The length of a visit report usually depends on the type and size of place visited, the length of the visit, the number and complexity of issues identified and the objective of the visit (whether it is an in-depth visit, a follow up visit, an ad hoc visit or a reactive visit). In general, a balance should be found between providing exhaustive information about the visited place and having a readable and understandable visit report where priority issues and NPM recommendations are easy to find and understand.
The NPM visit report on the first visit to a place is usually more detailed, providing a baseline assessment of the visited place. The following reports are usually more concise and refer to earlier reports when discussing basic information on the facility. Follow up reports, for example, may only address new or complementary issues, highlight key issues and recommendations raised in the first report yet not addressed by authorities and acknowledge recommendations implemented by authorities since the previous visit.
Having a reader-friendly report usually means not going beyond a few dozen pages, although this again may vary depending on the report’s content (including the use of pictures and visuals) and the objective of the visit.
Practice from NPMs has shown that very extensive reports may not be the most effective way to reach out to authorities. Often authorities or other interested parties may skip the descriptive section of the report and focus only on the recommendations. Therefore, an option for public versions of visit reports could be to include a short executive summary with a concise analysis of the most urgent issues identified by the NPM, a summary of the main findings and the recommendations issued to the different targeted authorities.
