Part III: A systematic change perspective As mentioned in Part II, Chapter 1.6, several NPMs such as Cyprus, Estonia, France, Poland carry out training for authorities as part of their mandate and have stated that this does not only aim at strengthening the participants’ activities but also provides an excellent opportunity to influence their attitudes and values. Particularly innovative are the current reflections within the Dutch NPM on how to more effectively bring about change in the attitudes of staff in places of detention. NPM representatives have recently received a targeted training on this subject and are also considering how their working methods could be adapted, e.g. in regard to the content of the reports and its direct dissemination and presentation to detention staff. Expressing change in SMART recommendations of NPMs NPMs make recommendations to the authorities with a view to achieving the objectives of the OPCAT. They express what they want to see as concrete change. The question of how to develop recommendations in a way that they have an impact has been a prominent topic in the evolving practice of preventive monitoring in recent years. This is understandable in view of the paramount importance of recommendations in the monitoring process: Recommendations contain a condensed problem description and they provide for an orientation of the NPM’s work which does not remain stuck in the problem mode and focus on the past, but is fathoming possible solutions to the problems found.275 Solution orientations are common in business contexts for understanding how change can be brought about.276 Guidance on how monitoring bodies should draft their recommendations can be increasingly found both in NPM practice as well as practical guidance papers that organisations specialised in this area have produced. The double SMART model proposed by APT has been of particular relevance in this field (see Part I, Chapter 4.2.1) Several of these criteria have great importance from a change perspective, in particular: Recommendations should state the underlying causes of a problem (Root cause awareness); they should identify the levels as well as the actors relevant to achieving the change sought (right targeting); they should take into account the relative hierarchy of importance of problems according to human rights criteria in conjunction with limited resources and the complexity of change processes (prioritisation). Concrete examples of NPMs using the double SMART model can be found in Part I, Chapter 4.2.1. Building Block 3: Reflecting about how change happens and clarifying assumptions Relevant questions 275 276 • What are the assumptions underlying our work? What do we think about how change in the places we visit happens? • Do we have a forum where we discuss such issues? • How do we use the multidisciplinary composition and/or expertise of an NPM effectively? Also in the follow-up process? • Does the lawyer’s view dominate the approach to work? How can we ensure that views from other disciplines are stronger represented? • How are the insights from social sciences used for developing a change perspective? For example: Are we aware of possible ‘windows of opportunity’ opening up to achieve an improvement the NPM had been working for? Do we pay adequate attention to presenting and framing our messages so as to achieve a better acceptance by the authorities, as well as the general public? See APT, Making effective recommendations (2008). See e.g. P Jackson and M McKergow, Solutions Focus, The simple way to positive change (Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2002). - 95 -