Memorandum

Assessing Human Rights in

the United States:
Domestic Human Rights
Indicators
 The Opportunity Agenda

Acknowledgments
This report was authored by Megan Haberle, Economic Opportunity Fellow and Associate Counsel,
and Judith Le, Legal Intern, and was edited by Juhu Thukral, Director of Law and Advocacy, at The
Opportunity Agenda. Special thanks to Christopher Moore, Communications Associate, for the design
of this document. This report was made possible by support from the Ford Foundation, The Libra
Foundation, the U.S. Human Rights Fund, the Starry Night Fund of the Tides Foundation, Open
Society Foundations and Oak Foundation. The statements made and views expressed are those of The
Opportunity Agenda.

About
The Opportunity Agenda
The Opportunity Agenda was founded in 2004 with the mission of building the national will
to expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, the
organization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions that
expand opportunity for everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizes
and translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions; uses communications
and media to understand and influence public opinion; and identifies and advocates for policies that
improve people’s lives. To learn more about The Opportunity Agenda, go to our website at
www.opportunityagenda.org.

The Opportunity Agenda is a project of Tides Center.

May 2011
 The Opportunity Agenda

Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1

II. Human Rights Indicators 2

A. Uses of Human Rights Indicators
Internationally and at Home 2
B. The Need for Human Rights Indicators
in the United States 2
C. Human Rights Indicators Models 5
D. Application within the United States 10

III. Recommendations 11
A. Measure established human rights obligations 11

B. Include Federal, State, and Local Level Measures 11

C. Consider Structural, Process, and
Outcome Measures 11
D. Utilize quantitative and qualitative
data from a variety of reliable sources 12
E. Disaggregate population data with
respect to relevant social categories 12
F. Incorporate public engagement
as a consistent element 13
G. Ensure inter-governmental coordination
of collection and reporting 13
H. Report and communicate indicators
domestically in terms of core American values 13
I. Integrate Domestic and International
Human Rights Reporting 14

IV. Conclusion 15
 The Opportunity Agenda

I. Introduction
Human rights are an integral part of the United States’ legal, political, and cultural foundation. They
embody the values of dignity, fairness, equality, and opportunity necessary to a just society and an
empowered populace,1 providing a set of “universal ethical standards” embodied in domestic laws and
international treaties.2 These principles, codified within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
as well as in our nation’s seminal documents, ensure that “all human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights.”3

Sixty years after the United States led the crafting and creation of the international human rights
regime, those rights are increasingly becoming part of our domestic law, policy, and culture.4 For
example, recent state, as well as U.S. Supreme Court decisions, reference international and foreign
human rights law.5 The Senate Judiciary Committee held historic hearings this year on domestic
implementation of international human rights treaties,6 and state and local legislatures have begun
recognizing protections under these treaties,7 which, along with our Constitution and federal statutes,
represent “the supreme law of the land.”8

As this awareness of human rights continues to grow, so does the need for a systematic assessment
of those rights – and of the progress that our nation is making in protecting them. The development
of uniform, accurate human rights indicators would enable such an assessment, while enhancing
government transparency, accountability, and public trust. Effective measurement tools could provide
structured, accessible data on the domestic human rights landscape, which could then be used for
public education, policy-making, funding decisions, and civic participation.9

This policy brief provides an overview of how existing human rights indicators are currently used,
including their formation, predominant frameworks, and applicability to the United States. We also
propose a set of indicators that may used in evaluating the status of human rights in America, by
drawing both upon our review of existing international frameworks and upon core American values.
We propose that these indicators serve as a tool for use by governments, civil society, and the public, to
assess and protect human rights for all within the United States.

1 The Opportunity Agenda, Talking Human Rights in the United States: A Communications Toolkit [hereinafter Talking
Human Rights], (2009), available at http://opportunityagenda.org/talking_human_rights_united_states_communications_toolkit.
2 Tanya Coke, Perfecting Our Union: Human Rights Success Stories from Across the United States 6, The United States
Human Rights Fund (March 2010).
3 G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).
4 See Talking Human Rights, supra fn 1, at 5; The Opportunity Agenda, Human Rights in State Courts (2007), available at
http://opportunityagenda.org/human_rights_state_courts.
5 See e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (where Court held rulings to be
consistent with international standards); see also Cynthia Soohoo & Suzanne Stolz, Bringing Theories of Human Rights Change Home,
77 Fordham L. Rev. 459, 474 (2008).
6 Hearing on U.S. Treaty Compliance Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law (Dec.
16, 2009).
7 See Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 814(c); San Francisco Human Rights Commission, http://www.sf-hrc.org/.
8 Constitution of the United States, Art. II.
9 Philip Alston, Richard Lillich Memorial Lecture, Promoting the Accountability of Members of the New UN Human Rights
Council, 15 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 49, 85 (2005).

