The reflections and ideas presented in this report have emerged from a multi-stage process of investigation, re-examination and verification. Over the course of one year, the following phases of exploration were undertaken.

An extended desk study identified and focused on key concepts that have consistently demonstrated an important influence on community-level security configurations in a variety of contexts. The literature reviewed for this report included peer-reviewed academic research, papers from policy research institutes and practitioner reports written by implementing organisations. A complete list of sources consulted can found in Annex II. The desk study also delved into existing models of political economy analysis, adaptations of those models for security programming, as well as reflections by practitioners on applying such analyses. This helped to ensure that findings reflected current scientific study, relevant policy and actual practice. This overview was then applied to the development of a baseline analytical framework, which distilled key concepts and lines of inquiry that could inform a political analysis of community security and help guide programming choices.

An expert workshop was held in early summer 2015 to test the underpinning assumptions, theoretical foundations and practical implications of the baseline analytical framework. The one-day gathering benefited from the input of over 25 practitioners, scholars and policy experts working in the field of community security. Alongside civil society representatives and academics from Europe and North America, the group included individuals leading security programmes in their home countries of South Sudan and Afghanistan. The outcomes and critique that emerged during the day were taken up into a revised and condensed conceptual framework.

Two field trips were subsequently undertaken. The aim of these visits was to gain firsthand insight into the operational structures and practices of implementing community security programmes at field level. The first case study was carried out in South Sudan, between 6 and 17 September 2015. Interviews were conducted in the country’s capital, Juba (Central Equatoria State), as well as in Torit and Ikwoto (Eastern Equatoria State). Interviews were held with staff engaged in community security programming, ranging from international organisations like UNDP, Cordaid and Saferworld to local organisations such as the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO) and the Organization for Nonviolence and Development (ONAD). Interviews were also conducted with these organisations’ implementing partners and envisioned project beneficiaries. The second case study took place in Afghanistan from 28 September to 9 October 2015. Interviews there focused on a similar assemblage of informants, namely national and international community security programme staff, national implementing partner staff, community liaisons and beneficiaries from Kabul and Nangarhar provinces.‍[61] In addition, this report benefited from the review of a small number of internal programme and project documents.

Interviews with headquarters and regional office staff overseeing various organisations’ community security programmes rounded out the final stage of data collection. Interviews were largely carried out remotely, via Skype or phone, with programme directors or senior policy officers between February and April 2016. Interlocutors were invited to describe their organisation’s approaches to context analysis and to incorporating contextual and/or local political insights into programme cycles. Discussions also culled information on what informants saw to be the necessary organisational capacities and arrangements that would ensure the political salience of their community security programmes.

It should also be acknowledged that the research confronted limitations, as all investigations do. The volume of literature on the subjects of political economy analysis and community security is expansive, and exceeds the absorption capacity of a few individuals. That said, the literature review was conducted in such a way as to focus on articles and reports that demonstrated either high impact (in terms of the number of times articles were cited and referenced) or current salience (in terms of referrals made by interviewees regarding relevant, inspiring, insightful or helpful reports).

During the field trips, security conditions in both countries made it prohibitively difficult to pursue impromptu meetings or speak with individuals outside known and trusted networks. Mobility was also restricted to travelling with designated vehicles and drivers, which implied that meetings be planned well in advance and take place at secure locations within working hours. This again raised the threshold for scheduling ad hoc meetings outside the original itinerary. Though such constraints are reasonable and perhaps inevitable given security conditions, they should be acknowledged, as they reduced the number of people and scope of perspectives that could be included in the research.

And finally, interviews with heads of programmes in central offices were often obstructed or limited by time constraints and the heavy demands on interlocutors’ schedules. This ultimately limited the sample of organisations to nine, though the small number was offset by high-calibre individuals and organisations. Interviewees represented organisations recognised among the foremost in community security and local security programming: CARE International, Cordaid, Human Security Collective, International Alert, Oxfam Novib, PAX, Peace Direct, Saferworld and World Vision International.

In view of the above, this study does not claim to be a complete or exhaustive authority on the subject of community security or local political analysis. The authors of this report do aspire, however, to make a contribution to its advancement, and look forward to future critiques and elaborations of this work that constitute the markers of collective progress.

For both case studies, a number of complementary interviews took place in the Netherlands with central office programme counterparts, and a country office director who happened to be visiting the organisation’s headquarters in The Hague.