4 Available at http://www.usip.org/fellows/apply.html. 5 An exception is Elise Boulding (1992). Boulding asks: “How well represented is the peace research and practitioner community among the fellows…?” She also examines the subject areas funded by USIP. 10

OCR for page 7
3. How do former Fellows and members of the external peace and security community perceive the program with respect to its: a. Impact on the Senior Fellows themselves; b. Advancement of the mandate of the USIP; and c. Contribution to increased knowledge or awareness of peace and security issues? APPROACH AND SCOPE There was overlap among the tasks outlined for the committe and information collected from one source (such as that provided by former Fellows) was applicable across multiple tasks. Sources of information included individuals and the work of former Fellows. In the case of individuals, three groups were relevant: former Fellows, experts in the peace and security community outside USIP, and USIP staff and board members. In discussions with USIP staff during the planning stages of this project it was decided that the committee would focus on just the first two groups. As noted earlier, Fellows are involved in a number of outreach activities; these include producing written material (books, chapters, articles, special reports, and op-eds), giving briefings, lectures, or interviews, attending meetings, etc. For this reason, the committee focused largely on the written products produced by Fellows during their tenure at USIP. To help improve evaluations that USIP might wish to make in the future, in Chapter 5 the committee recommends some additional strategies for quantifying Fellows’ activities in other realms. For data collection, the committee turned to data collected by the USIP on its Fellows and on applicants to the Fellowship. In addition, the committee conducted a census of former Fellows―not all of whom could be reached, however, because USIP had lost touch with them over the years and neither the staff nor USIP was able to find new contact information. The committee also conducted a preliminary survey of experts in the peace and security community. Finally, the committee examined other data and literature related to the Fellowship. A summary of the approach of the study is found in Table 1-1. 11

OCR for page 7
Table 1-1 Summary of research questions, sources of information, and data collection techniques. Research Question Source Data Collection Type of Data Technique What are Archival data Data collected in Quantitative characteristics of provided by USIP applications and Senior Fellows? from Fellows Fellows’ research in Archival data Data collected from Quantitative larger context provided by USIP Fellows Perceived impact of Former Fellows Survey Quantitative and the program on qualitative Fellows Perceived impact of Former Fellows; Survey Quantitative and the program on peace and security qualitative USIP experts Perceived impact of Former Fellows Survey Quantitative and the program on qualitative knowledge creation Views about the Former Fellows; Survey Quantitative and program peace and security qualitative experts INFORMATION USED As noted previously, the committee relied on several sources of information in conducting its evaluation. These included: 1. Data provided by USIP USIP has some information on each Senior Fellow from the Program’s inception in 1987 through 2007, as well as some information on applicants from 1997 through 2007.6 The information is maintained in a spreadsheet format that facilitates display of the data and visual comparisons. The information that was collected for the Fellows is listed in Table 1-2: 6 The names of applicants who did not receive a Fellowship were kept confidential from the committee. 12

OCR for page 7
Table 1-2 Data from USIP Variable Description ID A unique identifier assigned to each Fellow Begin YR Beginning year of Fellowship FY Fiscal year of Fellowship Last Name Last name of Fellow First Name First name of Fellow Employer Typea Type of employer Sex Gender of Fellow Citizenship Country of citizenship of Fellow Citnewb Citizenship (1 = U.S., 0 = other) Highest Degree Highest academic degree awarded Project Title Project title Project Issuec Topic of the project d Issue new Aggregated topic code e Project Region Region of the world that the project covered Project Country Names of countries the project covered SOURCE: Spreadsheet provided by USIP NOTES: a There are 11 employer codes: Academic/Research, Government, Diplomacy, NGO, Legal, Political Analysis/Consultancy, Journalism/Media, Business, Military, UN/IGOs, Other. b The ”Citnew” variable was created by staff based on the Citizenship variable. c There are 29 codes for project issues: Conflict, Religious/Ethnic Conflict, Gender Issues, Terrorism/Political Violence, Cycles of Conflict, Conflict Management and Resolution (CMR), Conflict Prevention/Early Warning, Negotiation/Diplomacy, Peacekeeping, Post-Conflict Activities and Peacebuilding, Humanitarian Intervention, International Law/Rule of Law, Arms Control and Deterrence, Human Rights, International Organizations, United Nations, Refugees and Migration Issues, International Economics, Foreign Aid, Economic Development, Political Economies, Political Systems/International Relations, Democracy, Environment/Natural Resources, Communication, Media and Information Technology, Education, Foreign Policy, Other. d The ”Issue new” variable was created by staff by aggregating the codes for project issues into eight categories: conflict; conflict management/resolution; law, human rights, international organizations; economics and aid; political systems/democracy; environment, education/communication, foreign policy, and other. e Ten geographic regions were identified: Western Europe, Eastern Europe/Former USSR, North America, Central and South America, Middle East/North Africa, Sub- Saharan Africa, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and Oceania, and Global. 13