1
 The Opportunity Agenda

II. Human Rights

Indicators
A. Uses of Human Rights Indictors Internationally and at Home
The development and use of human rights indicators are well established and widely used by nations
around the globe. Through quantitative and qualitative data, human rights indicators provide a
comprehensive snapshot of governmental compliance with human rights commitments.10 Such
empirical, systematically organized information can help governments to assess policy through a
human rights lens, as well as to measure “the effectiveness of the specific institutions charged with
monitoring and enforcing human rights in the given country.”11 These reports assist policymakers
and civil society in determining the best measures for improving rights compliance.12 They can aid
in honing the definition of specified rights, and adapting those definitions to meet external realities
and public needs.13 Detailed indicators promote better explanations of the “minimum essential
levels” needed for compliance, and prioritize any pressing obligations.14 Negative, as well as positive,
evaluations can propel states into action.15

Human rights indicators may also facilitate cooperation between governmental bodies and the
communities with whom they engage, providing affected groups and advocates with reliable, targeted
information, and highlighting where government resources or reforms are most needed.16 By elevating
the strengths and deficiencies in domestic human rights enforcement, community groups and advocates
can use this information to articulate needs for reform and other interventions.

As described by a U.N. committee representative, human rights markers can serve four functions: 1)
an empirical assessment tool for measuring specific rights; 2) a way to evaluate rights compliance over
lengths of time; 3) a mechanism for assessing the difficulties or problems experienced by governments
in meeting their obligations; and 4) a mechanism for the definition of rights to address evolving
conditions and provide a “yardstick” for cross-country comparison.17

B. The Need for Human Rights Indicators in the United States

The State Department has noted the importance of robust and effective assessment tools in the
protection of human rights:

“To craft effective human rights policy, we need good assessments of the situation on the

10 AnnJannette Rosga & Margaret L. Satterthwaite, The Trust in Indicators: Measuring Human Rights, 27 Berkeley J. Int’l L.
253, 254-55 (2009).
11 Id. at 29.
12 Emma McClean, The Responsibility to Protect: The Role of International Human Rights Law, 13 J. Conflict & Security
L. 123, 147-48 (2008).
13 Id.
14 Audrey R. Chapman, Monitoring Women’s Right to Health Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, 44 Am. U. L. Rev. 1157, 1164 (1995).
15 McClean, supra fn 12, at 148.
16 The Ford Foundation, Close to Home: Case Studies of Human Rights Work in the United States 13, (2004).
17 Chapman, supra fn 14, at 1163-64, describing work of Danilo Turk, Special Rapporteur for the Sub-Commission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, U.N. Human Rights Commission.

2
 The Opportunity Agenda

ground in the places we want to make a difference. We need a sophisticated, strategic

understanding of how democratic governance and economic development can each contribute
to creating an environment in which human rights are secured. We need to recognize that
rights-protecting democracy and rights-respecting development reinforce each other. And we
need the right tools and the right partners to implement our policies.”18

Yet no substantial, information-rich system of government-based rights indicators presently exists

within the United States. NGO instruments comprise the bulk of domestic human rights evaluations,
and tend to focus on topic-specific analyses.19

The United States was a leading voice in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
and in the development of the international human rights system.20 Currently, the U.S. has signed and
ratified three major international human rights treaties: the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).21 Additionally, it has signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).22 (The United
States has also signed and ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political Rights
to Women, and signed but not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights).23 In keeping with
its treaty obligations, the United States submits periodic reports to U.N. treaty monitoring bodies,
describing action taken towards implementation.24 However, the United States’ compliance with the
important human rights commitments contained in these treaties has been undermined by the lack of
meaningful, consistent monitoring.25

The history of treaty monitoring and reporting in the United States reinforces the need for effective
indicators. In 1998, President Clinton created the Interagency Working Group on Human Rights
Treaties (IAWG) to protect and promote human rights, as well as to maintain a “current awareness”
of the country’s “international human rights obligations.”26 Executive Order 13107, which created the
Working Group, also provided guidelines for “a model human rights implementation mechanism,”
and included recommendations for treaty ratification and compliance mechanisms for existing

18 U.S. Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Preface (March 11 2010) http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/
frontmatter/135934.htm (last visited Aug. 5, 2010).
19 One exception is Freedom House, which produces annual evaluations assessing civil liberties and political rights within the
United States. See Freedom House, Country Report: United States of America, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&y
ear=2010&country=7944 (last visited Aug. 6, 2010).
20 See Tai-Heng Cheng, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Sixty: Is It Still Right for the United States? 41
Cornell Int’l L. J. 251 (2008).
21 William M. Carter, Jr., Treaties as Law and the Rule of Law: The Judicial Power to Compel Domestic Treaty
Implementation, 69 Md. L. Rev. 344, 372 (2010). See also U.N. Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Human Rights Bodies, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ (for more information on the human rights treaty bodies).
22 See Columbia Law School, Human Rights Institute et al., State and Local Human Rights Agencies: Recommendations for
Advancing Opportunity and Equality Through an International Human Rights Framework 4 (Sept. 2009), available at http://www.
ushrnetwork.org/sites/default/files/State_and_Local_Human_Rights_Agencies_Report.pdf.
23 See Organization of American States, Multilateral Treaties, at http://www.oas.org/DIL/treaties.htm.
24 U.S. Dep’t of State, U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports: Memorandum to State Governors (1/21/10), available at http://www.
state.gov/g/drl/hr/treaties/index.htm
25 See Cynthia Soohoo, Close to Home: Social Justice Activism and Human Rights, 40 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 149, 159
(2008). See also “Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee with Respect to the U.S. Government’s Report,” July
2006, regarding the report on the ICCPR, available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/treaties/index.htm. While welcoming developments
such as the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005), forbidding imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were
under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. the Committee noted that the report was seven years overdue.
26 Tara J. Melish, From Paradox to Solidarity: The US and Human Rights Treaty Bodies, 34 Yale J. Int’l L. 389, 401 (2009);
Exec. Order 13107.

