Part III: A systematic change perspective The monitoring framework. An adequate framework for monitoring has to be developed which addresses, in particular the following two main questions: 1. Which information do we need in order to assess progress? This requires the definition of adequate indicators in relation to the dimensions of change as outlined above. This is a crucial element and the single most important challenge.311 It is important to stress that the development of indicators needs to take place already at the beginning of any project. 2. How do we get this information? By which monitoring techniques? Who collects this information? The monitoring process The monitoring process encompasses the collection of relevant data, the interpretation of the data collected and their use in the ongoing process. On the basis of the data generated, a thorough reflection on the adequacy of the tools employed for achieving the desired changed and, if necessary, the adjustment of the (choice of) tools is needed. This adjustment will be called for in particular when external circumstances are changing. Furthermore, in a systematic change perspective, such a reflection necessarily involves the adequacy of the underlying assumptions. Principles of monitoring The monitoring process is guided by a number of principles that are described in monitoring literature and monitoring manuals.312 Monitoring should: • systematically look at results, • focus on the different levels of a project (assumptions, objectives, activities), • be systematically reflective (Why is something happening? How did it happen? What are the implications? What needs to happen next?) Building Block 9: Evaluation Relevant questions • What is the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability of the NPM’s actions? • How can actions be readjusted and corrective action taken? • Who will carry out the evaluation, what is the methodology used (e.g. internal/external; expert or participatory)? • What is its scope and purpose? Evaluation is a selective exercise at certain intervals or at the end of a project. It can be seen as a more rigorous and comprehensive approach to understanding impact of one’s work in general or of particular strategies/activities/programmes undertaken. In the NPM context, it seems that, in particular, interventions for dealing with more structural problems underlying the occurrence of torture could benefit from evaluations. Obviously, the overall impact of the NPM would be a suitable object of evaluation. Evaluation is a comprehensive undertaking whose importance for developing systematic strategies for follow-up needs to be stressed. What has been said above about monitoring is relevant here as well: existing models and tools need to be adapted to the world of NPMs. Rationale of evaluation The main objectives of evaluation are to readjust and take corrective action in case of not achieving results, to enhance accountability towards stakeholders, and, in particular, to learn from experience, both for organisational development and strengthening of capacities of staff. 311 ICHRP, Assessing the Effectiveness (2005). Amnesty International, Impact Assessment Toolkit (2011) 31. 312 - 108 -