January 15, 2026
Violent conflict costs the world nearly $20 trillion each year—not only in economic losses, but in lives disrupted, communities fractured, and futures put on hold. By contrast, research suggests that every dollar invested in peacebuilding can save up to $103 in conflict-related costs.
That comparison raises a critical question for policymakers, donors, and the public alike: How effective are peacebuilding programs at preventing violence—and what makes them work?
The answer is nuanced. Peacebuilding can be highly effective, but its success is not automatic. Outcomes depend on program design, local ownership, context awareness, and sustained investment over time.
This page provides an evidence-based overview of peacebuilding effectiveness—how success is measured, how peacebuilding compares to other violence-reduction approaches, when and why it fails, and how supporters can make informed decisions before investing.
The Effectiveness of Peacebuilding: A Nuanced Picture
Peacebuilding works—but not in simplistic or guaranteed ways.
Decades of research show that well-designed peacebuilding programs can reduce violence, improve social cohesion, and help prevent the recurrence of conflict. Countries that invest in inclusive peace processes are significantly less likely to relapse into violence than those that rely on security responses alone.
At the same time, peacebuilding is not a silver bullet. Poorly designed interventions can have little impact—or even exacerbate tensions. Effectiveness depends on:
- A deep understanding of the conflict context
- Meaningful community leadership
- Adaptive programming over time
- Integration with governance and development efforts
This article explores:
- How success in peacebuilding is measured
- What evidence exists for its impact
- How peacebuilding compares to government-led and humanitarian approaches
- Why some programs fail
- How donors and decision-makers can identify what works
Gauging Success: How to Measure Peacebuilding Impact
One of the most common critiques of peacebuilding is that its results are “hard to measure.” That critique is partly true—and partly misleading.
Negative Peace vs. Positive Peace
Peacebuilding effectiveness cannot be understood through a single metric.
- Negative peace refers to the absence of violence—fewer killings, attacks, or clashes.
- Positive peace refers to the presence of conditions that prevent violence, such as trust, inclusive institutions, social cohesion, and fair access to resources.
Both matter. Reductions in violence may be temporary if the underlying drivers of conflict remain unaddressed.
How Peacebuilding Is Measured
Effective peacebuilding organizations use a mix of methods, including:
Quantitative indicators
- Reductions in violent incidents or crime
- Decreases in battle deaths
- Improved dispute-resolution outcomes
Qualitative indicators
- Perceptions of safety and trust
- Changes in intergroup relationships
- Community feedback and dialogue outcomes
Frameworks
- The Eight Pillars of Positive Peace (Institute for Economics & Peace), which track institutional and social resilience
- Locally defined indicators of success identified by communities themselves
Challenges in Measurement
Measuring peacebuilding impact is complex because:
- Attribution is difficult (many factors influence violence trends)
- Change often happens over years, not months
- Standardized metrics may miss local realities
That complexity does not mean peacebuilding lacks evidence—it means evidence must be interpreted thoughtfully.
Example: In Nigeria, a Mercy Corps program used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate mediation training. The study found that participants were significantly more likely to resolve disputes peacefully, demonstrating measurable behavioral change tied to the intervention.
A Comparative Look: Peacebuilding, Government Action, and Humanitarian Aid
Peacebuilding is most effective when understood as part of a broader ecosystem of violence prevention.
Peacebuilding vs. Government-Led Approaches
- Government-led approaches often focus on security, policing, and institutional reform from the top down.
- Peacebuilding approaches typically work from the bottom up, emphasizing dialogue, reconciliation, and community-led problem-solving.
Evidence shows that the strongest outcomes emerge when these approaches are integrated, not siloed. Security without trust is fragile; dialogue without institutional support is limited.
Peacebuilding vs. Humanitarian Aid
Humanitarian aid and peacebuilding serve different—but complementary—purposes.
- Humanitarian aid addresses immediate needs: food, shelter, medical care.
- Peacebuilding addresses root causes of violence and helps prevent future crises.
Without conflict sensitivity, humanitarian aid can unintentionally fuel tensions by reinforcing inequalities or competition over resources. This is why many actors now emphasize the humanitarian–development–peace “triple nexus”, aligning immediate relief with long-term peace outcomes.
The Perils of Poor Design: When Peacebuilding Fails
To understand peacebuilding effectiveness honestly, it’s essential to acknowledge failure.
Poorly designed peacebuilding programs can:
- Reinforce existing power imbalances
- Create resentment or exclusion
- Misread local conflict dynamics
- Undermine trust
One common pitfall is the “peacemaker’s bubble”—when international actors operate disconnected from the communities they aim to support. Without local ownership or contextual understanding, programs may appear successful on paper while failing to change realities on the ground.
Effective peacebuilding begins with rigorous conflict analysis and ongoing learning. The goal is not to avoid risk entirely, but to avoid doing harm.
Investing in Peace: A Guide for Donors and Supporters
For donors and supporters asking “What evidence shows peacebuilding nonprofits work before donating?”—the answer lies in how organizations operate, not just what they claim.
What to Look For in Effective Peacebuilding Organizations
- A clear theory of change: Can the organization explain how its work leads to violence prevention?
- Strong monitoring and evaluation: Do they track outcomes and adapt based on learning?
- Local ownership: Are communities partners in design, leadership, and evaluation?
- Transparency: Are results—both successes and challenges—publicly shared?
- Long-term approach: Do they work beyond short project cycles?
Flexible, long-term funding is especially critical. Peacebuilding rarely follows linear paths, and adaptive organizations need room to respond to changing conditions.
Trusted Resources for Further Research
- Alliance for Peacebuilding
- Better Evidence Project
- Institute for Economics & Peace
Moving Forward: What You Can Do
Peacebuilding is not abstract. It is measurable, evidence-based, and essential to preventing violence—when done well.
For the general public
- Learn more about how peace is built
- Share credible information
- Support organizations with proven, community-led approaches
For donors
- Use evidence-based criteria before giving
- Invest in long-term, adaptive peacebuilding
- Support organizations committed to transparency and learning
For policymakers and practitioners
- Access research and case studies
- Integrate peacebuilding with governance and development
- Partner with community-led organizations
Preventing violence is possible. The evidence shows that peacebuilding works—when we invest wisely, listen locally, and commit for the long term.