3
 The Opportunity Agenda

rights obligations.27 In 2001, however, the Interagency Working Group was effectively dismantled,
becoming the Policy Coordination Committee (PCC) on Democracy, Human Rights, and International
Operations.28 The new agency focused its limited staff capacity on periodic reporting, in lieu of treaty
monitoring.29 Treaty duties, in turn, fell to the State Department’s Office of Legal Adviser to organize in
conjunction with the National Security Council (NSC) and “outside consultants.”30

The resulting deficiency in staff, resources, and mission forced the United States to hire external experts
to manage its treaty review process on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination in 2008.31 The need for accountability prompted over 400 advocates across the United
States to conduct coordinated “shadow reports” addressing the need for “effective . . . implementation”
regarding the treaty on race relations.32 For example, the Urban Justice Center, in addition to
criticizing the official reporting as long overdue, stated that “[t]he US Report also lacks any meaningful
information and analysis on some of the issues—health, housing, employment, and education—that it
does cover, and does not account for persistent race disparities in these areas.”33 In Geneva, where the
United States was required to “defend its compliance with the international race treaty (CERD),” over
125 civil society experts met the delegates with supplemental and differentiating reports on relevant
U.S. policies.34

The United Nations established its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process in 2006, in order to
provide an instrument for countries to present their compliance with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and for member states and non-governmental organizations to advocate and publicize
existing human rights concerns.35 The reviews are based on documents including: “1) information
provided by the State under review, which can take the form of a ‘national report;’ 2) information
contained in the reports of independent human rights experts and groups, known as the Special
Procedures, human rights treaty bodies, and other UN entities; and 3) information from other
stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions.”36

The UN conducts a periodic review of all member parties every four years; 2010 marks the United
States’ first appearance.37 The U.S. submitted its first UPR report to the U.N. in August 2010, and will
deliver a formal presentation to the U.N. Human Rights Council in November.38 As part of the UPR
process, United States officials from a range of federal agencies met with members of civil society to
identify and address the nation’s ongoing human rights issues.39 The submitted report emphasized the
following themes:40

27 Catherine Powell, Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration 13-15 (American
Constitution Society for Law and Policy 2008), available at http://www.acslaw.org/files/C%20Powell%20Blueprint.pdf.
28 Soohoo, supra fn 25, at 159.
29 Id.
30 Powell, supra fn 27, at 13.
31 Soohoo, supra fn 25, at 161.
32 See Columbia Law School, Current Initiatives: CERD Treaty Reporting and Follow Up, http://www.law.columbia.edu/
center_program/human_rights/HRinUS/HRinUSProject (last viewed July 21, 2010).
33 “Race Realities in New York City,” Urban Justice Project (Dec. 2007), available at http://www.urbanjustice.org/pdf/
publications/racerealities.pdf.
34 Coke, supra fn 2, at 16.
35 Columbia Law School, Human Rights Institute, supra fn 38, at 4.
36 “Basic Facts about the UPR,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/
UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx.
37 See U.N. Human Rights: Office of the High Comm’r for Human Rights, Universal Periodic Review, http://www.ohchr.
org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx (last visited July 21, 2010). See also ACLU, Blog of Rights: Scrutiny for United States
Human Rights Record, http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/scrutiny-us-human-rights-record (last visited July 21, 2010) (regarding
background on the upcoming United States Universal Periodic Review).
38 U.S. Dep’t of State, Universal Periodic Review, report (released Aug. 20, 2010) available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/upr/
index.htm.
39 See, e.g., United States Human Rights Network’s UPR Project, at http://www.ushrnetwork.org/campaign_upr.
40 U.S. Dep’t of State, Universal Periodic Review, report available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/upr/index.htm.

4
 The Opportunity Agenda

XX Commitment to freedom, equality, and dignity: addressing freedom of expression, religion,

association, and political participation; fairness and equality, including nondiscriminatory
treatment; and dignity, including in law enforcement and criminal justice.
XX Commitment to foster a society where citizens are empowered to exercise their rights:
addressing access to health, housing, and education.
XX Commitment to values in our engagement across borders: addressing national security,
immigration, and trafficking.

The government’s engagement with the UPR process, and particularly its inclusion of community
groups and advocates, is a commendable beginning. However, in part because the report concentrates
on broad legal frameworks, it falls short of providing a comprehensive, evidence-based portrait of
human rights throughout the nation. As the United States begins to undergo continuing evaluation, the
UPR process highlights the need to develop a meaningful, ongoing human rights assessment model for
the United States.

