Social Cohesion in DCA (beta)

In the last few years, Social Cohesion has become an increasingly popular concept in DCA. A review of DCA projects between 2018-2021 identified approximately 35 projects across 11 country offices that mentioned Social Cohesion as either a goal, an objective or an activity. Further research revealed that there was not an aligned understanding of Social Cohesion and consequently no overall framework to guide country offices, programmes or projects. As a result, Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding (CCPB) and Strategy and Quality Management (SQM) began a process of developing a definition and framework to strengthen DCA’s work within the area. The plan is further to develop an Action Guide in 2023.

In 2022, the following progress has been made:

• An extensive desk research of external conceptualisations and best practices within the aid sector and academia has been carried out to determine a direction for DCA.
• The results of the desk research were combined with DCAs current work on Social Cohesion as well as reflections on DCAs overall mandate, which mounted in a definition of Social Cohesion (see below).
• It has been determined that the technical backstopping for Social Cohesion lies with Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding, due to similarities between the two fields (see more below).
• A Key Outcome Indicator (KOI) has been developed for DCAs Global Results Framework, and it is a sub-indicator to the Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding KOI.
• An Index Tool on Social Cohesion has been developed to guide Social Cohesion projects and further support M&E processes. This also supports reporting on the Social Cohesion KOI in the Global Results Framework. 
• A workshop and three webinars have been organised for DCA HQ and COs to present the developed framework and Index Tool, and feedback has been received and considered.
• The Index Tool is currently (2022) being piloted in three COs to collect practical knowledge and feedback at the end of the projects. 

The following sections present the framework for Social Cohesion and aim to provide DCA staff and partners with essential information concerning the area. Hopefully, this FABO page will support an aligned understanding of Social Cohesion across DCA to strengthen our work within the area.

While research revealed that there is not an internationally recognized definition of Social Cohesion, commonalities across different conceptualizations and practices supported the development of the Social Cohesion framework within DCA. The definition of Social Cohesion in DCA is:

In DCA, Social Cohesion is understood as the quality of intra- and inter-communal relations (including those between the rightsholders and duty bearers) and is based on trust, social interaction, tolerance, cooperation, and inclusion. Social Cohesion in DCA refers to a commitment to promote peaceful and inclusive environments.

Following this definition, Social Cohesion efforts in DCA should be kept to community-level activities that seek to strengthen relationships and ties. What a socially cohesive community or society could look like will differ depending on the local context, and as DCA works in a variety of contexts, the factors that have the potential to foster Social Cohesion will naturally vary as well. DCA staff and partners should therefore be extremely mindful of, and consider, the perceptions and visions of communities and/or local stakeholders in a given context and adapt actions accordingly.  

In DCA, Social Cohesion has its technical backstopping in Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding (CCPB). This is due to (1) the similar goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive environments and preventing violent conflict, and (2) the sensitive nature of working with community relations. Thus, just as all efforts falling under CPPB, and following DCA policy of working in conflict-affected settings, Social Cohesion activities should be rooted in a conflict-sensitive approach, to ensure that DCA understands the context and avoid doing harm. 

Although Social Cohesion is linked to Peacebuilding, the two should not be understood as interchangeable. Interventions classified as CPPB seek to identify and address key drivers of violent conflict and cover an array of multi-disciplinary approaches. Social Cohesion is only one such approaches, using community-level activities to strengthen social relations and ties. Following this, it is important to remember that violent conflict is not only direct violence but also concerns structural violence (e.g., sexism, classism, racism). Addressing key drivers of violence, therefore, also means these forms of violence, making social cohesion efforts additionally relevant to the field of CPPB (see FAQs).

Lastly, even though Social Cohesion falls under CPPB, and subsequently Save Lives, it should not be understood as a siloed approach and it can easily inform other programmatic areas – as long as a Conflict Sensitive approach is included (see DCA Action Guide, Conflict Sensitivity).

Following the increased usage of Social Cohesion, it is now a part of DCAs Global Results Framework (GRF), and functions as a sub-KOI to the Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding KOI in the GRF. The above definition and framework have informed the indicator, and is as follows:

The % of people who believe there is social cohesion in their geographic area

The indicator thus measures local communities or other local stakeholders’ perception of whether there is social cohesion in their area, and it is based on the five variables of trust, interaction, cooperation, tolerance and inclusion in decision-making. To support both the reporting process on the GRF indicator as well as the development of social cohesion efforts and M&E processes, CPPB and SQM have collaboratively developed an index tool.

