









































50ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts

Measuring Impact: A  
Collaborative Community Project  
to Measure Peace Building
Authors 
JOHNNA BELKIEWITZ Doctoral Student, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services, 
JESSICA FLORES Doctoral Student, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services, 
JOCELYNE HERNANDEZ, Doctoral Student, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services, 
ALEX PRENTICE Doctoral Student, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services, 
RACHEL SMITH Doctoral Student, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services, 
DOUNTONIA BATTS Dountonia Batts, Director of Programs, Peace Learning Center, 
VICTORIA G. WILBURN Assistant Professor, Occupational Theory, School of Health and Human Services

keywords: 
Peace, community engagement, impact evaluation, 
restorative justice, occupational therapy 
 
abstract 
Recognizing the need for program evaluation, 
occupational therapy students have provided 
the Peace Learning Center with vital outcome 
measures that can lead to program remodeling, 
content recreation, and improved training, 
resources, and follow-up for facilitators, all 
within the profession's scope of practice in the 
community-based realm.   
 
introduction 
In alignment with the Peace Learning Center’s 
(PLC) purpose and mission, peace is a prerequisite 
for creating an environment in which all people 
have the capacity to live safe and productive 
lives and to engage in meaningful activities and 
occupations. To address the need for increased 
peace, nonprofit organizations such as the Peace 
Learning Center work to promote equity and 
justice through the implementation of innovative 
practices. In order for non-profit organizations 

to effectively promote change in a community, 
they must be engaged in both direct service 
and advocacy work; however, creating caring 
communities and measuring the impacts of peace 
is a challenge. 

Within Indianapolis, the Peace Learning Center 
strives to be a critical catalyst in creating more 
peaceful, equitable, and just schools, businesses, 
and communities. By offering workshops that 
educate families and community stakeholders, 
the organization utilizes principles of restorative 
justice, equity dialogue, and social-emotional 
learning to provide opportunities for collaborative 
learning and growth. These trainings take various 
forms including youth camps and educator 
workshops and allow individuals to better 
recognize and overcome challenges that inhibit 
peaceful communication and livelihood.

An occupational therapy student (OTS) team, 
composed of five doctoral students at IUPUI, 
engaged in the emerging practice area of 
community-based care through a course project 
in partnership with the Peace Learning Center 
to create a sustainable peace-measuring tool. 
One of the goals in supporting this aim was 

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G



VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  1ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts 51

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G

to conceptualize the definition of peace in 
a community through a needs assessment, 
including a brief literature review, which led 
to the identification of six key themes and six 
perceptions to measure peacefulness. Following 
this step, the OTS team generated three surveys for 
student groups and families to measure peace in 
their school and the broader community. Periodic 
implementation of these surveys at school training 
sites will help to provide data to ensure effective 
programming and to show evidence of increased 
peacefulness in the communities served. The 
importance of a comprehensive peace-measuring 
tool will allow community organizations, such 
as the PLC, to better understand their impact 
and implications for needed change, based on 
participant feedback. Figure 1 outlines the full 
Theory of Change Map that guided the OTS team's 
work.

guiding occupational theory 
(ot) theory 
Community-based occupational therapy, 
an emerging practice area, is set within the 
community context and addresses the most 
pressing community concerns. Occupational 
therapy practitioners focus on a variety of factors to 
facilitate greater overall quality of life by providing 
increased opportunities for and by removing 
barriers to meaningful activity engagement. As 
a newer practice setting, developing replicable 
methodology and practice approaches to care are 
critically important to solidifying the profession's 
role in community settings. The OTS team 
recognized the unique lens with which they could 
approach peace-measuring in an evidence-based 
manner that holistically acknowledges contributing 
factors. 