Incorporation of treaty principles into a rigorous, systematic indicators framework would enhance
their effectiveness in achieving practical results, and as a tool for public education and accountability.
As the State Department has acknowledged, the U.N. has “expressly urged the United States to make
government officials, the judiciary, federal and state law enforcement officials, teachers, social workers,
and the public in general aware of [treaty] obligations.”41 By presenting concrete data illustrating
those obligations and their implementation, in a structured and accessible framework, human rights
indicators could aid the United States in fulfilling its commitments.

C. Human Rights Indicator Models

The consultation of different models used internationally can provide a starting point for developing
a framework suitable for the United States. Three types of models, employed by the U.N., country
governments, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), comprise the current landscape of global
instruments.

1. United Nations Human Rights Instruments

Two predominant measurement tools, created by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
and the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), presently influence
the development of human rights indicators. These instruments draw upon current treaties regarding
human rights norms and standards, as well as upon data from country governments and NGOs. They
rely on both qualitative and quantitative analysis, and evaluate compliance with both civil and political
rights, which “uphold the sanctity of the individual before the law and guarantee his or her ability
to participate freely in civil, economic, and political society;” and with economic, social and cultural
rights, which “promote individual flourishing, social and economic development, self-esteem, and
identity.”42

(a) United Nations Development Program Indicators

One set of indicators, provided by the United Nations Development Program, presents a set of tools
for evaluating human rights based approaches to development.43 These mechanisms were developed in

41 U.S. Dep’t of State, Memo for Executive Branch Agencies, U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports, (12/17/09) available at http://
www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/treaties/index.htm.
42 Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A User’s Guide (March 2006) at 4.
43 UNDP, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide (March
2006), available at http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs/HR_guides_HRBA_Indicators.pdf.

5
 The Opportunity Agenda

conjunction with the UNDP’s 1998 plan to integrate human development principles with human rights
values, and draw from UN treaties, resolutions, and other human rights-related instruments.44

The UNDP suggests evaluating the two main categories of rights – civil and political, and economic,
social and cultural – along three dimensions:
XX The State’s obligation to respect rights, requiring “the State and all its organs and agents to
abstain from carrying out, sponsoring or tolerating any practice, policy, or legal measure
violating the integrity of individuals impinging on their ability to access resources to satisfy
their needs. It also requires that legislative and administrative codes take account of guaranteed
rights.”45
XX The State’s obligation to protect rights, requiring “the State and its agents to prevent the
violation of rights by non-state actors. Where violations do occur, the State must guarantee
access to legal remedies.”46
XX The State’s obligation to fulfill rights, measured by “the degree to which states provide the
necessary resources and policies for realizing and promoting the protection of human rights,”
including investment in judiciaries, elections, and criminal justice needs (for civil and political
rights) and in infrastructure for health, education, and welfare (for economic, social, and
cultural rights).47

The UNDP recommends that indicators draw upon data provided by a variety of sources, including:
XX Official statistics collected by agencies in compliance with “standardized definitions and
methodologies,” including disaggregated data;48
XX “Events-based data,” charting human rights violations against groups and individuals by both
state and non-state actors. This data comprises narrative and qualitative reports produced by
government bodies and NGOs; media research; and individual accounts;49
XX “Expert judgments,” specifically detailing the frequency and degree of infringements, as
converted into quantitative data;50 and
XX “Survey-based data” evaluating individual perceptions in relation to human rights through use
of a standardized questionnaire.51

(b) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Indicators

A second major United Nations indicator framework was formulated by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN’s primary human rights arm. In 2005, the
OHCHR undertook its own initiative to “design and adopt a conceptual framework for the creation
and implementation of human rights indicators,”52 which it defined as “specific information on the

44 UNDP, Human Rights in the UNDP: Practice Note, 4 (April 2005), available at http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/
HRPN_English.pdf.
45 UNDP, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide, 4 (March
2006), available at http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs/HR_guides_HRBA_Indicators.pdf
46 Id. at 4.
47 Id. at 5.
48 UNDP, Indicators for Human Rights Based Approaches to Development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide 6-8 (March
2006), available at http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs/HR_guides_HRBA_Indicators.pdf. See also Nicolas Fasel & Rajeev Malhotra,
Quantitative Human Rights Indicators: A Survey of Major Initiatives (draft) (2005), available at http://hrbaportal.org/wp-content/
files/1237942217malhotra_and_fasel.pdf.
49 Id. at 7.
50 Id. at 8.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 294.

6
 The Opportunity Agenda

state of an event, activity or an outcome that can be related to human rights norms and standards;
that address and reflect human rights concerns and principles; and that are used to assess and monitor
promotion and protection of human rights.” In 2008, after three years of meetings with experts, treaty
bodies, and non-profits, the OHCHR released an instrument for measuring human rights,53 building on
the UNDP’s conceptual framework.

Like the UNDP, the OHCHR addresses civil, social, economic, and cultural rights,54 promoting an
indicators model that puts “all the human rights on an equal footing, thereby emphasizing [their]
interdependence and indivisibility.”55 Again like the UNDP, the OHCHR emphasizes that “the adopted
framework should be able to reflect the obligation of the duty-holder to respect, protect and fulfill
human rights.”