OCR for page 7
***** The committee used this information to examine characteristics among the Senior Fellows and applicants and compared selected characteristics of the two groups. Two issues are noteworthy: missing data and comparability. In general, there are very few missing data concerning basic statistics for the Fellows. One exception is the country or countries that the Fellow’s research project addressed. There are no data for 147 out of 253 cases. The gold standard for evaluating the impact of a program is a comparison of randomized groups. This would require USIP to identify those applicants who would be accepted to the program and randomly accept some of them and then compare these two groups. The purpose of the comparison is to identify measures of success (e.g., productivity) and compare those outcomes among the different groups. One point of making this comparison is to control for other factors that might explain particular outcomes. Unfortunately, this strategy was not possible at this time. Thus, the committee’s approach to answering task 2 in the charge was to focus on perceptions of the impact of the program. The distinction is between being able to report that a Fellow was helped in her career by the program significantly more than someone who did not receive a Fellowship, as compared with former Fellows saying that the Fellowship helped their careers. The former is more rigorous and thorough, though the latter remains informative and interesting. 2. A survey of former Fellows The committee conducted a survey of former Fellows. There were 246 former Fellows―seven of whom had been a Fellow twice―for a total of 253 Fellowships. Of the 246 former Fellows, 24 are known to be deceased. Efforts undertaken primarily by USIP, but supplemented by NRC staff, located working email addresses for 184 of the remaining 222 former Fellows (including 6 of the 7 Fellows who had been awarded two Fellowships). A survey questionnaire, which is reproduced in Appendix B, was sent to all former Fellows for whom there was a working email address. The survey was preceded by an invitation letter from USIP and followed up by two emails. The number of Fellowships awarded each year and the number of Fellows contacted are illustrated in Table 1-3. 14

OCR for page 7
Table 1-3 Number of Fellowships and number contacted by year of Fellowship. Fellowship Year Fellowships Contacted 1987 8 3 1988 10 6 1989 11 7 1990 12 5 1991 9 4 1992 17 12 1993 12 7 1994 15 9 1995 15 12 1996 14 11 1997 16 13 1998 10 9 1999 15 9 2000 11 8 2001 13 12 2002 10 9 2003 13 13 2004 12 11 2005 11 11 2006 11 11 2007 8 8 Total 253 190 SOUCE: Spreadsheet provided by USIP; data tabulated by staff NOTES: The 253 Fellows include seven who each had two Fellowships; the 190 Fellows contacted include 6 who each had two Fellowships. 3. A survey of peace and security experts To answer the questions in the committee’s charge, the committee sought to tap the opinions of experts in the areas of peace and security, conflict and conflict resolution. In so doing, the committee faced two challenges. First, defining a population of such experts is difficult. USIP’s mission is quite broad, geographically and topically—as are the projects that Fellows work on. Thus, many individuals would seem to be relevant. A related issue is that since the purpose of contacting experts is to survey their opinions about the USIP Fellowship, it would be important to find individuals who knew something about USIP. A second challenge, once these individuals were identified, was to successfully interview them. 15

OCR for page 7
The committee considered three approaches: expert panels, telephone interviews, and a Web-based survey. Expert panels offer the advantage of allowing participants to explore topics in-depth during a face-to-face meeting. However, a distinct disadvantage for an initial foray into the perceptions of experts is that, given cost constraints, the panels would have had to meet in Washington, DC, and thus would have restricted the geographic range from which to draw experts. It can also be difficult to bring experts together to participate in a discussion. Telephone interviews resolved the issue about getting a wider range of experts’ opinions, but these interviews were also seen as costly. In addition, there was some concern about reaching experts over the summer. The committee thus decided on a Web-based survey, which allowed it to contact many individuals quickly. The committee put together a survey questionnaire (see Appendix C). To identify a population of experts from which a sample would be drawn, the committee turned to a list of academic centers and nonprofit organizations in the United States maintained by USIP.7 This list was supplemented by searching the Web for additional centers. In addition, federal agencies, including the State Department, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, along with four Congressional committees (the Senate committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services and the House committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services ) were searched in order to find individuals with email addresses who could receive the survey. The sample selected from this population was not random. At academic centers and NGOs, the focus was on individuals who were directors, deputy directors, or senior personnel. For government employees, the focus was not on directors but on desk officers and Congressional staff. Total sample size was 235. The survey was fielded in July and August 2008, with no follow-ups after the initial contact. The committee viewed the survey as a pilot to begin to conduct an assessment and the sample is acceptable for this reason. The survey results should not be extrapolated beyond the respondents, however. Further research would be needed to ascertain how widespread the respondents’ perceptions are. OUTLINE OF THE REPORT The report is divided into three main chapters. Chapter 2 examines characteristics of Fellowship applicants and awardees. Ratios of awardees to applicants, as well as demographic characteristics, are examined. Particular attention is paid to the research interests of the Fellows. Chapter 3 focuses on the results of the survey of Fellows. The three areas examined are: (1) their activities and outputs during their Fellowship; (2) their views on the overall quality of the Fellowship, their satisfaction with the Fellowship, and whether their various expectations for the Fellowship were met; and (3) selected post- Fellowship characteristics, such as whether they have remained in contact with USIP. Chapter 4 focuses on the results of the survey of experts drawn from the peace and security community. This chapter examines these experts’ familiarity with the Fellowship and the degree of prestige they associate with it. It also looks at experts’ 7 Available at http://www.usip.org/library/rcenters.html#us. 16

OCR for page 7
views on the importance of the work of the Fellows and of the Fellowship. Finally, Chapter 5 presents the committee’s recommendations for overcoming the limitations in the data available for its assessment and for ensuring that monitoring and evaluation become a regular feature of the program in the future. 17

OCR for page 7