Within this project, the OTS team utilized the 
Ecology of Human Performance (EHP) framework 
to guide thought processes throughout this 

project. This framework focuses on the person, 
context, task, and performance (Dunn et al., 
1994). Employing this lens to guide the project 
aided the team in focusing on specific factors when 
approaching a partnership with the PLC. The EHP 
framework emphasized the importance of access to 
opportunities for a meaningful activity to improve 
overall occupational performance. Peace is a vital 
factor in consideration of the context surrounding 
a person and can affect the performance and tasks 
in which they are able to engage. It is through this 
lens that the team has approached partnership 
with the PLC.

methodology 
Needs Assesment 
A needs assessment was conducted to determine 
the strengths, problems, resources, and barriers 
that exist for the PLC and the populations that 
they serve. The OTS team was initially presented 
with a problem by the PLC’s Director of Programs 
Dountonia Batts via Zoom (D. Batts, personal 
communication, September 13, 2021). The team 
then completed an email interview with the 
stakeholder, utilizing the questions outlined in 
Appendix A to further determine areas of need. 

It was determined that a sustainable and 

effective tool for measuring peace would be 
created to address the organization’s need for 
impact assessment of their restorative justice 

Peace is a vital factor in con-
sideration of the context sur-

rounding a person and can affect the 
performance and tasks in which they are 

able to engage. It is through this lens that 
the team has approached partnership with 

the PLC.



52ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts

programming in Indianapolis public schools. The 
results of the needs assessment interview were 
utilized to guide the OTS team in a brief literature 
review to provide a better understanding of 
how to measure peace within the PLC’s targeted 
communities. These stakeholder conversations 
identified the need for a peace-measuring tool, and 
the literature review conceptualized peace, outlined 
existing peace assessments, and provided key 
statistical measures of peace. 
 
Literature Review 
Peace Conceptualization 
A review of the literature was conducted to include 
a variety of perspectives to conceptualize the 
definition of peace. Historically, scholars have 
defined peace as the absence of war or conflict 
(Diehl, 2016; Stephenson, 2017). This has become  
known as “negative peace” and is considered a 
non-comprehensive definition (Boersema, 2015). 

The concept of positive peace, not considered the 
antonym of negative peace, has developed and 
been defined in many ways (Stephenson, 2017). 
Positive peace has been defined as, “the integration 
of human society,” (Galtung 1964, as cited in 
Stephenson, 2017). This definition highlights 
the interpersonal aspect and the importance 
of community in finding peace. Other factors 
that must be considered in discussing peace in 
a community are, “integration and cooperation, 
mutual respect, justice, human rights, democracy, 
relative gender, ethnic, and economic equality, and 
truth,” (Stephenson, 2017). This was echoed by 
Diehl (2016) in his definition of positive peace as 
taking into account the variations between people, 
and including, “conflict resolution, human rights, 
reconciliation, justice, economic development, 
human scrutiny, and gender,” (p. 4).

It is important to note that while searching through 

Figure 1. Theory of Change Map utilized to guide the OTS team's work in partnership with the Peace Learning Center. 

H A R V E Y  &  V I L L A L Y A Z O  | 
C U L T U R A L  D I P L O M A C Y 



53 VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  1

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G

the literature, most definitions of peace are focused 
on Western definitions that tend to center on the 
absence of violence. Non-Western definitions 
from a variety of cultures do not focus on negative 
peace but take a more positive approach, “in the 
sense that peace means the presence of certain 
characteristics rather than the absence of negative 
characteristics,” (Anderson, 2004, p. 102). 

PLC's definition and indicator of peace at a 
personal level is "an individual feels safe, valued, 
and loved;" while community peace was described 
as "each person takes responsibility to build 
respect, responsibility, and good communication to 
work out conflicts and differences while proactively 
eliminating injustice and violence," (D. Batts, 
personal communication, October 7, 2021). As 
scholars continue to conceptualize peace, they view 
peace as an experience. "Peace is experienced by 
people and can therefore be measured by subjective 
evaluations," (Anderson, 2004, p. 104). Peace as an 
element of the experience of community building 
makes it inherently interpersonal, and thus can be 
linked to occupation. To explain further, peace can 
then be considered an element of the environment, 
and as occupational participation does not occur in 
a vacuum, influences performance of all activities. 

