Some potential pitfalls of indicators National human rights institutions are mainly accountable to the public, to the authority that appoints them (such as Parliament), to their governmental and non-governmental partners, and to their donors. Their performance is, and should be, under constant scrutiny. Indicators are often used to improve ­accountability, on the grounds that they are proxy markers of an organisation’s overall effectiveness. In using them, nevertheless, national institutions should bear in mind certain risks. First, programmes may be distorted because managers and staff concentrate on meeting indicators that have been set and fail to address human rights ­problems, for which no indicators have been devised. Institutions should ­remain focused on their real objectives. Indicators are merely tools to help them. Second, indicators may become performance targets. If they are not devised carefully, this can create perverse incentives. As already mentioned, while it is good to process complaints swiftly, the objective remains to resolve them satisfactorily. Reporting systems should reflect this, even though the time-frame within which a complaint is handled is much easier to report than satisfactory resolution. When indicators function as targets, the information they provide should reflect the organisation’s objectives and should not inadvertently distort them. Third, it is often tempting to measure something simply because it can be ­measured easily. If an NHRI decides to collect performance indicators, it should spend time considering what it needs to measure: “If an organisation does not measure what it values, it will end up valuing what can be measured.”10 Finally, indicators may consume more time and effort than the information they generate is worth. Developing assessment tools, and measuring performance and impact should be cost-effective. When choosing them, NHRIs will need to take into account their capacity and resources and their priorities. Indicators are not useful if they absorb so much of a national institution’s time, energy and money that its effectiveness is hampered. Some advantages of indicators We have stressed the dangers of indicators because it is all too easy to treat them as off-the-peg solutions to the challenges of planning and ­implementation. They are not solutions but, properly used, they can be very useful tools. First of all, they help national institutions to gather information about the organisation itself and its programmes. What is it doing well? Where is it making an impact, how and why? 10 Audit Commission (United Kingdom), On target: the practice of performance indicators, 2000, p. 8. www.audit-commission.gov.uk/products/guidance/80DDA381-E506-4769-9ED27E9DDD4D7C4B/archive_mptarget.pdf Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions 41