Humanitarian aid and development  »  Humanitarian standards, quality and accountability  »

Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS): quality and accountability in humanitarian action

  • Page updated onJuly 17, 2026
Core Humanitarian Standard
Text and photo: Bruno Abarca

The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) sets out the nine commitments that people and communities affected by crisis can expect from the organisations that assist them. The result of decades of efforts to improve accountability to affected people (AAP), it is now the humanitarian system's benchmark standard, with its own mechanisms for self-assessment, independent verification and certification.

This page reviews its history, its commitments and its verification, and critically examines what the evidence says about its effects. Because this people-centred Standard lights a path with a long way still to go: one where accountability looks as much towards affected people as towards the donors who fund the aid.

A brief history of progress in quality and accountability in humanitarian action

The evaluation of the Rwanda humanitarian response highlighted the need for major improvements in the humanitarian system

In 1994 a terrible genocide took place in Rwanda, followed by a major humanitarian emergency. This, together with the joint evaluation of the response to the crisis carried out two years later, marked a turning point in the history of humanitarian action.

The unprecedented evaluation revealed not only the political failure of the international community to halt the extermination, but also major problems in the performance, quality, coordination and professionalism of the humanitarian system. To overcome them, it put forward important recommendations, many of which consolidated and boosted quality and accountability improvement initiatives, such as the Sphere Project and the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (and the consequent extension of humanitarian principles to NGOs as a whole), along with others that, although they did not prosper, sowed the seeds of those that came later.

The seed of today's Core Humanitarian Standard was planted in 2003

The joint evaluation of Rwanda recommended creating a humanitarian ombudsman. However, in 2000, senior representatives of 50 humanitarian organisations rejected this figure of independent external oversight and opted for self-regulation (Doane, 2000). As a first step, they launched a pilot project that tested, in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Cambodia, mechanisms for organisations to answer for their actions and for affected people to raise complaints safely and receive a response (Callamard, 2003). This was how the Humanitarian Accountability Project was born.

Even that pilot highlighted major gaps in the accountability of humanitarian actors towards the population in need of assistance. The people consulted complained that they had no clear and consistent information about their rights to receive assistance or the future availability of aid, that they could not tell who was who among the staff and organisations present, that it was impossible to raise concerns or ask questions, that they felt unsafe and unprotected, and that they witnessed corruption (Callamard, 2003).

These problems were, moreover, especially acute for the poorest and women-headed households, for children, and for people with some form of disability. In fact, in 2005, a HAP survey found that 58% of 320 respondents rated humanitarian actors' accountability to beneficiaries as "low", while only 5% rated their accountability to donors as low (Kamm, 2013).

From the Humanitarian Accountability Project pilot to the consolidation of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

In the following years, one of the main conclusions to emerge from the first pilot projects took hold: a permanent accountability mechanism was needed, sustained by an international body regulated by the very agencies and NGOs involved. The intention of having a set of common minimum standards prevailed over the initial idea that each organisation should be assessed solely against its own values and standards. This, however, might require a certification system, with its own challenges (Kamm, 2013).

If anything helped this certification system gain acceptance, it was the shift in perception that had taken place within the humanitarian system during this time. On the one hand, the term "accountability" was now everywhere. On the other, the fear that this system might be exploited by donors and governments seemed to fade, as it also became clear that it was the only real alternative to internal quality-control systems, which were generally inadequate (Kamm, 2013). The perceived advantages of the proposal eventually became widespread and, faced with the risk of having multiple scattered mechanisms, the HAP standard ultimately prevailed, after several revisions (Knox-Clarke & Mitchell, 2011).

From the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership to the Core Humanitarian Standard

The first international standard for assessing and improving the accountability and quality of humanitarian programmes was published in 2007 and revised in 2010 (HAP International, 2010). It was not just another tool, but a standard against which organisations could be audited and certified, with a validity of three years.

A major consultation that followed also made it possible to bring this initiative together with others, in order to simplify their architecture and adoption. In this way, the Joint Standards Initiative combined into a single framework the 2010 HAP Standard, the People In Aid Code of Good Practice (People In Aid, 2003), and the Sphere Core Standards, joined by the Quality & Accountability COMPASS framework (Groupe URD, 2018). The result, published in December 2014, was the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) (Hilhorst, 2014).