The OHCHR also sought to present a resonant, well-organized framework by encompassing both
meaningful themes and concrete particulars. To this end, the OHCHC states that “it is necessary to
recognize and reflect cross-cutting human rights norms and principles (such as non-discrimination and
equality, indivisibility, accountability, participation and empowerment) in the choice of indicators.” The
OHCHR also conceptualizes each right as a composite of “attributes” intended “to capture reasonably
the essence of the normative content of those rights” as delineated in international human rights
treaties. For example, in the case of the right to health, five attributes were identified: child mortality
and health care, natural and occupational environment, prevention, treatment and control of diseases,
sexual and reproductive health, and accessibility to health facilities and essential medicines.56

The OHCHR system then applied three types of indicators - structural, process and outcome - to the
identified attributes of each right:57
XX Structural indicators “reflect the ratification and adoption of legal instruments and existence of
basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for facilitating realization of a human right.”
XX Process indicators “measure the efforts of States as they implement and enforce human rights;
they measure things like the amount of money spent on a program to fulfill a given right, or the
number of complaints processed by the authorities concerning alleged violations of the right
being assessed. Process indicators are meant to capture the cause element of a cause and effect
relationship between the efforts of States and the fulfillment of the right under examination.”
XX Outcome indicators “capture the effect element. Importantly, process indicators are said to be
‘more sensitive to changes than outcome indicators and hence are better at capturing progressive
realization of the right or in reflecting the efforts of the State Parties in protecting the rights.’”58

These tools incorporate both official socio-economic data and civil society sources of events-based data
in assessing government efforts and outcomes.59

Disaggregated data, reflecting the different experiences of relevant demographic or social groups,
play an important role. For example, “‘net primary enrollment ratio by target groups,’ listed as a

53 Id.
54 “Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Human Rights,” Un Int’l Human Rights Instruments, 4 (June 2008),
available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indicators/docs/HRI.MC.2008.3_en.pdf.
55 Id. at 5, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indicators/docs/HRI.MC.2008.3_en.pdf.
56 “Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring Human Rights,” Un Int’l Human Rights Instruments, 6 (June 2008),
available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indicators/docs/HRI.MC.2008.3_en.pdf.
57 Fasel and Malhotra, supra note 48 at 297. See also Philip Alston, Richard Lillich Memorial Lecture, Promoting the
Accountability of Members of the New UN Human Rights Council, 15 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 49 (2005) (for additional background
information on different human rights frameworks).
58 Rosga & Satterhwaite, supra fn 10, at 295, citing OHCHR, Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the
Implementation of Human Rights, 15 n.17, U.N. Doc. HRI/MC/2008/3 (June 6, 2008).
59 Rosga & Satterhwaite, supra fn 10, at 295.

7
 The Opportunity Agenda

process indicator for the right to education, will need to be disaggregated on grounds such as ‘sex,
disability, ethnicity, religion, language, social or regional affiliation of people.’”60 Indeed, the Human
Development Report acknowledged that “[a]ll three measures of human development [used in the
report] suffer from a common failing: they are averages that conceal wide disparities in the overall
population.”61 Disaggregating data by relevant social characteristics is crucial to a full assessment of
human rights.

2. Government-Based Human Rights Indicators

Many national governments have created and adapted existing indicators to meet their own assessment
needs. Here at home, the United States currently assesses 194 countries annually through its Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices.62 The government relies on data from a range of sources including
human rights monitors, academics, military sources, the media, and government officials.63 The reports,
compiled by the State Department and Foreign Service, specifically “cover internationally recognized
civil, political and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of human rights,” including,
“freedom from torture . . . from prolonged detention without charges . . . and . . . other flagrant
violations to life, liberty and the security of the person.”64 Examples of the indicators employed by
these reports include: arbitrary arrest or detention, internet freedom, internally displaced persons,
election and political participation, and discrimination against women.65

Currently, the United States does not review its own human rights compliance alongside the
194 countries that it generally assesses in this set of reports. By contrast, this year, the U.S. State
Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report included the United States for the first time within its
assessment of compliance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.66 While this is a
commendable step, a comprehensive assessment of domestic human rights is still lacking, and much
needed. As Secretary of State Clinton has noted, “[h]uman rights are universal, but their experience is
local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves.”67

Other noteworthy national initiatives include the Human Rights Commission in South Africa, which in
its 2002 review used education, the environment, housing, health and access to water to measure social
and economic rights.68 The New Zealand Human Rights Commission reports on the state of a wide
range of human rights in that country,69 and the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), an
advisory body to the European Union, issues a yearly report evaluating the status of fundamental rights
(pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon) in all twenty-seven European Union Member states.70 In Benin, the

