126 CHAPTER 13 Measuring the Impact of Systemic Trial-Monitoring Activities Measuring the impact of any trial-monitoring programme, especially systemic programmes, can be a daunting task. Because of the nature of the assistance they provide, the effectiveness of their outputs is inherently difficult to assess. However, trial-monitoring programmes should and do perform assessments of their impact. These assessments can indicate whether reports and other advocacy activities have actually been effective; whether monitoring should continue to focus on a specific field or expand or change to different priority cases; whether there is a need to advocate a particular course of action or adopt a different strategy to induce the desired impact; and, ultimately, whether monitoring work has achieved its goals, signifying that the programme can be ended. Issuing reports can, in itself, be regarded as an achievement, in the sense that reports provide evidence of problems and recommendations for how to remedy the problems. For the purposes of this chapter, however, impact refers to the extent to which monitoring reports and other programme activities actually result in changes of practices or in reforms in the justice system. Although the development of a model methodology for the assessment of impact is beyond the scope of this manual, the points mentioned below provide some guidance. 13.1 Choice of a model for measuring impact In many contexts – including judicial reform – the evaluation of development activities and of project impact has focused on criteria that meet a donor’s requirements for accountability. This means that the indicators used for measuring the success of a project have concentrated on showing that it completed the specific activities it was supposed to, within the time limits and budget agreed. The measurements used are often quantitative, i.e., whether a programme has monitored a particular number of trials, conducted training for a specified number of people or issued the required reports. This has been described as an “audit model”.190 In recent years, however, project assessment has shifted toward a “learning model”. This approach focuses on the degree to which project activities have had tangible substantive impacts, for example, whether problematic court practices have been corrected or laws been amended.191 In view of the above, programme managers should endeavour to develop concrete indicators, which will enable them to assess the specific and overall impact their activities have on the justice system, both in the short term and in the long term. This requires indicators that measure not only the activities of a programme itself, but also the performance of justice-system actors. Some considerations to take into account regarding performance indicators are described in the next section. 190  See, for example, Livingston Armytage, “Monitoring Judicial Integrity: Lessons for the Implementation of UNCAC Article 11”, U4 Issue 2009:12, p.14. 191  Ibid.