Chapter 16: Monitor and evaluate KEY QUESTIONS • Why should every national inquiry be subjected to monitoring and evaluation? • What form should monitoring and evaluation take? 16.1. WHY MONITOR AND EVALUATE? Monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of the national inquiry process. It enables the NHRI to review progress against objectives, identify any changes that may be required to the process of the inquiry, learn from the experience of this particular inquiry and, in that way, increase the effectiveness of future inquiries. It contributes to an assessment more broadly of the effectiveness of a national inquiry strategy. It also enhances the accountability of the work of the NHRI as a whole. Monitoring and evaluation should be incorporated into the inquiry’s strategy during the planning process (Chapter 9) and it should be resourced adequately to enable it to be reliable and informative. 16.2. WHEN TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE? There is no single point at which monitoring and evaluation is appropriate, to the exclusion of all other points. Monitoring will occur as a continuing process throughout the inquiry’s life. There can be different forms of monitoring at different times, developed and adapted to the particular circumstances and the stage of the project. The inquiry team needs to be assessing regularly how the inquiry as a whole is going against the objectives it is seeking to achieve and how individual activities have gone. For example, a good internal review of a public hearing can enable the inquiry to learn useful lessons about what worked and what did not so that future hearings can be adapted to take account of the review. The inquiry should have a procedure by which each major activity is reviewed as it is completed and changes made to future activities on the basis of the review. The monitoring process could also reflect on whether, given the information gathered, the original inquiry objectives are the correct ones, or whether they need adjusting. The evaluation is a more significant review undertaken at the completion of the inquiry itself, that is, soon after the inquiry report is released. This is still too early for a thorough, overall evaluation of the inquiry but it enables the NHRI to capture the views of those most closely involved in the inquiry, both inside and outside the institution, before they move on to other assignments. The evaluation at this point is directed towards obtaining their reflections while the inquiry experience is still fresh in their minds. The inquiry plan should incorporate a major evaluation about a year after the report’s release. This is the earliest point at which it is possible to look at the inquiry’s effectiveness in terms of the impact of the inquiry as a whole, including its report, and to do so with some degree of objectivity and distance. This evaluation might be undertaken in conjunction with, or immediately following, a one-year review of implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. The two reviews are quite different exercises. The evaluation would look at the effectiveness of the inquiry as a whole, while the review of implementation would have a narrower focus on how those to whom recommendations were directed have responded to those recommendations. Nonetheless, the extent of implementation of recommendations is a major aspect of evaluating effectiveness. Chapter 16: Monitor and evaluate | 77