Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions From the interviews conducted for this review it is apparent that many elements of the CA process itself, i.e. the way it is done, are widely perceived as being of significant inherent value. The elements or underlying values most widely appreciated, which may be referred to as process values, include: 1. The stress on inclusion and participation of every single staff member from across the organisational hierarchy 2. The spirit of giving equal weight to the perceptions and views of all staff across the organisation 3. The diversity of spaces and modes of expression—written and oral; individually or in groups; qualitative and quantitative 4. The self-driven or voluntary nature of the process as opposed to being externally imposed 5. The engagement of trusted peers as external facilitators 6. An understanding that the process is more “thinking about ourselves” rather than judgement and its distinctiveness from performance or funding/funder linked evaluation 7. Guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity as well as the fairly transparent nature of the process. Almost all respondents described the process itself as having had “an impact” or having “made a difference”, largely by/through: • Creating spaces for collective reflection or, as one respondent put it, “holding a mirror to ourselves” • The inclusive nature of the process “made every staff member feel valued” • Allowing staff to “break their silence”; in the words of one respondent it was something “like a catharsis” • Creating a new dynamic, especially in NHRIs with relatively low levels of intra-organisational communication • “Shaking things up” and opening up for discussion issues, which were being ignored or not really acknowledged as important. For Commissioners and staff the CA process and the report, the main output of the process, appear to have provided a combination of the following overall benefits: • Provided a better understanding of capacities both on the organisational front (including leadership and decision making, human resources, personnel policies, training, etc.) and many aspects of programming especially in areas such as complaints handling, media and communications, external relations, including with other human rights actors, institutions of state and donors, etc. • Given the nature of its focus on institutional issues, the CA, when its recommendations are relevant, appears to have been a valuable tool in the hands of senior managers pressing for certain key mission-driven organisational changes. The Executive Director of one NHRI said “the [CA] report is now my bible”, noting how she uses it often in her discussions with staff and Commissioners alike to advocate for change and innovation within the institution. 12