CHS verification data

Based on the CHS verification data that you submit to us, we will now regularly share aggregated results, so that you can check how your organisation is doing compared to the rest of the sector. 

Since our latest update in November, three additional verification has been completed, bringing the total of completed verifications to 60, more specifically: 

  • 17 certifications
  • 6 Independent Verifications
  • 1 Peer Review
  • 36 Self-Assessments (including 1 for secretariat)

The dashboards below illustrate the average performance of those 53 organisations whose scores have been validated either through the external audit process or through the quality check of the self-assessment made by the CHS Alliance. If you have any questions, please get in touch with Adrien Muratet. When it comes to the application of the the Nine Commitments of the Core Humanitaran Standard on Quality and Accountability these are the main trends: Based on the data these are the trends we can observe when it comes to our member organisations’ application of the Nine Commitments of the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS):

  • Commitment 6 “Communities and people affected by crisis receive coordinated, complementary assistance” is the only commitment reaching the score of 3, showing that the requirement is fulfilled
  • Seven of the Nine Commitments stand between 2.4 and 2.7.
  • At the other end of the spectrum, one single commitment is scoring below 2 (with a score of 1.9), namely Commitment 5 “Communities and people affected by crisis have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints”, showing a more significant weakness. 


The comparison below between results coming from Self-Assessments or Peer Reviews, and third-party audits (Independent Verification or Certification, performed by HQAI) shows similar trends. Commitment 6 “Communities and people affected by crisis receive coordinated, complementary assistance” is the strongest, while Commitment 5Communities and people affected by crisis receive coordinated, complementary assistance” is the most challenging. External audits confirm and stress the depth of the weakness.

The proximity of the results obtained through the different options of the verification scheme reaffirms the validity of each of the options (self-assessment, peer review, independent verification or certification) when it comes to measuring the performance of an organisation against the CHS.

Looking at the same results disaggregated by indicators type (dashboard below), a clear trend appears that in seven out of nine commitments, and including for commitment 5 on complaints & feedback mechanisms the score of the Key Actions (KA) is lower than the one for Organisational Responsibilities (OR). This indicates that the challenge and weakness lie with the implementation of the existing guidance & policies more than with a potential lack of them. As an illustration, the KA score for commitment 5 is lowest of all: 1.78, when the OR score is 2.03, significantly higher. Efforts should be put on staff training and support for implementation of the tools organisations have at their disposal.

In direct link with the low score of commitment 5, the index scores show a weak performance on PSEA. Each index score is composed of various indicators relevant to the theme, and PSEA takes into account most of the indicators composing commitment 5. Amongst them are the four indicators for which the membership score lower than 2, indicating a more significant weakness:

  • 5.1 (on consulting with communities when designing, implanting and monitoring a complaint mechanism),
  • 5.2 (on welcoming and accepting complaints, and making sure that the mechanism is known and accessible),
  • 5.3 (on the management on complaints),
  • 5.6 (on making sure that communities are aware of the expected behaviour of staff). As illustrated in the dashboard below (detailed scores on PSEA index score).