This consolidation was completed with the 2015 merger of HAP and People In Aid to create the CHS Alliance, and the creation of HQAI (Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative), an independent body set up to audit humanitarian organisations' compliance with the Standard (HQAI, 2019).

What is the Core Humanitarian Standard?

A standard for quality, responsibility and accountability in humanitarian action

The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) is a globally recognised framework based on humanitarian principles. It was published in 2014 (CHS Alliance et al., 2024) and updated in 2024.

The Standard is open. Its use, adoption and application by any humanitarian organisation is encouraged. However, three organisations hold its rights and share its governance: the CHS Alliance, Sphere and Groupe URD. They act as custodians of its content and are responsible for revising and promoting it.

The Core Humanitarian Standard addresses what relationships between humanitarian actors and the communities they work with should be like (CHS Alliance et al., 2024). To this end, the Standard sets out the nine commitments that people and communities in situations of crisis and vulnerability can expect from those who support them, in terms of quality and accountability. These commitments are common to any humanitarian organisation, regardless of the nature of the activities it carries out or its technical sector.

The Core Humanitarian Standard includes 9 commitments
(CHS Alliance et al., 2024)

The Core Humanitarian Standard includes nine commitments

Through nine commitments that humanitarian actors must adopt, the Standard sets out the guarantees to be offered to the people and communities it works with, grounded in respect for humanitarian principles (CHS Alliance et al., 2024):

  • Commitment 1: People and communities in situations of crisis and vulnerability can exercise their rights and participate in actions and decisions that affect them. This means integrating diversity, equity and inclusion considerations for everyone and, especially, for the most marginalised. It is also understood that effective participation must be preceded by effective information and communication, adapted to the local language and context. Nor can participation be improvised: it must be embedded in organisations' approaches, which are committed to involving the community and its people in all actions and decisions. Finally, reference is also made to people's rights regarding respect for their dignity when their image is used for advocacy or fundraising, for example.
  • Commitment 2: People and communities access timely and effective support in accordance with their specific needs and priorities. The quality of programmes and activities matters throughout the entire project cycle. That is why it is essential that humanitarian context analyses focus not only on correctly assessing people's needs, but also on examining local capacities and strengths. Likewise, fair criteria must be used to determine which populations and actions will be prioritised, ensuring particular attention to the most marginalised groups and referring whatever cannot be addressed to other actors who are able to do so. During the implementation of activities, these must be continually monitored and adjusted to ensure their relevance, their accessibility and that quality technical standards are also being met.
  • Commitment 3: People and communities are better prepared and more resilient to potential crises. Ideally, humanitarian assistance should not seek to respond only to the most immediate needs. It should also seek to strengthen affected communities' capacities and autonomy in managing risks and crises. This requires supporting local leaders and local efforts to overcome the crisis, as well as helping to empower local humanitarian organisations. Furthermore, from a perspective that respects the humanitarian-development-peace nexus approach, efforts should be made to ensure that humanitarian programmes can also have a positive long-term impact on society, its livelihoods and its economy.
  • Commitment 4: People and communities access support that does not cause harm to people or the environment. Without adequate measures in place, humanitarian actions can have unintended negative effects on communities or the environment. Organisations must therefore embed a commitment to people's safety, rights and dignity in their approaches. This can be put into practice through secure and ethical data management and the application of measures to prevent abuse and reduce environmental impact, for example.
  • Commitment 5: People and communities can safely report concerns and complaints and get them addressed. It is not enough to provide assistance in the form of essential goods or services. Accessible and appropriate feedback and complaints mechanisms must also be set up so that the people who take part in or receive them can give feedback. This allows them to complain if they feel they are being treated in a discriminatory way, for example, or to report abuse where it occurs. Complaints received must be handled ethically, with investigations and responses that protect victims and survivors of exploitation, abuse or harassment.

🧠 Let's pause and reflect

As the quality lead of an NGO certified against the Core Humanitarian Standard, what would you do to ensure that compliance with Commitment 5 on paper translates into complaint mechanisms that affected people actually know about, use and consider safe?