Peace Assessments 
Due to definitions and indicators of peace varying 
across people, organizations, communities, and 
countries, researchers have struggled to develop a 
well-rounded assessment tool to measure peace. 
The PLC, whose definition of community peace was 
previously stated, is an organization that serves 
a large community. With this broadly-spanning 
definition in mind, a brief review of existing 
literature was completed to identify possible 
assessment tools that could guide the OTS team in 
the creation of their peace measuring tool. 

After reviewing multiple sources, several peace 
assessments were identified as potential models. 
While these assessment tools are not all-

encompassing, they provide a starting point for 
peace measurement within the PLC's targeted 
community. The guiding assessments that were 
identified include the Peace Evaluation Across 
Cultures and Environments (PEACE) scale, 
Davenport Scale, Functional Assessment of 
Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being Scale 
(FACIT-Sp), and the Global Peace Index (GPI). 

The PEACE scale is a "psychometric tool designed 
to assess an individual's experience of peace 
across multiple, related psycho-social domains" 
(Zucker et al., 2014, p. 2). In addition, this scale 
measures how "individuals rate their own sense of 
peace" (Zucker et al., 2014, p. 2). The Davenport 
Scale focuses on how, in the past, peace has been 
described as the absence of war; however, there 
has been a reconceptualization of the term in 
which it is not related to war or the absence of it. It 
develops guidelines on how to study peace, which 
could help create a specific measurement tool to 
measure peace (Diehl, 2016). One article discusses 
the FACIT-Sp and the difference and possible 
distinction between meaning and peace. The 
assessment is composed of 12 items that measure 
a variety of aspects that include peace, quality of 
life, mental health status, satisfaction, and well-
being. The responses are recorded on a scale of 0-4 
with 0 being "not at all" and 4 being "very much". 
The instructions also say to apply the statements 
within the past 7 days (Peterman et al., 2014). The 
GPI measures national peacefulness and "ranks 
153 nations by its presence or absence of violence 
using 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators 
that measure both the internal and external 
peacefulness of countries," (Sarangi, 2018, p. 8). 
Like its name, this instrument is used on a global 
level and measures the state of peace using three 
domains: "level of Societal Safety and Security, 
the extent of ongoing domestic and international 
conflict, and the degree of militarization" (Sarangi, 
2018, p. 8).



ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts 54

Overall, each of these assessments provides a 
different way to measure peace. While these tools 
assess peace at individual or global levels, they 
were utilized as a reference when creating a specific 
measurement tool to assess peace at a community 
level for the PLC.

Peace Statistics 
As previously mentioned, two types of peace 
statistics have been gathered and described in 
relevant literature: negative peace, which pertains 
to the reduction and prevention of violence, 
and positive peace, which is relief from violence 
through lasting and sustainable social justice 
movements (Christie & Montiel, 2013). Centering 
on negative peace, the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC) has a violence prevention 
division that collects data and provides resources 
on a variety of violence topics, including child 
abuse and neglect, firearms violence, intimate 
partner violence, and sexual violence (Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). With 
the goal of preventing violence before it begins, 
the CDC utilizes the social-economical model as a 
framework for influencing individual, relationship, 
community, and societal factors to reduce violence 
before it occurs (CDC, n.d.). This emphasizes 
the need for data collection to occur on multiple 
levels. Whereas, the Peace Data Standard focuses 
on positive peace and has proposed a mechanism 
for monitoring technology use through four main 
components: group identity information, behavior 
data, longitudinal data, and metadata (Guadagno 
et al., 2018). By analyzing these factors, researchers 
purport that increasing positive engagement 
across different groups of people can be facilitated 
through technology use and can, ultimately, be 
utilized to monitor peace within a results-based 
economic framework (Guadagno et al., 2018). 
Both the negative peace and positive peace models 
provide a guideline for beneficial data points to 
monitor. 

