ASIA PACIFIC FORUM OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS APPENDIX 1: APF performance framework During 2014–15, the APF upgraded its performance measurement system, in preparation for the implementation of the 2015–2020 Strategic Plan in July 2015. As part of this process, the APF developed a Theory of Change which illustrated the complex and interconnected pathways by which the APF’s activities lead to four higher order outcomes: • Outcome 1: Increased number of national human rights institutions complying with UN and international standards. • Outcome 2: National Human Rights Institutions are better able to perform their functions in the areas of complaints, education, monitoring, advocacy and reporting. • Outcome 3: A more conducive environment for the recognition and effectiveness of NHRIs at the national, regional and international level. • Outcome 4: The APF is a well-governed, sustainably resourced, strategically directed and member owned organisation. 36 Indicators were developed for these outcomes as well as for the six functions of the APF. The annual member survey was simplified. A new survey of progress against capacity assessments was introduced. The performance system now relies on secretariat staff and consultants to engage with a broader range of performance information and to tell performance stories around particular themes. A formal baseline report will be put together by December 2015, but some of the baseline information is already contained in this report. A mid-term evaluation of the Strategic Plan is scheduled for 2017 and a final evaluation for 2019. This will allow sufficient time to feed into the preparation of the subsequent strategic plan commencing in 2020. The main differences between the new and old performance systems are set out in the table below. These changes require a culture shift within the APF, as well as some additional responsibilities and workload for staff. It is typical that such changes take several years to embed. OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM Level of performance information Generally lower level activity information Both activity level and higher order results Source of performance information Reliance on annual member survey Multiple sources, requirement for clear evidence trail Type of performance information and analysis Quantitative information, generally averaged More granular quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of information, triangulation where possible Engagement of APF staff with performance information Limited engagement Engaged, both through preparation of thematic performance reports and, progressively, though performance workshops Gender considerations Limited consideration Mainstreamed, gender disaggregation Ownership of system Largely outsourced Move towards largely in-house, indicators and means of measurement developed by APF staff Baseline information Historical data used but no formal baseline Planned for 2015 Evaluation Donor-led, end of strategic plan Mid-term and final evaluations planned for 2017 and 2019, to be negotiated with donors Use of performance information Mainly accountability Accountability, learning and management