The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability sets out Nine Commitments that organisations and individuals involved in humanitarian response can use to improve the quality and effectiveness of the assistance they provide.

On this page we’re sharing and updating on a regular basis the results coming out of the verifications conducted through one of the four options of the CHS Alliance Verification Scheme.

The data published here is continuously updated. If you are interested in assessing your organisation, visit our verify page. The dashboards below currently show results coming from all completed verifications, which can be disaggregated as follows:

Verifications by year (cumulative)
Loading….
Verified organisations by country (national/international organisations only)
Loading….
Verifications by verification type
Verification type Verifications
Self-Assessment 52
Peer Review 1
Independent Verification 7
Certification 22
Total 82
Verified organisations by organisation type
Organisation type Verifications
International Organisation 76
Membership Organisation 2
National Organisation 5
Total 83

Analysis

At the commitment level, these are the trends we can observe:

  • Only 1 commitment is currently being fulfilled (designated by a score of at least 3).  That is Commitment 6 on the coordination and complementarity of the response.
  • 7 of the 9 commitments stand between 2.4 and 2.7 (satisfactory, with room for improvement).
  • Only 1 commitment is scoring below 2.0 (less than satisfactory).  That is Commitment 5 on welcoming and addressing complaints mechanisms.
Average score by commitment
Average score
Requirement fulfilled
01234
1
Is appropriate and relevant
2.7
2
Is effective and timely
2.5
3
Strengthens local capacity and avoids negative effects
2.5
4
Is based on communication, participation and feedback
2.4
5
Welcomes and addresses complaints
1.9
6
Is coordinated and complementary
3.0
7
Improves as organisations learn
2.4
8
Is facilitated by competent, well-managed staff
2.7
9
Comes from organisations that responsibly manage resources
2.7

At the indicator level

For 7 of the 9 Commitments the score of the Key Actions (KA) – which are requirements at the project level in the delivery of the project – is lower than the one for Organisational Responsibilities (OR) – which are systems and guidance at the organisational level.

Validated scores by indicator type
Key actions
Organisational responsibilities
Requirement fulfilled
01234
1
Is appropriate and relevant
2.82.8
2
Is effective and timely
2.62.7
3
Strengthens local capacity and avoids negative effects
2.62.4
4
Is based on communication, participation and feedback
2.52.6
5
Welcomes and addresses complaints
1.92.1
6
Is coordinated and complementary
3.13.0
7
Improves as organisations learn
2.32.6
8
Is facilitated by competent, well-managed staff
2.62.8
9
Comes from organisations that responsibly manage resources
2.82.9
Validated scores by verification type
Self-assessment (regular & secretariats)
External audits (certification & independent verification)
Requirement fulfilled
01234
1
Is appropriate and relevant
2.72.7
2
Is effective and timely
2.62.5
3
Strengthens local capacity and avoids negative effects
2.52.5
4
Is based on communication, participation and feedback
2.52.4
5
Welcomes and addresses complaints
2.11.7
6
Is coordinated and complementary
2.93.0
7
Improves as organisations learn
2.42.5
8
Is facilitated by competent, well-managed staff
2.72.6
9
Comes from organisations that responsibly manage resources
2.82.6

At the index level (which looks at indicators grouped by Gender & Diversity, Localisation, and PSEAH)

Organisations are collectively showing weakness on all the three index scores, although it’s primarily on PSEAH that the weakness is more pronounced.

Index scores – Explore scores by clicking on the index
Average score
Requirement fulfilled

Further Information

Members of the CHS Alliance will access more disaggregated CHS verification data and be able to benchmark their work against other organisations.