Capacity Assessment Manual for National Human Rights Institutions In completing the questionnaire, respondents are asked to provide evidence in support of the ratings they give for current capacity. This evidence assists respondents to base their ratings on objective facts rather than subjective perceptions. It also assists the CA team to understand the ratings given by the respondents and to compare the ratings with the analysis of what was discussed during the focus group discussions, interviews and review of background information. Where the questionnaires have to be translated into the local language to be completed, the qualitative responses must be translated into English so that the CA team can understand them. Obviously this will have time and cost implications. Whatever language is used, it is important to keep the questionnaire simple and free of jargon. 3.4.5. Analysing the data The analysis of the data, both qualitative and quantitative, is the critical part of preparation of the CA report. It reflects back to the NHRI leaders and staff the full range of their understandings of the current level of function and effectiveness in the NHRI and their views on what the organisation realistically can and should do to improve over the following five years. In many NHRIs, perhaps most, there is no organisational consensus on weaknesses and challenges faced. As a result there is no organisational commitment to specific strategies and actions for capacity development. The CA report provides this through its intensive data analysis that enables a common understanding by everyone at the NHRI. Once collected, the qualitative data from the focus group discussions and the questionnaires and the quantitative data from the questionnaires are analysed and crosschecked. Analysis of the qualitative data begins immediately after the focus groups discussions have been completed and forms the basis for refinement of the issues and preparation of the questionnaire. This process allows the CA team to: • identify the core capacity issues raised in the discussions • distinguish between capacity issues common across the NHRI and those that are particular to any group, section, category or level of position • develop proposals to address the challenges. The CA team can begin the task of writing the qualitative analysis in draft form while the questionnaires are being completed by the leaders and staff. The quantitative data are the ratings of current and required future capacity given by respondents to the questionnaires for each core capacity issue. Calculating the average ratings for each issue reveals the average rating of current capacity and the average rating of required future capacity for that issue. It shows where the NHRI is strongest and where it is weakest, according to the perspectives of its leaders and staff. The difference between the current capacity and the required future capacity is the capacity gap, that is, the additional capacity the leaders and staff consider is required for the NHRI to function effectively and efficiently. CD strategies and actions are needed, particularly where the capacity gap is large, to help the NHRI reach the required future capacity in the timeframe identified. I found the quantitative data useful in initiating discussions with the executive and all the staff about the different perspectives on the Commission’s capacity and performance. It led to productive exchange and increased understanding among staff. RANDA SINIORA Executive Director, Palestine Independent Commission on Human Rights Team member for the Mongolian National Human Rights Commission CA 2011 Chapter 3: The recommended steps in conducting a capacity assessment for a national human rights institution | 33