60 Rosga & Satterhwaite, supra fn 10, at 299.

61 UNDP, Chapter 1: Defining and Measuring Human Development, in Human Development Report 1990, 12, available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1990/chapters/.
62 United States Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Introduction (Mar. 11, 2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2009/frontmatter/135936.htm (last viewed Aug. 10, 2010).
63 Id.
64 United States Dep’t of State, 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Feb. 2000), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/1999/64.htm (last visited Aug. 5, 2010).
65 United States Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Angola (March 11, 2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2009/af/135937.htm (last visited Aug. 5, 2010).
66 United States Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Introduction (Mar. 11, 2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2009/frontmatter/135936.htm (last viewed Aug. 10, 2010).
67 United States Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Preface (March 11 2010) [hereinafter Preface], http://www.state.
gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/frontmatter/135934.htm (last visited Aug. 5, 2010); see also http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/2009_
annual_report_on_human_rights.
68 Fasel & Malhotra, supra fn. 48, at 11.
69 Review of Human Rights in New Zealand 2010, New Zealand Human Rights Commission, available at http://www.hrc.
co.nz/home/hrc/humanrightsenvironment/reviewofhumanrightsinnewzealand2010/reviewofhumanrightsinnewzealand2010.php.
70 Annual Report 2010, European Agency for Fundamental Rights, http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/about_fra/ar2010_part2_
en.htm.

8
 The Opportunity Agenda

Ministry of Justice, Legislation and Human Rights has conducted evaluations on that nation’s human
rights compliance in relation to housing, malnutrition, and the administration of justice.71

3. Human Rights Indicators Developed by Non-Governmental Organizations

Evaluations by non-governmental organizations, conducted both abroad and domestically, may serve
as valuable sources of information on human rights conditions. For example, the State Department
has relied on such data in producing its own reports on other countries.72 Human rights evaluations
conducted by NGOs range from broad, country level assessments to topic-specific scrutiny, such as the
examination of police abuse of refugees73 or the detention of immigrants with disabilities relating to
mental health.74 These reports supplement other informational frameworks, such as those used by the
UN and country governments, and provide potential models for evaluation instruments. Applied within
the domestic context, they offer a robust tool for promoting human rights in America.

One example of an NGO-developed set of indicators is that of Freedom House, a United States-based
non-profit agency which conducts annual evaluations of 193 countries and 15 disputed territories
in relation to “global political rights and civil liberties.”75 These reports contain both qualitative
analysis and numerical ratings on political and civil rights.76 The survey focuses specifically on “the
real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals,” and on “how . . . rights are implemented in
practice.”77 Social Watch, an NGO network that developed from the 1995 UN World Summit for
Social Development, also relies on socio-economic statistics such as food and health security, water and
sanitation, and development aid to review efforts to eradicate poverty in approximately 50 countries.78
Additionally, in 2000, the Danish Centre for Human Rights published a qualitative and quantitative
Human Rights Commitment Index, which assessed human rights obligations relating to treaty
ratification, civil, political, and ESC rights, as well as gender discrimination.79

The Opportunity Agenda has also developed a set of human rights-related indicators, applied
domestically. Created in 2006, The State of Opportunity in America utilizes Census and other
federally- reported data, organized in terms of a set of six thematic indicators to measure “dimensions
of opportunity” aligned with core national values: security, equality, mobility, redemption, voice, and
community.80 The resulting data provides a comprehensive overview of the state of opportunity in
America and, importantly, measures both overall progress and the equality of opportunity enjoyed by
different racial, ethnic, and gender groups.81

71 Id. at 12.
72 As the introduction to the 2009 State Department Human Rights Report states, “We also solicited and relied on useful
information from nongovernmental human rights groups, both those operating internationally and those that work at a national level;”
available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/frontmatter/135936.htm.
73 See Human Rights Watch, Welcome to Kenya: Police Abuse of Somali Refugees (June 2010), available at http://www.hrw.org/
en/reports/2010/06/17/welcome-kenya-0.
74 See Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings, and Indefinite
Detention in the US Immigration System, July 2010, at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/07/26/deportation-default-0. As another
example, see ACLU of Massachusetts, Detention and Deportation in the Age of ICE: Immigrants and Human Rights in Massachusetts
(Dec. 2008), available at http://www.aclum.org/ice/documents/aclu_ice_detention_report.pdf, evaluating the status of immigrants and
human rights within that state.
75 See Freedom House, About the Survey, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 (last visited July 21, 2010).
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id. See also Social Watch, Statistics Publications, available at: http://www.socwatch.org/indicators.
79 Alston, supra fn 9, at 83.
80 The Opportunity Agenda, The State of Opportunity in America [hereinafter State of Opportunity], 7 (2006).
81 Similarly, the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, in its assessment of human rights and racial
equality, built its indicators around a set of policy themes: universality, indivisibility, equity and non-discrimination, participation
and self-determination, family unity, and community stability. These instruments emphasize the policy priorities of economic justice,
educational equity, health equity, housing equity, and immigrant rights. United Congress of Community and Racial Organizations,
Grassroots Human Rights Policy Guide for Racial Equity: Illinois 2010, 13.

9
 The Opportunity Agenda

D. Application within the United States

Within the United States, the creation and implementation of human rights indicators would present
a “legal and political force for change.”82 Indicators could be applied by government agencies,
community groups, and civil society institutions to create a coordinated monitoring effort, with data
illustrating where stronger enforcement, funding, and public education are most needed as well as
areas of significant progress. The application of human rights indicators at home would also align
domestic policy with the principles we endorse abroad. The United States, through its country reports
and the UPR process, has already demonstrated a strong commitment to monitoring human rights at
the international level.

