Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

There are 7 components involved in an effective Capacity Self-Assessment:

• Room Logistics
• RBA/AHRDA Profile Sheet
• Welcoming and Introductions
• Presentation to participants
  Overhead Presentation
  Questions and Answers
  A Trial Run of the Tool
• Completing the Assessment
• Closure
• Reporting

Room Logistics

Perhaps the most ideal place to host a capacity self-assessment is in a location that is away from the immediate place of work of the participants. Work demands, client needs and manager needs may tend to interrupt the discussions when the assessments are made at the client work site. However, space limitation may require that the assessments be made in a boardroom or facilities at the work site.

The room should accommodate a minimum of 12 people. It should be a room that is designed to be a meeting space i.e. it should contain a boardroom or round table or should be arranged in a circular format to allow for group discussion. An office (unless it is huge) will not suffice.

The space should also allow for the set up of a flip chart and an overhead projector.

What you will need

• a flip chart
• an overhead projector
• indelible markers
• copies of the tool (copy on overhead, 2 hardcopies)
• copies of the manual

The Capacity Self-Assessment Tool is broken down into five main sections that correspond to the five Capacity Dimensions, namely: Intervention Capacity: Socio-Economic Integration Capacity; Partnering Capacity; Administrative Capacity; and Accountability Capacity.

Each section contains a series of templates, such as in the example below, that are designed to quickly and easily facilitate responses to a number of Capacity Issues (1) which are questions relating to specific Capacity Criteria (2) under one of the five Capacity Dimensions (3). There are five separate indicators (4) representing potential answers to each issue, in which all can be answered, some of them or none of them. Because RBAs/AHRDAs either have capacity or they do not, they are only required to respond if they feel they have the capacity represented by the indicator. Therefore, they would mark ( ) the appropriate "Yes" box (5) beside the capacity indicator they feel they have and then adding up the total (6) at the end. Only when the entire Issue is deemed not to be applicable is the N/A (7) checked ( ) off. The comments section (8) should be used wherever possible to explain answers that may need explaining, particularly an N/A answer.

An explanation of the relationship between the key dimensions, the capacity criteria , the capacity issues, and the indicators is given below. The Capacity Dimensions are based on findings of the mid-term review and best practice case studies. These dimensions have been validated by an advisory committee composed of representatives from a cross section of RBA Holders from various regions of the country as well as some HRDC officials, and establish the basis of the tool.

The Capacity Assessment Tool identifies five key common elements that exist in RBAs. These elements refer to the line of business of the organization (interventions in human resource development), common practices that can be seen any organization (accountability and administrative practices), and linkages where co-operation is necessary to achieve labour force development (socio-economic integration and partnering). These five key dimensions are defined as follows:

• Interventions: All RBAs provide services either directly, or through a third party deliverer to assist individuals to develop the skills and competencies necessary to obtain work. The activities that are carried out to accomplish these objectives are known as interventions. e.g. upgrading
• Administrative: all organizations have structures and processes necessary in their operations. e.g. Accounting
• Accountability: refers to the measuring, monitoring and justification of results of a given organization and the reporting to the stakeholders. e.g. Reports to Chief and council or HRDC
• Partnering: to accomplish the objectives of human resources development, it is necessary to involve other agencies, institutions or those with similar objectives. e.g. Training Centre
• Socio-economic integration: the economy in a given region is a necessary component in human resources development as the business, private and public institutions, and the production and consumption of goods impact how many jobs will exists in a given region. e.g. Economic Development

The Premise of Capacity Assessment

The capacity assessment tool is based on competencies required in effective human resources organizations. These competencies were identified through an analysis of 10 best practice case studies of RBAs. Case studies were identified by an advisory committee comprised of 20 participants from various parts of the country. The competencies are derived based on the organizational structures and authorities, processes, protocols, activities, skills, training and infrastructure that are likely to be seen in an organization that undertakes human resources development.

Within an Indicator, Capacity Exists or it Doesn't

The capacity reflected by each indicator exits or it doesn't. If it exists, then a check mark ( ) is made in the appropriate "Yes" box. Only when the entire Issue is deemed not to be applicable is the N/A checked ( ) off. The comments section should be used wherever possible to explain answers that may need explaining, particularly an N/A answer.

The Capacity Self-Assessment Tool is designed to be simple to use, as each of the 101 Capacity Issues (questions) are presented in the same repetitive format, with only five possible Indicators (answers) being provided. All that is required is for the RBA/AHRDA Capacity Self-Assessment Committee to discuss and "check off' which of the indicators relate to their RBA/AHRDA and to provide any comment that may help to explain their responses. After going through the first few issues, the process should become fairly automatic.

