Part III: A systematic change perspective Any strategically oriented approach to follow-up needs to thoroughly address the choice of tools and their suitability for achieving the desired change. While a range of follow-up tools are already used by NPMs (as described in Chapter II), systematic reflection on their suitability to achieve change appears to be largely missing. The following general thoughts on the types of tools are meant to constitute food for thought for strategising. Follow-up visits Strengths • They enable direct checking of implementation of recommendations on the spot • They create an opportunity to explain the rationales behind recommendations, if needed, and directly addressing the concerns, fear related to and difficulties of implementation • They allow concrete advice at the place of detention to be given, if this is compatible with the self-understanding of NPMs Shortcomings • They require a lot of resources • They cannot easily address the broader change dimensions (e.g. the institutional arrangements and the policy level) Written communication Written communication is a fundamental part of any bureaucratic procedure, and in particular Ombuds institutions tend to have a strongly developed written communication culture. Strengths • It provides records of the communication and thus constitutes a ‘permanent’ means of communication • It allows for detail and precision Shortcomings • It creates/maintains a clear distance between interlocutors and offers no possibility to clarify possible doubts and/or misunderstandings • It potentially creates a defensive attitude of the counterparts as possible fears cannot be dealt with directly Oral/personal communication Strengths • It constitutes a more comprehensive channel of communication, involving non-verbal aspects • It is better suited to reaching the change dimensions of awareness and attitude • It allows for a direct way of dealing with underlying fears and misunderstandings • It can serve well for building trust Shortcomings • It entails the danger of losing the necessary distance to the interlocutors, in particular to authorities • It is an unsteady form of communication and does not provide for written records. Mixed working groups with state authorities Strengths • They allow for a regular and institutionalised dialogue between NPMs and authorities • They help to build a better understanding of the mandate and approach of the NPM on the side of the authorities • They help to better understand the concrete conditions and circumstances of implementation - 102 -