82 Dorothy Q. Thomas, Advancing Rights Protection in the United States: An Internationalized Advocacy Strategy, 9 Harv.
Hum. Rts. J. 15, 16 (1996).

10
 The Opportunity Agenda

III. Recommendations
The examples discussed above present a range of standards, principles, and promising practices, from
which to choose in crafting Human Rights indicators for the United States. Drawing on these elements,
the following are our recommendations for an American system of indicators:

A. Measure established human rights obligations

An American system of Human Rights indicators should assess compliance, progress, and obstacles
with respect, at least, to the rights considered in the Universal Periodic Review process: “(1) the UN
Charter;83 (2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;84 (3) human rights instruments to which
the State is party (human rights treaties ratified by the State concerned); (4) voluntary pledges and
commitments made by the State (e.g. national human rights policies and/or programmes implemented);
and, (5) applicable international humanitarian law.”85

In the case of the United States, “voluntary pledges and commitments” might include, for example,
constitutional, statutory, and administrative human rights protections, such as Executive Order
13087, which prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian
employment.86

B. Include Federal, State, and Local Level Measures

In America’s federal system of government, it will be especially important to collect and report data
regarding human rights compliance in areas traditionally controlled by states and municipalities, such
as the right to equal and universal education, protection of child welfare, or fair treatment by local
law enforcement. This does not mean that the United States must report separately on human rights
conditions in every municipality but, rather, that it must have a system for monitoring and assessing the
state of human rights compliance at that level across the country, as well as trends in rights protection
and violations.

C. Consider Structural, Process, and Outcome Measures

As noted, international best practices cover structural, process, and outcome measures. In order
accurately to access human rights conditions within our nation, indicators should cover:
1. Policies. The existence of laws and mechanisms at the federal, state, and local levels protecting
the enumerated human rights, as well as those that violate them. For example, the extent to
which jurisdictions around the country have or have not enacted laws and systems to prohibit,
prevent, and remedy racial profiling and discrimination by law enforcement is an important
human rights indicator. Conversely, laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070, which encourage profiling,
are an adverse indicator.
2. Enforcement. Information regarding actual enforcement of human rights laws. Metrics could
include, for example, per capita resources devoted to enforcement, percentage of complaints
resolved, and percentage of residents reached by programs or initiatives. Qualitatively, this

83 Text available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml.

84 Text available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/60UDHRIntroduction.aspx.
85 Institution Building of the Human Rights Counsel, Human Rights Counsel Resolution A/HRC/RES/5/1 (June 18 2007).
86 Exec. Order 13087, 63 Fed. Reg. 30097 (1998).

11
 The Opportunity Agenda

measure should include assessments of the quality of institutions established to promote and
protect human rights,87 on federal, state, and local levels, including through information such
successful resolution of systemic violations.
3. Systems. Rights require the establishment and maintenance of effective systems at the federal,
state, and local level. For example, protecting due process requires systems for evidence-based
investigation, access to counsel, fair tribunals, and other elements. Universal and equal access to
education requires instructional systems, teacher training, safe and appropriate facilities, and the
like.
4. Practical Realization of Human Rights. The ultimate measure of human rights in any nation
is the extent to which the people of that nation actually enjoy those rights, or experience
violations. Rights against discrimination, in particular, can be measured in part by equity of
outcomes in sectors such as employment, housing, education, and criminal justice, as well as
indices of segregation in those sectors.88 Similarly, economic rights contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights such as the right to education or access to medical care can be
documented in part in terms of participation rates.

D. Utilize quantitative and qualitative data from a variety of

reliable sources
Particularly with respect to Practical Realization measures, reliable quantitative data from sources
such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
official state and local sources are especially helpful. For example, statistics regarding access to
prenatal care, infant mortality, and child poverty help to measure compliance with the Universal
Declaration’s guarantee that “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.”
The Opportunity Agenda’s State of Opportunity report provides exemplary indicators with respect to
many of these dimensions.89

Another important source is data regarding rights violations and their resolution. This information
may be gathered from federal, state, and local enforcement bodies, monitoring entities like state human
rights commissions, public advocates, and ombudspersons, social service and advocacy organizations,
and other reliable sources.

For example, data regarding homelessness and other housing issues may be most reliably obtained
from the social service and private sectors.

E. Disaggregate population data with respect to relevant social

categories
Wherever possible, data should be disaggregated based on race, ethnicity, gender, and income, as well
as other social characteristics that may be relevant in particular circumstances. For example, statistics
regarding the rates of illicit drug use by different racial and ethnic groups, compared with arrest,
conviction and sentencing figures for illicit drug possession across those groups can assess the right of
freedom from discrimination in the criminal justice system, as required by the Universal Declaration,
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

87 UNDP, Chapter 5: Using Indicators for Human Rights Accountability 101, available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/
hdr_2000_ch5.pdf.
88 See Anthony Downs, New Visions for Metropolitan America 25 (Brookings Institution Press 1994) (applying the racial
dissimilarity index to measure racial segregation).
89 The Opportunity Agenda, The State of Opportunity in America at 7 (2006).