Some thought has gone into the order of each Capacity Dimension section to assist the RBA/AHRDA Capacity Self-Assessment Committee to involve all of its members more fully at the beginning of the process. Intervention Capacity touches everyone involved in the RBA/AHRDA program because this is the basis of the programs and services that are delivered. These first 30 issues should have no difficulty generating discussion.

Consensus First, Majority Second....

Because facilitators are asked to only record answers that appear to be reached by consensus, there will no doubt be plenty of discussion and some disagreement. In the event that consensus cannot be reached on some issues or indicators, a "show of hands" will determine a majority vote. The majority answer will then be recorded as the committee's response. In cases where there is a "draw" or a "tie" on some indicators, a note will be made to revisit the issue and the indicators at the end of the section or at the end of the day.

To Be or Not To Be Applicable

The objective of capacity assessment is to determine where various kinds of capacity exist within each RBA/AHRDA in order to plan future enhancements to the program. Therefore, it is extremely important that all issues be discussed and their indicators responded to in relation to each RBA/AHRDA's individual circumstances. Because of the fact that all RBAs/AHRDAs are different, an occasional issue may not apply to your particular RBA/AHRDA. In this case, a "check mark" ( X ) can be inserted into the appropriate "N/A" box on the tool to make the entire issue "Not Applicable". It is expected, however, that a comment explaining why the issue is not applicable will be recorded in the appropriate "Comment" section provided at the bottom of the page. This will help anyone reviewing the response, to understand why the issue is not applicable.

This facilitator guide is designed to try and reduce the wide interpretation of the many capacity indicators used in the tool, that might otherwise result if RBAs/AHRDAs were left on their own to try to figure out what the authors of the tool were trying to say. It is recognized that there will still be limitations to the tool based on different perspectives. The following chart shows how broad differences in the make-up of RBAs/AHRDAs can result in different perspectives on capacity development.

Capacity Self-Assessment Committees are expected to be set up by each RBA/AHRDA to undertake their Capacity Self-Assessment. Depending on the size of the RBA/AHRDA, committees can range in size from 4 - 10 people. The ideal size for a committee is 6 - 8 people.

Committee members should be very knowledgeable about the RBA/AHRDA programs and services. Because questions cover most activities and processes, there should be a mix of front-line workers, managers and board members. RBAs/AHRDAs that have a close working relationship with a partner and/or a community representative could invite them. They could contribute their perspective on the capacity of the RBA/AHRDA to meet the needs of the community. Here is an example of a capacity self-assessment committee.

Because the RBA/AHRDA Capacity Self-Assessment can take approximately two days to complete, committee members will need to block off time to be available for two complete days. The time and place where the meeting will take place will have been scheduled well in advance to ensure that committee members are available for that time period.

Scoring of the Tool has been made relatively simple in order that the results can be easily retrieved from the Tool and understood by everyone involved in the capacity self-assessment. "Score Cards" have been provided for each facilitator to complete at the end of the capacity assessment.

Our sample below shows how the summary of responses from the Capacity Self-Assessment Tool can be easily recorded on each card. (Refer also to "How the Tool Works")

Once the 5 Capacity Indicators have been recorded on each Capacity Issue in the Tool, add them all together to obtain the final score for each Capacity Criteria. Then record that score in the blank space at the far right of the Score Card. Once the scores for each Capacity Criteria have been tallied, add up the scores for each Criteria and insert that number into the last blank box in the Total row on the bottom right of the Score Card. Once the column is completed, transfer the total score to the blank box at the bottom of the Total Score column, at the left hand side of the Score Card.

The score, in this example, can either be expressed as x / 65, (x out of 65 capacity indicators recorded), or a percentage of capacity indicated for that Dimension, by simply dividing x by 65.

Scores for different dimensions are not added. Scoring is only done by dimension.

The following chart explores the various types of RBAs/AHRDAs that may exist across the spectrum of the RBA/AHRDA program. Understanding and knowing different RBA/AHRDA characteristics can help facilitators to obtain more accurate responses to capacity issues. It may also assist them in completing profile sheets.

Recognizing that there will be differences between RBAs/AHRDAs, a one page profile sheet has been designed for the facilitator to fill out and submit with their completed Capacity Self-Assessment document. (It is actually attached to the front of the tool). This profile sheet is designed to assist the facilitators to familiarize themselves with the RBAs/AHRDAs before the self-assessment.