Many governmental agencies and major 
nongovernmental and nonprofit organizations 
that work to promote peace monitor their impact 
through the collection of data and statistics 
within the communities in which they work. The 
United States Institute of Peace is a governmental 
organization that, “promotes research, policy 
analysis, education, and training on international 
peace and conflict resolution in an effort to prevent 
and resolve violent conflicts, and to promote 
post-conflict stability,” (United States Institute 
of Peace, n.d.). Some of the data points that are 
collected by this organization include violence-
based deaths, houselessness and displacement, 
access to adequate food sources, crimes against 
vulnerable populations, and access to educational 
opportunities (United States Institute of Peace, 
n.d.). The Alliance for Peacebuilding (2021) is an 
international non-profit organization that monitors 
global peace. Data points that are collected by 
this organization include poverty level, infectious 
disease outbreak, local and widespread conflict 
occurrence, women’s inclusion in peace processes, 
and youth violence (Alliance for Peacebuilding, 
2021). Each of these major data points are used 
to quantify the impact of peacebuilding work and 
to measure the gaps that remain in peacebuilding 
processes.   
 
results & conclusion 
To tackle the challenge of measuring peace and 
the peace-promoting process, a combination of 
the PLC's values and decades of research were 
analyzed. The PLC's mission, "to reduce violence 
and increase kindness" within their community 
incorporates elements of both negative and 
positive peace (Peace Learning Center, 2021). In 
accordance with Director of Programs Dountonia 
Batts' descriptions of personal and community 
peace, the two are intertwined yet separately 
defined. Based on the organization's priorities 
and existing research on peace and peacebuilding, 

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G



55 VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  1

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G

the OTS team comprehensively included both 
positive and negative peace and multiple levels 
of assessment, both at the individual and the 
community level, within peace measuring tools. 
The OTS team created three surveys that focused 
on the (1) presence/absence of personal and 
community violence, (2) physical, psychological, 
and social wellbeing, (3) connectedness to 
community, (4) perception of safety, respect, and 
justice, (5) perception of the ability to advocate 
for and to meet one's needs, (6) occupational 
participation levels. See Appendix B for a full list of 
survey questions for students K-5th grade, students 
6-12th grade, and caregivers, following applicable 
health literacy guidelines. 

To periodically monitor peace factors within the 
communities that they serve, a list of specific 
statistical measures and online databases were also 
provided to the PLC and can be found in Appendix 
C. Both the surveys and statistical measures 
provide appropriate means for the Peace Learning 
Center to gauge whether their community work is 
resulting in its intended effects. 
 
recommendations  
& discussion 
Three surveys resulted from this process for the 
PLC to utilize as sustainable tools for measuring 
peace within their targeted community, 
Indianapolis public school students and families. 
The OTS team's recommendations for the survey 
include the following: utilizing a pre-post test 
method within a four-month timeline after the 
program is completed, distributing surveys 
electronically, maintaining privacy of the survey 
participants via respondent anonymity, and to 
increase survey participation through incentives. 
The survey data can then be utilized by the PLC 
staff to evaluate whether the program needs 
to be remodeled through improved training 
for facilitators, increasing follow-up training 

for educators, increased resources post-PLC 
programming, or overall content recreation. These 
surveys can be utilized to provide valuable feedback 
for PLC's programming within Indianapolis public 
schools. This collaborative experience also served 
as a learning opportunity for the occupational 
therapy student group to engage in community-
based work.

The Peace Learning Center provided feedback to 
the OTS team about the collaborative process and 
the anticipated plan of how the tools would be 
utilized. Having been previously unfamiliar with 
the role that occupational therapy practitioners can 
play in organizational consultation and program 
evaluation in a community setting, the PLC felt 
that the partnership provided them with a better 
understanding of how peace and occupational 
engagement are intertwined and relayed that the 
peace-measuring tools felt appropriate for use in 
their restorative justice programming.