12
 The Opportunity Agenda

Racial Discrimination. Note that data already required to be collected pursuant to antidiscrimination
laws and for other accountability purposes (such as that analyzed by the Bureau of Justice, Department
of Education, Department of Labor, and others) can contribute to these indicators.

F. Incorporate public engagement as a consistent element

As described above, the international human rights reporting system generally allows for civil society
perspectives. It will be important, however, to create a system for such input domestically at the
information gathering stage. This can be facilitated through a robust and user-friendly notice-and-
comment system that incorporates best practices such as multi-lingual outreach, virtual and physical
town hall meetings.

G. Ensure inter-governmental coordination of collection and

reporting
We endorse the recommendation of a renewed Inter-Agency Taskforce on Human Rights set out in the
American Constitution Society report, Human Rights At Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the
New Administration, by Professor Catherine Powell. We note, in addition, that coordination will also
be necessary with state and local entities having responsibilities relevant to human rights compliance.

H. Report and communicate indicators domestically in terms of

core American values
As important as reliable human rights indicators are to global accountability, their most important
functions are to inform Americans about the protection of rights within our country, and to inform
action where problems exist. Fulfilling that function requires communicating the elements and findings
of human rights indicators in a form that U.S. audiences can understand and act upon. While most
Americans are unfamiliar with the international human rights system, they understand and embrace
the notion of human rights, as well as the rights recognized by that system.90 Moreover, they tend to
perceive human rights, in the first instance, in terms of national values such as fairness, dignity, and
opportunity, as well as America’s legacy of inalienable freedoms.

Accordingly, we recommend that the indicators process and outcomes be framed, in part, in terms of
these and related values. As an example, The Opportunity Agenda’s indicators measure “dimensions of
opportunity” aligned with core values,91 and were selected based on examination of indicators used in
many national and international reports on human rights, as well as on a review of relevant literature,
consultation with social science, law, and policy experts, and the availability of reliable data.92 They
utilize Census and related federal data, supplemented by a small number of verifiable and widely
utilized private data sources.

The State of Opportunity in America organizes a large body of data in terms of: Equality, Security,
Mobility, Voice, Community, and Redemption. As the 2006 report indicates, these indicators cover a
significant spectrum of human rights protections, primarily from a Practical Realization perspective.
However, a number of enumerated rights that are not covered by that document should be included
in a U.S. indicators instrument. And the Policy, Enforcement, and Systems measures described above
should be incorporated.

90 Talking Human Rights in the United States: A Communications Toolkit, The Opportunity Agenda, p.13, available at: http://
opportunityagenda.org/talking_human_rights_united_states_communications_toolkit.
91 The Opportunity Agenda, The State of Opportunity in America at 7 (2006).
92 The Opportunity Agenda, The State of Opportunity In America: Executive Summary at 6 (2009).

13
 The Opportunity Agenda

Ultimately, however, the indicators and their applications must be rooted in actual rights compliance.
The United States’ 2010 Universal Periodic Report embarked on a worthy beginning, by linking human
rights to important American values and by addressing both historical context (such as passage of the
Voting Rights Act) and matters of topical concern (such as discrimination against Arab Americans
and LGBT persons). However, while the UPR report provided narrative overviews of a range of issues,
future versions should more comprehensively encompass data on rights fulfillment. In particular, the
U.S. report should systematically include information on outcome indicators, as well as on structural
and process indicators (which are emphasized in the current version). Incorporation of human rights
indicators into the architecture of future UPR reports would provide a more structured, data-rich
document, which could be used to engage and education the general public as well as the human rights
community.

I. Integrate Domestic and International Human Rights Reporting

The State Department Country Reports on Human Rights should include the United States. These
publications, produced for 34 years, present human rights overviews that seek to bring “awareness
about human rights conditions, in particular . . . conditions impact[ing] the well-being of women,
children, racial minorities, trafficking victims, members of indigenous groups and ethnic communities,
persons with disabilities, sexual minorities, and members of other vulnerable groups.”93 The indicators
assess not only ratified treaties, but rights defined under the Universal Declaration, and the addition
of the United States would simply require including the country in the pre-existing framework. The
inclusion of the United States in this year’s Trafficking in Persons Report demonstrates the feasibility of
this proposal.94

93 United States Dep’t of State, 2009 Human Rights Report: Introduction (Mar. 11, 2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2009/frontmatter/135936.htm (last viewed Aug. 10, 2010).
94 Id.

14
 The Opportunity Agenda

IV. Conclusion
The advancement of human rights is essential in ensuring America’s core commitment to opportunity
for all. By gauging how our nation fares in providing opportunity and ensuring human rights, we
can build on our successes and address those areas where we are falling short. The development of a
framework for rights-based indicators would aid advocates, as well as the government, in their efforts
to strengthen human rights in the United States. The Opportunity Agenda would welcome the chance
to engage further in discussing and developing such a framework.

15
 The Opportunity Agenda

The Opportunity Agenda

568 Broadway

Suite 302

New York, NY 10012

Tel: 212.334.5977

Fax: 212.334.2656

www.opportunityagenda.org

The Opportunity Agenda is a project of Tides Center.