Annexes Annex No. 1 Questionnaire for the consultations After the discussions during the workshop in Bristol/Vienna, did you in any way enhance/change/ further reflect on your institution’s follow-up and implementation procedures? REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS-RELATED • How do you use the SMART criteria in drafting recommendations? • To which extent are the (structural/systemic) causes of the problems identified in the report and recommendations? • Are issues/recommendations prioritized according to certain criteria? How is this process done? MEASURING IMPACT • What type of databases do you use? What type of information is collated? • How is the information used in practice? In following-up on recommendations? • What type of indicators or benchmarks do you use in your work? • Did you develop your own or do they use existing indicators or benchmarks? • How have indicators or benchmarks been used specifically to follow-up on recommendations or to promote implementation? If so in what way? FOLLOW-UP STRATEGY • Is there a mission statement of the NPM? If yes, how is this mission statement used operationally in the process of achieving results? • What is the process and procedure for planning concrete follow-up action? • Which unit/individuals within the NPMs are charged with follow-up work • How is (the existing) multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary expertise used for shaping of follow-up strategies? • Are there examples where the different disciplinary perspectives have concretely enriched the follow-up action? • How much NPM resources are dedicated to follow-up work? • Have there been (political/societal) developments, which were used as “windows of opportunity” for achieving an improvement the NPM had been working for? • Are predictable political events (e.g. elections, budget cycles) used for developing strategic action? • Are there examples where the NPM has achieved change by framing an issue in a different way? (e.g. stressing the positive role of police for the protection of human rights) • Are there examples where the NPM has been able to put a topic of concern on the (political) agenda? If yes, what were the conditions for doing this successfully? • Are there examples where the NPM has developed concrete policy proposals, which were then taken up? • Are there obstacles to implementation, which are primarily related to opposition from powerful actors (e.g., staff unions, interest groups)? If yes, how does the NPM deal with it? Have there been positive examples of overcoming this kind of obstacles? • How are stakeholders identified that might be relevant for implementing recommended action? Is there a process for doing this? • What are the criteria for deciding with whom to cooperate? (e.g. same views regarding certain problems, social relations of persons within organizations) DIALOGUE WITH THE STATE • By what means do you establish trust with the authorities? • Do you have the right to address your recommendations to any authority deemed relevant (institution visited, ministries, legislative, executive authority)? Do you have a legal basis obliging States to consider your recommendations and enter into a dialogue with you? - 119 -