Part III: A systematic change perspective variations of a ‘theory of change’-approach with a view to ‘Proving and Improving our Impact’, as Amnesty International calls its internal impact assessment toolkit.258 Theorist and practitioners alike highlight several characteristics as added values that ‘theory of change’approaches bring to the development of strategic thinking and action.259 They appear to be very relevant in an NPM context for a number of reasons. First and foremost, a ‘theory of change’-approach requires systematic critical reflection on one’s ideas and assumptions about why and how change can be brought about. This is done by identifying and questioning underlying assumptions, and thus making them explicit. Secondly, it departs from linear thinking (partly present in other planning approaches) and is based on a more accurate, a systemic and comprehensive view of the social world. Thirdly, it systematically combines thinking with action in order to achieve concrete results, in this case to further the NPM’s mission: to effectively contribute to a better protection of human rights in settings where there is risk of abuse. Why should NPMs adopt a systematic change perspective? ‘Proving and improving impact’ is a good way of summarising the rationale behind embarking on more systematic thinking about one’s work and its impact, and this rationale can be easily transferred to the world of NPMs. In more detail, the reasons can be seen as the following: • Enhancing accountability: A systematic change perspective can help to show that one’s work is effective and does achieve its main objectives. It thus contributes to enhancing accountability of one’s work towards the respective constituencies, the Parliament in the case of most NPMs. • Better performance: It contributes to improving the work and impact of organisations. This is associated with improved strategic planning, implementation, monitoring of implementation and evaluation so that lessons learned may be fed back into the on-going work. • More transparency: It also contributes to make one’s work transparent, which in turn leads to greater public awareness of the subject matter dealt with by NPMs, namely the prevention of torture and protection of human rights in closed institutions. • It strengthens strategic, conscientious and thoughtful use of resources. 2. Ten building blocks of an effective NPM follow-up strategy As mentioned above, this Chapter presents ten building blocks which are considered to contain key elements for developing an effective follow-up strategy. They draw on different sources. They are partly based on academic insights, in particular from social sciences, on how social change can be brought about, and partly inspired by concrete practical examples of organisations trying to understand and improve their work in different areas, in particular in the fields of international development and of human rights. These (mostly civil society) approaches to systematic ways of thinking about and bringing about change are a treasure trove from which a lot can be learnt. The insights and practical tools are adapted here to the field of preventive human rights monitoring in closed institutions by NPMs. The following general considerations should be taken into account: • The ten buildings blocks should be understood as what the name suggests: blocks with which to build one’s strategy for strengthening effectiveness and impact. The sequencing of the building blocks tries to follow the logic of NPMs’ work, but they are not aligned in a rigid order. They are rather to be used in a flexible way. Experience will show what are the best ways for building an effective NPM’s work. • The building blocks vary among each other. Some contain a more general presentation of concepts and ideas, while others present very practical tools for NPMs to use. • The presentation of the building blocks starts with a set of questions that appear to be relevant to the work NPMs before giving a more detailed explanation of the main concepts. If applicable, examples from existing NPM practice are then added. Amnesty International, Impact Assessment Toolkit (2011). Stein and Valters (2012), 9-10; consultation with Amnesty International, 9 March 2015. 258 259 - 90 -