Part III: A systematic change perspective of the work of monitoring bodies.’252 This statement encapsulates well what surfaces as a need throughout the OPCAT implementation practice. This need is also emphasised by the SPT’s ‘Analytical self-assessment tool’, which states: The NPM should develop a strategy for its work in order to achieve the maximum impact on problems and challenges relevant to its mandate in the local context. Activities and their outcomes should be monitored and analysed on an ongoing basis and the lessons learnt should be used to develop its practices. Such an assessment could be based on a framework, starting with existing challenges, such as resourcing issues, and an assessment of activities currently undertaken and moving through a range of additional factors […]253 This tool has been used by the UK NPM, which has described it as very useful for its self-evaluation and it was also in the UK that the first external evaluations of the NPM took place.254 There are clearly increasing reflections about the impact achieved and how it could be strengthened, both nationally and internationally. While many deem that the time is ripe for strengthening the strategic approaches of NPMs with a view to fostering their role as agents of change, the consultations and discussions held with NPMs have also shown that for most NPMs this is a new terrain. Towards a better understanding of the theoretical basis of change A useful approach to developing the work strategically in order to achieve maximum impact is making use of so-called ‘theories of change’, which shall be briefly presented to gain a general understanding of its origins and added value for NPMs: Theory of change can be defined as the conceptual model for achieving a collective vision. A theory of change typically addresses the linkages among the strategies, outcomes, and goals that support a broader mission or vision, along with the underlying assumptions that are related to these linkages. Theories of change can be expressed in many forms but ultimately should explain how you get from ‘here’ to ‘there’.255 ‘Theories of change’ seem first to have emerged in the 1990ies, in the context of approaches to improve evaluation of community initiative programmes in the USA. Activists and donors alike wanted to know whether and how the objectives of their programmes were achieved, or simply put, ‘how and why an initiative works’.256 A second strand was the field of international development cooperation, where earlier approaches to professionalise social practice in the form of the logical framework analysis have been supplemented by more comprehensive attempts to understand, evaluate and improve programmes within a broader policy context, applying ‘theory of change’ approaches.257 ‘Theories of change’ have now been increasingly taken up by organisations working in the field of human rights in the broad sense, including human rights based approaches to development. Oxfam, Action-Aid, Hivos International and Amnesty International, just to mention some of the more prominent ones, employ APT, Regional Forum in Latin America (2014) 72. SPT, UN Doc CAT/OP/1, para 5, where among the ‘additional factors’ the SPT mentions e.g. ‘[…] analysis of problems / challenges; and of good practices identified; cooperation with other actors; resources budgeted; strategies and working methods to be adopted when implementing activities; recommendations submitted to authorities; follow-up actions on recommendations, including dialogue with the authorities; any changes observed, and an assessment of implementation of recommendations; systematisation of observations, recommendations issued, and the responses received from the authorities, including implementation; analysis of how and why both successes and failures in effectiving [sic] change have occurred; resources spent; consideration for the need to develop alternative strategies or approaches.’ 254 UK, NAO, Inspection (2015). 255 Organizational Research Services, A guide to measuring advocacy and policy. Prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation (WA 2007) 11. 256 Weiss (1995), as quoted in Stein and Valters, Understanding ‘Theory of change’ in international development: a review of existing knowledge (Asia Foundation and London School of Economics 2012) 3 [hereinafter: Stein and Valters (2012)]. 257 Stein and Valters (2012) 3. 252 253 - 89 -