Social Cohesion Index Tool

The index tool comprises an Impact Indicator and five Outcome Indicators. The latter is to be included in a project design, and all five should be reported on to enable reporting on the Impact Indicator (see the index tool at the end of this section). This will also support the reporting on the KOI in the GRF.

IMPACT INDICATOR – MORE COHESIVE COMMUNITIES

This indicator measures the % of people who believe there is social cohesion in the geographic area based on an aggregate % of five variables. Social cohesion describes relations between stakeholders within a geographic area based on the levels of trust, interactions, tolerance, cooperation and inclusion depending on the country's context and program focus. 

OUTCOME INDICATORS:

1. Trust - This indicator measures the general perceived level of trust in a specific geographic area. Trust is defined as the level of confidence in others (i.e., those around the respondent: neighbours, residents living in the same geographic vicinity, local authorities, and other stakeholders) depending on the country's context and program focus. In case that 'trust' is an elusive concept or not understood by the target communities, please develop a context-appropriate proxy indicator. 

2. Social Interaction - This indicator measures whether people perceive their interactions with others in the community to be positive or negative, using a scale. Interactions can be any communication with stakeholders in the given geographic area, depending on the country context and program focus. 

3. Tolerance - This indicator measures the general perception of others in the given geographic areas. Positive perception means viewing others in the geographic area, who are perceived as different from the respondent, in a positive light, and not attributing a negative stereotype. "Others in the geographic area" means stakeholders with whom the respondent does not self-identify, depending on the country context and program focus.

4. Cooperation - This indicator measures the willingness of respondents to work with stakeholders in the geographic areas for a mutually beneficial goal. A mutually beneficial goal means that the objective that the stakeholders are working towards is an acceptable action by all and that is not only for the respondent's personal or family gain but for the benefit of the wider population within the geographic areas as determined by the program and country context.

5. Inclusion in Decision-Making - This indicator measures the % of respondents who believe their voice is heard within the given geographic areas. Voice is defined as the ability to be listened to by stakeholders and the extent that the respondent feels engaged in the decision-making process depending on the country context and program focus. 

REPORTING AND DATA COLLECTION

The recommended method for reporting is using the Survey method to collect people’s perceptions of the five variables, and via the method HQ and/COs can calculate a %, which enables the reporting on both the Impact Indicator and KOI in the GRF (see more in the index tool below).

In some contexts (or with some methodological approaches such as sclr), employing the survey method is not possible. CPPB and SQM are therefore currently (2022) exploring possibilities for reporting on Social Cohesion via more qualitative approaches, such as Outcome Harvesting or FGDs. This should, however, not refrain HQ or COs to utilize the framework as it is now – as long as the five variables are included in project design or M&E processes.

1. Why does DCA need a Social Cohesion tool?

Following an analysis of DCA’s current use of Social Cohesion, it was found that there was not an aligned understanding or use of the concept, and that programming in this regard appeared to be founded on underlying assumptions rather than evidence-based analysis. The two main concerns that followed are:

1. The activities DCA implements in this regard do not have the intended effect. If DCA lacks an aligned understanding of what constitutes Social Cohesion, it is challenging to design a project that can contribute to fostering Social Cohesion.
2. The activities DCA implements in this regard have the potential of doing harm. If projects are based on assumptions rather than a comprehensive analysis of the context in which we work, the potential of doing harm to the communities DCA works with increases. This becomes even more so, when DCA is specifically dealing with human relations, as they are quite intricate to understand from an outside perspective.  

Due to the above reasoning, it is essential that DCA develops a framework that, in addition to ensuring alignment across DCA units, departments and offices, can guide, inform and ensure quality in DCA’s programmes and projects.

2. How have the definition of the concept and the indicators been established? How is the tool to be used and can it be modified?

The DCA Social Cohesion definition and tool were jointly developed by HRMA and SQM staff. It is founded on comprehensive research, and the proposed approach to Social Cohesion has been developed by combining academic conceptualization, international practices and a view of DCA’s overall vision and mandate.

The index tool and subsequent indicators aim to provide a framework that can guide the design, monitoring and evaluation of DCA projects and activities. While the tool presents five indicators (common characteristics of Social Cohesion) and suggests questions for baseline, mid-line and end-line surveys, it is expected that these are adapted to the context when developing Log-Frames and MEAL frameworks.

