Using indicators to guide a dynamic process of reform: access Step 1. A national institution decides to become more accessible to three groups which it identified – through a parliamentary inquiry and by analysing its own complaints statistics – as particularly at risk: (a) minorities, (b) the elderly and (c) those classified by government as “very poor”. Step 2. The institution first collects disaggregated data from each of its ­ ffices. This information leads it to conclude that, whereas the priority o groups represent 35 per cent of the population, they represent only 15 per cent of the institution’s users (quantitative indicators). To understand why this is so, the institution runs an opinion survey among its users and among the prioritised groups (qualitative indicators). This reveals the reasons why priority groups fail to use its services: minorities, because they do not speak the official language; the elderly, because they cannot travel easily to the offices; and the “very poor”, because they do not know about the NHRI’s existence and are suspicious of official institutions. The survey also reveals that the general population would like NHRI offices to be closer to hand and easier to reach. Step 3. The institution therefore introduces a number of changes. First, it opens new local offices in smaller towns. Second, it translates documents into minority languages and hires more multilingual staff. Third, it sites its offices near public transport nodes and makes them physically accessible for the elderly. Finally, it advertises its services on local radio programmes and engages outreach staff to provide on-the-spot advice in poorer communities. Step 4. To analyse the effect of these reforms, the institution continues to collect disaggregated information using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The NHRI finds that use by the prioritised groups increased with the opening of new offices, but increased much more swiftly after the other reforms were introduced. Nevertheless, use by “very poor” people remains well below the average. The NHRI therefore maintains its new policies and ... Step 5. … starts a new process of inquiry, focusing on “very poor” ­people, to establish how it can more effectively provide them with services they will use. The quality of the outreach programmes is evaluated (using ­performance indicators) and a more detailed assessment of the needs and ­expectations of poor people is undertaken, involving participatory consultation. This ­information is used to develop and introduce new policies, the impact of which is then assessed… 40 Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions