Update to the analysis of CHS scores

A few new organizations have been audited by HQAI against the CHS since I posted my analysis of scores some weeks ago. I have updated and reviewed the R code, which now can be found on github together with the data used (as accessed on 22nd May 2018). In the future I would like to make it an executable file, but that’s a work in progress.

There are some interesting elements to be highlighted. First, there are five organizations newly audited, and two of them (Coast Trust and Women Support Association) are from the so-called global South (WSA from Ethiopia, Coast Trust from Bangladesh). The other three organizations are Adra International, Caritas Denmark and Plan International. Adra went for the benchmarking auditing, Plan International and Women Support Association for the verification audit, while Coast Trust and Caritas DK for the certification. Only Coast Trust and Plan managed to meet the minumum requirements to get a certification, while the other organizations incurred in at least a major non-conformity. This happened against commitment n. 5, complaint mechanism, which is not surprising as, as I noted in the old post, it seems to be the most difficult to meet. However, WSA register a major non-conformity also against commitment 8 (staff support), against which generally organizations score quite well (with no other score below 2.1, a median of 2.83 and an average of 2.6), and Adra International got a second major non-conformity against commitment 4 (comunication with affected communities).

It is interesting to note that three out of five organizations failed to meet the minimum requirements to achieve a certification, while previously only one out of sixteen organizations audited incurred in a major non-conformity, however with the information available is not possible to say if this is due just by chance rather than to any specific factor.

With these exceptions, in general terms the new audits seem to confirm the patterns previously identified, with a rather uniform performance against all the commitments apart from 5 (with lower scores) and 6 (with better scores). The new overall average values are however lower than those previosuly identified as the newly audited organizations achieved overall lower scores than those previously audited.

It is interesting to note how Plan International and Plan Germany got rather different scores especially against commitments 6 (coordination and complementarity of the response) and 8 (staff support). Even more apparent are the differences between Adra International and Adra Denmark, especially against commitment 4. Again, it is difficult at the present stage to draw any conclusion, but seems quite interesting to note huge disparities between different branches of the same organization.

Here can be found the interactive boxplots of the scores grouped by commitment and by organization, while below I am adding the radar charts of the new organizations. As usual, comments and observations are appreciated!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s