In future community-based projects among 
occupational therapy practitioners and nonprofit 
organizations, it is important to keep several 
factors in mind. Due to challenges with staffing 
and resource shortages, communications between 
the OTS team and the PLC were limited beyond 
initial interviews and email correspondence. 
Because of this, the team had to continually remind 
themselves that their efforts should include short-
term participation on behalf of the occupational 
therapy practitioners and should result in 
appropriately sustainable progress, based on the 
organization's access to resources. The OTS team 
recognized these communication shortcomings 
and acknowledged that future community-based 
occupational therapy practice should seek to create 
additional, feasible ways for community partners 
to be more collaborative throughout program 
evaluation processes, suggesting that doing so will 
help to increase the sustainability of projects. 



56ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts

Appendix A: 
Emailed Needs Assessment Questionnaire 

Appendix B: 
Peace Measuring Tool for K-5 Students

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G



57 VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  1

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G

Appendix D: 

Peace Measuring Tool for Student Caregivers

Appendix C: 
Peace Measuring Tool for 6-12 Students



References

Alliance for Peacebuilding (2021). 
Peace & conflict statistics. https://
www.allianceforpeacebuilding.org/
peace-conflict-stats

Anderson, R. (2004). A definition 
of peace. Peace and Conflict: Jour-
nal of Peace Psychology, 10(2), 
101–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327949pac1002_2

Boersema, D. (2015). Sequoyah 
and Seattle: Chief world sys-
tems. Value Inquiry Book Se-
ries, 282, 129-138. https://doi.
org/10.1163/9789004299597_014 
 
Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Violence 
prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/about/social-eco-
logicalmodel.html  
 
Christie, D. J., & Montiel, C. J. (2013). 
Contributions of psychology to war 
and peace. American Psychologist, 
68(7), 502. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0032875   
 
Diehl, P. F. (2016). Exploring peace: 
Looking beyond war and nega-
tive peace. International Studies 
Quarterly, 60(1), 1-10. https://doi.
org/10.1093/isq/sqw005  
 
Dunn, W., Brown, C., & McGuigan, A. 
(1994). The ecology of human perfor-
mance: A framework for considering 
the effect of context. American Jour-
nal of Occupational Therapy, 48(7), 
595-607. https://doi.org/10.5014/
ajot.48.7.595 Fazio, L.S. (2017). Devel-
oping occupation-centered programs 
with the community. SLACK Incor-
porated. 
 
Guadagno, R. E., Nelson, M., & Lock 
Lee, L. (2018). Peace data standard: a 
practical and theoretical framework 
for using technology to examine 
intergroup interactions. Frontiers 
in Psychology, 9, 734. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00734  
 
Peace Learning Center. (2021). About 
us. https://peacelearningcenter.org/
about-us/ 

Sarangi, U. (2018). Global Peace Index 
of Economies. International Journal 
on World Peace, 35(2), 7-25.  

Peterman, A. H., Reeve, C. L., Win-
ford, E. C., Cotton, S., Salsman, J. M., 
McQuellon, R., Tsevat, J., & Camp-
bell, C. (2014). Measuring meaning 
and peace with the FACIT–Spiritual 
Well-Being Scale: Distinction without 
a difference? Psychological Assess-
ment, 26(1), 127–137.  
 
Scaffa, M., & Reitz, S.M., (2020). 
Community-based and Population 
Focused Practice in OT. 
F.A.Davis Company.  
 
Stephenson, C. M. (2017). Defining 
peace. International Studies Review, 
19(1), 138-139. 
United States Institute of Peace 
(n.d.). Publications. https://www.
usip.org/publications?publication_
type[6]=6&page=1  
 
Zucker, H., Ahn, R., Sinclair, S. J., Blais, 
M., Nelson, B. D., & Burke, T. F. (2014). 
Development of a scale to measure 
individuals’ ratings of peace. Conflict 
and Health, 8(1), 1-7. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1752-1505-8-17 

 
 

58ENGAGE!  |  c r e at i v e  a rts

B E L K I E W I T Z  E T.  A L .  |  
P E A C E B U I L D I N G


