for staff. If well-chosen, staff know what is expected of them. This creates the risk, ­however, that achieving indicators can be confused with achieving aims. If this occurs, it may distort the programme and prevent the institution from responding sensitively to changes in its environment. Several systems have been devised to set performance targets and ­indicators. National institutions that receive donor funds are likely to be familiar with several of them, since different funders favour different techniques. In most instances, however, evaluating the institution’s performance can be based on applied common sense. Whenever a national institution selects an activity, whether recurrent (commenting on draft laws) or one-off (a public inquiry), it should decide in advance how it will determine whether the task has been conducted properly. Three different levels of indicators will probably be required: ▪ Indicators of output show what has been done. They measure numbers of complaints handled, workshops held, people trained, laws reviewed etc. ▪ Indicators of performance show how well the activities were carried out. ▪ Indicators of impact show how far the activities had a positive impact on the enjoyment of human rights. A public inquiry into an important human rights issue The activity – Suppose a national human rights institution decides that a ­particular human rights issue is so important that a public inquiry is required. The Terms of Reference invite inquiry into all aspects of the issue with a view to making recommendations to the authorities responsible. Indicators of output – A public inquiry is a large undertaking. The NHRI therefore prepares a detailed plan of activities that will require: the number and location of public hearings, the number of expected witnesses, the length and timing of the report, plans for presenting recommendations to the authorities and the public, a budget, and so on. Indicators of performance – In any public inquiry, a key group are those whose lives are affected by the issue under consideration. One aim of the inquiry is to satisfy their expectations. To establish indicators on this matter, the NHRI elicits their expectations at the start of the inquiry and finds out whether these expectations have been satisfied at the end. Other ­indicators of performance might include completion of the different tasks on the ­activity list – hearings of witnesses, completion of the report within budget and on time, etc. Indicators of impact – The simplest measures of impact will relate to the inquiry’s recommendations. Ideally, these should be formulated in terms that enable the NHRI to determine if the authorities comply with them. Longerterm impacts will have to be evaluated by other means. For example, if the inquiry was prompted by complaints, the NHRI can monitor whether complaints on this issue decrease, and if they do, what caused this change. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions 33