3. Does Social Cohesion in DCA refer to only working specifically with community relations? Can it be broadened?

The approach proposes that Social Cohesion within DCA should focus on community relations and ties, including those with duty bearers. This "limitation" of social cohesion is a result of the combination of DCAs mandate and broader understandings of Social Cohesion. However, the specific activities that DCA can provide under the area of Social Cohesion can and will depend on the context, and more importantly on what the communities identify as hindering Social Cohesion and opportunities for strengthening it. Thus, community relations and ties are at the centre of DCA Social Cohesion programming, but activities can be broadened if there is evidence that it will increase positive relationships within and between communities.

See also question no. 4.   

4. Why is it important to understand and rely on community perceptions?

There is a multitude of definitions and understandings of Social Cohesion, the majority of which originates from liberal democratic societies in the Global North. Consequently, this means that the factors that are most commonly identified as leading to Social Cohesion, stem from the same and may not be applicable everywhere. Furthermore, what will constitute social cohesion will differ from context to context, and the ways of fostering it will as well. It is therefore presumably challenging for an external actor, such as DCA, to solely determine ways of fostering social cohesion. The tool (and framework) should therefore be based on community perceptions, i.e. on those factors that the relevant stakeholders perceive as threatening or contributing to cohesion and adapt actions accordingly.

5. Can Social Cohesion programming only be applied in contexts of violent conflict and/or if a project aims at reducing conflict? What about social cohesion work in post-conflict settings?

Conflict affected settings are not necessarily subject to immediate direct violence. Conflict often ‘simmers under the surface’ and takes the shape of structural violence, exercised by society, its structures and institutions, in the form of e.g. racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination. Structural violence and direct violence are highly interdependent.

The concept of post-conflict situations assumes that conflict is linear and ends after a sequence of stages, whereas more often than not, conflicts are circular, moving through many stages of escalation and de-escalation, direct and structural violence, before possibly reaching some form of sustainable peace.

The review of international practice and analysis of DCA portfolio has shown that social cohesion projects largely pursue the promotion of peaceful and inclusive environments, via building of trust, cooperation, tolerance, etc. They hence seek to address drivers of direct and structural violence and by their nature are set in conflict-affected contexts, aiming at reducing factors that constitute or lead to violent conflict.

6. How and why is Social Cohesion connected to the technical area of Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding (CPPB)?

Social cohesion remains an elusive concept, which seems to be shaped by its continuous practical use in programming, rather than by academic research. Without assigning it to an area of technical expertise, which can provide access to technical oversight and support, unintended harmful effects become more likely.

Although the area of Social Cohesion is connected to CPPB, and although the two areas share the goal of contributing to more peaceful and inclusive societies, the two should not be understood as interchangeable. The strengthening of Social Cohesion is understood as one approach to peacebuilding, which also intersects with other areas related to equality and inclusion.

7. Why is a conflict-sensitive approach required?

Social cohesion programming pursues the promotion of peaceful and inclusive environments, and hence seeks to address drivers of direct and structural violence. By its nature, such work is therefore done in conflict-affected settings. According to DCA’s policy and international best practice, work in such settings should always follow a conflict-sensitive approach, which ensures drivers of conflict are identified before being addressed.

The three main steps to Conflict-Sensitivity should be considered:

• Understand the context.
• Understand the two-way interaction between activities and the context.
• Adjust activities to avert harmful outcomes (‘Do No Harm’) and reinforce opportunities to maximise positive impact (‘Do Some Good’).

See also:

Question no. 3 & 4 for more information on why it is additionally important to understand the context in which DCA works.

Question no. 6 for more information on what can constitute a conflict-affected setting and linkages to Social Cohesion.  

9. Why is Social Cohesion covered under the Save Lives Section of the Global Results Framework (GRF)? 

Social Cohesion is a cross-cutting subject area, which contributes to several Global Goals as defined in the GRF and doesn’t easily fit the structured approach of the framework. According to conclusions drawn from the analysis made, the concept of social cohesion is most often used as part of a wider peacebuilding approach responding to conflict-affected contexts, due to similarities between Social Cohesion and wider Peacebuilding efforts. Therefore, based on the proposed definition of Social Cohesion for DCA programming, the related Key Outcome Indicator (KOI) was integrated under the Save Lives section. More specifically the Social Cohesion KOI (1.9) is integrated under the Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding KOI (1.8), and to report on KOI 1.9, the CO must therefore report on the KOI 1.8. 

Yet, with the proposed index tool, it is hoped that the cross-cutting and multifaceted character of social cohesion programming is reflected, while ensuring its results are still captured and integrated into the more structured global framework. The tool and concepts defined therein hopefully also allow for better use of the concept in future programming. 

If you need support and want to learn more about Social Cohesion, the index tool or reporting, you are more than welcome to reach out to please reach out to: