Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions The data can also reveal ways to help the NHRI prioritise its CD needs: issues in which the capacity gap between ‘current’ and ‘required’ is greatest can be the issues where the NHRI chooses to focus first and most intensively. Alternatively, smaller gaps can be identified as potential ‘quick wins’ for the NHRI. Where the questionnaire is completed online the data can be analysed automatically through the internet program used. Where it is completed in hardcopy form, then the data will need to be collated through a program such as Excel to enable easy analysis. In either case, the responses to the questionnaire should be able to be analysed, as required and relevant, for each core capacity issue, comparing the ratings for current and future required capacity and showing the capacity gap, that is, the difference between the two ratings: • for the NHRI as a whole • by category, for example, by gender, ethnicity, NHRI functional area, central and regional offices, type of position (manager or policy or administration). This kind of analysis enables differences of perspective to be identified and understood and highlights specific challenges and priority capacity areas based on the NHRI’s organisational structure. The CA team needs to consider the most appropriate and relevant way to present the results of the data analysis. It will want to provide the NHRI with the best analysis in the most meaningful way. Inevitably the analysis will require narrative discussion, in the text of the CA report. In addition, it should be presented in tables or graphs that draw out the key results, including the key differences in the perspectives of the different categories of respondents. In smaller NHRIs the results will usually be presented only for the NHRI as a whole. Disaggregating the responses into groups within the NHRI will usually be of limited use as the numbers are so small. It may also risk compromising the anonymity of the responses as, in small NHRIs, staff members are more readily identifiable, even when providing information anonymously. Table 1 is an example of how institution-wide data can be presented in the CA report. Table 1 Issue 1 Current Future OVERALL 3.04 4.03 2 Gap 0.99 Current Future 2.77 4.02 3 Gap 1.25 Current Future 2.70 4.03 4 Gap 1.33 Current Future 3.07 4.16 Gap 1.09 Here, the table presents the NHRI-wide averages for current and required future capacities for each issue and indicates the capacity gap for that issue. The respondents have indicated that issue 4 has the highest current capacity and issue 3 the lowest and that those issues also have the highest required future capacities. When the capacity gaps are determined, however, the largest capacity gaps are for issues 2 and 3 and so priority in capacity development would be given to those issues. In larger NHRIs there is certainly value in disaggregating the results so that the range of perspectives across the institution is apparent and significant differences of perspective are brought to light. Larger NHRIs tend to have many different sections and units and often both central and regional offices. There may also be differences of view among staff defined by gender or ethnicity or some other variable. The CA team tests the results by examining them according to these variables. It will analyse the data by a number of potentially key variables to see where the differences are significant and then draw attention to those areas in the report. Table 2 is an example of how the data can be presented to provide both the institution-wide picture and the different perspectives of different groups within the institution – according to ethnicity, office location, position and function. 34