Part IV Communicating findings 14.1.1. Correlation is not causation This final assessment is not a mechanical, formulaic exercise, however. The conclusions about human rights compliance that can be drawn from quantitative data alone should not be overstated. Just because there is a relationship between two pieces of data (e.g. an increase in pension rates and a decrease in poverty rates), it does not necessarily mean that one caused the other. This is especially the case given the time-lag between the implementation of a particular policy decision and detectable effects on the ground. For this reason, human rights advocates will rarely be able to prove full, incontestable causality between the State’s efforts and the results of those efforts. There is no magic mathematical formula that will tell you whether or not the State is complying with its human rights obligations. The final judgment must be a considered evaluation of all the evidence. Quantitative data makes an important contribution to analysis at each step, however the final judgment must be a qualitative one, contextualizing numbers with human knowledge and interpreting available evidence regarding the State’s obligations of conduct and result. For this reason, it may not be possible to conclude, with total confidence, that the particular chain of events or factors uncovered in your research has led to a particular outcome. As discussed in Chapter 3, the links between the situation of rights holders and the conduct of duty bearers can be indirect. Nevertheless, it may not always be necessary to be so definitive; the degree of certainty with which conclusions need to be made will vary depending on the objectives of your monitoring activity. As discussed in the introduction to this Manual, monitoring might be undertaken for a variety of purposes. Monitoring for the purpose of verifying complaints of alleged violations (i.e. fact-finding) might require a higher standard of proof or degree of substantiation of findings. More cautious conclusions might be appropriate when the purpose is to conduct a general study to raise questions about a particular situation (i.e. auditing). For example, reporting that the evidence “suggests” maximum resources are not being utilized, or that a policy “appears” to have a discriminatory effect, may be enough to draw correlations and identify “red flags” where improvements are needed, opening space for debate and dialogue about alternative approaches. 14.2. DRAFTING YOUR REPORT Despite the wide range of monitoring activities and purposes, the objective of any monitoring report, broadly speaking, should be to inform the audience about a problem and persuade them to take action to improve the situation. However, this is not always an easy task. Having gathered a lot of valuable and interesting information during the course of the monitoring activity, it can be tempting to include everything. Nevertheless, as the accompanying graph demonstrates, this can be counterproductive. Including everything can make it harder for your audience to understand your conclusions and the supporting evidence. If you try to cover too many points, you will lose the reader’s attention. Concise reports – between 20 and 30 pages – generally have the most impact. It is also critical to focus on the main findings and develop solid arguments to support them. Source: Jennifer Hagy, via Tactical Tech Chapter 14: Drawing conclusions and making concrete recommendations | 139