What Works to Reduce Homicides and Conflict-Related Deaths? A synthesis of what evaluations reveal about advancing the peace pillar of the SDGs
Webinar | Online
-
Organized by:
The Global SDG Synthesis Coalition
- In partnership with: American Institutes for Research
About the Event
This session, organized by the Global SDG Synthesis Coalition and the American Institutes for Research (AIR), presents findings from a synthesis of evaluative evidence on violence prevention interventions aimed at reducing homicides and conflict-related deaths. The analysis focuses on three thematic areas: (1) social inclusion, (2) peace processes, and (3) safe environments.
Global crises—including a growing number of armed conflicts—are threatening progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those under the peace pillar (SDG 16). Since 2000, global homicide figures have ranged between 400,000 and 450,000 annually, with a rise to 458,000 in 2021, despite a modest decline in the overall homicide rate over time (UNODC et al., 2023). Recent surges in violence in Ethiopia and Sudan, coupled with ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, suggest that these figures are unlikely to improve in the near term.
This ongoing violence casts doubt on the attainment of SDG Target 16.1, which calls for a significant reduction in all forms of violence and related death rates, and Target 16.4, which focuses on reducing illicit arms and financial flows, combating organized crime, and recovering stolen assets.
While the availability of evaluative evidence—including impact, performance, and process evaluations—has grown, substantial knowledge gaps remain. There is limited clarity on which interventions are most effective, under what circumstances, and for which populations.
To help fill these gaps, the synthesis addressed the following questions:
What interventions are effective in reducing homicides and conflict-related deaths, and where have they been implemented?
What are the measured impacts of these interventions, and how do results vary across contexts?
Why are some approaches effective—or ineffective—in preventing violence and saving lives?
How do gender and marginalization influence the effectiveness of interventions?
To what extent do initiatives consider non-discrimination, equity, and equality in their design and implementation?
What are the key evidence gaps and priorities for future evaluation and research?
This session aims to inform policymakers, practitioners, and researchers by highlighting what the evidence says—and doesn’t yet say—about reducing violence and advancing sustainable peace.
Global crises—including a growing number of armed conflicts—are threatening progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those under the peace pillar (SDG 16). Since 2000, global homicide figures have ranged between 400,000 and 450,000 annually, with a rise to 458,000 in 2021, despite a modest decline in the overall homicide rate over time (UNODC et al., 2023). Recent surges in violence in Ethiopia and Sudan, coupled with ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, suggest that these figures are unlikely to improve in the near term.
This ongoing violence casts doubt on the attainment of SDG Target 16.1, which calls for a significant reduction in all forms of violence and related death rates, and Target 16.4, which focuses on reducing illicit arms and financial flows, combating organized crime, and recovering stolen assets.
While the availability of evaluative evidence—including impact, performance, and process evaluations—has grown, substantial knowledge gaps remain. There is limited clarity on which interventions are most effective, under what circumstances, and for which populations.
To help fill these gaps, the synthesis addressed the following questions:
What interventions are effective in reducing homicides and conflict-related deaths, and where have they been implemented?
What are the measured impacts of these interventions, and how do results vary across contexts?
Why are some approaches effective—or ineffective—in preventing violence and saving lives?
How do gender and marginalization influence the effectiveness of interventions?
To what extent do initiatives consider non-discrimination, equity, and equality in their design and implementation?
What are the key evidence gaps and priorities for future evaluation and research?
This session aims to inform policymakers, practitioners, and researchers by highlighting what the evidence says—and doesn’t yet say—about reducing violence and advancing sustainable peace.
Speakers
| Name | Title | Biography |
|---|---|---|
| Andi Coombes | Principal Qualitative Researcher, American Institutes for Research | Andi specializes in the design and implementation of qualitative program, performance, and process evaluations and evidence synthesis of qualitative evaluations. Andi led the qualitative synthesis of performance and process evaluations for the Peace Pillar synthesis |
| Chinmaya Holla | Researcher, American Institutes for Research | Chinmaya has worked on impact evaluations and evidence syntheses in the areas of youth violence prevention in the LAC region and education in forced displacement settings. Chinmaya co-authored the quantitative synthesis of impact evaluations for the Peace Pillar synthesis. |
Moderators
| Name | Title | Biography |
|---|---|---|
| Shivit Bakrania | Senior Evaluation Synthesis Specialist, UNDP Independent Evaluation Office | Shivit is a Senior Evaluation Synthesis Specialist at UNDP’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), where he oversees all synthesis outputs, including regional evaluation syntheses co-developed with UNDP Regional Bureaus. He plays a key role in the Global SDG Synthesis Coalition, for which the IEO serves as the secretariat. Shivit also co-convenes the United Nations Evaluation Group’s Evaluation Synthesis Working Group, which promotes the development synthesis methodologies and practices across the UN system. Previously, he was a Knowledge Management Specialist at UNICEF-Innocenti, where he oversaw the production of synthesis products and evidence maps, and research capacity building efforts across the organization. |