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. The data was updated on 07.08.2018
Between 2015 and July 2018, 50 evaluations were completed using one of the options of the verification scheme. This includes 28 self-assessments, 1 peer review, and 21 external audits conducted by HQAI (17 certifications and 4 independent verifications). The dashboards below illustrate the average performance of 38 of those evaluations that have been completed by member organisations of the CHS Alliance, and whose scores have been validated either through the external audit process (18 external audits are included here), or through the quality check of the self-assessment made by the CHS Alliance (19 self-assessments and 1 peer review are also included here). For any question please contact Adrien Muratet.
At the commitment level, only one commitment is reaching the score of 3 showing that the requirement is fulfilled: commitment 6 on the coordination of the response. Then seven of the nine commitments stand between 2.48 and 2.86, and at the other end of the spectrum, one single commitment is scoring below 2.5: commitment five on Complaints mechanisms (score of 2.11).
The Comparison between results coming from Self-Assessments or Peer Reviews, and third-party audits (Independent Verification or Certification) shows similar trends with commitment 6 being the strongest and commitment 5 on complaints mechanisms the most challenging. The proximity of the results obtained through the different options of the verification scheme reaffirms the validity of each of the options (self-assessments, 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, 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: 1.87, when the OR score is 2.15, 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 only two 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) and 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).