  • 1Think and write your answer.
  • 2Click on «Copy and open».
  • 3Paste to receive feedback.

📚 This is the NotebookLM for this topic. It uses only carefully selected references. | What is NotebookLM?

  • Commitment 6: People and communities access coordinated and complementary support. Humanitarian organisations cannot act in isolation. They must coordinate with the other actors in the humanitarian system and, especially, with their counterparts, partner organisations and other existing community initiatives. This requires that decision-making can be shared among these actors, respecting each partner's roles and responsibilities, and ensuring that all of them uphold technical standards and quality norms.
  • Commitment 7: People and communities access support that is continually adapted and improved based on feedback and learning. The ongoing improvement of interventions can only be ensured if organisations make a firm commitment to continuous learning and dialogue with communities. Once again, it is not enough to implement theoretically relevant activities or to follow the recommended guidelines and protocols. A dialogue with the community must be established, along with a listening and responsive attitude that makes it possible to understand what works and what should be improved, from the perspective of the people in the affected population. This dialogue must also take place when the information gathered is analysed and changes to the interventions are proposed.
  • Commitment 8: People and communities interact with staff and volunteers that are respectful, competent and well-managed. At times, more emphasis is placed on introducing changes and improvements to policies and procedures than on their eventual effective application, which is far more complex and difficult to guarantee. This requires establishing standards and codes of conduct that prevent and prohibit any form of abuse, harassment, exploitation or discrimination, but also fostering an organisational culture that makes change possible. This necessarily begins with respect for the rights of humanitarian workers and the creation of a safe and inclusive working environment.
  • Commitment 9: People and communities can expect that resources are managed ethically and responsibly. This commitment refers both to financial resources and to material, human and environmental ones. Humanitarian organisations must therefore ensure the efficient, effective and ethical management of the scarce resources available in humanitarian contexts, minimising and avoiding their waste and misuse. This requires the careful application of anti-corruption measures and mechanisms to prevent fraud, conflicts of interest and the possible diversion of goods and funds. Likewise, the different existing alternatives should be assessed in order to choose those that minimise environmental impact.

How is the Core Humanitarian Standard verified? Self-assessment, independent verification and certification

Humanitarian organisations can assess their performance against the Core Humanitarian Standard and their compliance with the nine commitments in three different ways, with varying levels of rigour: self-assessment, independent verification and certification (CHS Alliance, 2022).

The Core Humanitarian Standard self-assessment is a critical and voluntary learning exercise

For many humanitarian organisations, self-assessment is the starting point and their first operational contact with the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS Alliance, 2025). Self-assessment requires between three and six months of work across a preliminary preparation phase, a data-collection phase, and a third phase of analysis and reporting. This process allows the humanitarian organisation to identify strengths and gaps in its policies and practices, which are reflected in a one-year improvement plan.

This step goes beyond the mere initial commitment to learn about and adopt the Standard. Once the final report is validated by the organisation, it is sent to the CHS Alliance. This entitles the organisation to a validation letter and a seal recognising completion of the exercise.

Independent verification of the Core Humanitarian Standard makes it possible to document the level of compliance with its commitments

Independent verification is an assessment carried out by an external actor. This process, more complex, comprehensive and rigorous than self-assessment, determines the extent to which the assessed organisation's systems and processes meet the requirements of the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS Alliance, 2022).

Currently, only the Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative (HQAI) is authorised to carry out this independent verification. Through the independent verification process, it is confirmed that the organisation is making demonstrated, continuous and measurable progress towards meeting the Standard's commitments, and the extent to which it meets them is evidenced. The independent verification cycle lasts three years (HQAI, n.d.-b).

A Core Humanitarian Standard verification requires at least two professionals who review the organisation's documentation and practices, interview staff and partners, and directly consult the populations affected by the humanitarian crises being responded to. A summary version of the resulting report is made public on the HQAI website. 

Core Humanitarian Standard certification gives a pass or fail on compliance

Certification is the third level of Core Humanitarian Standard verification and provides independent, objective assurance that an organisation meets the nine commitments (HQAI, n.d.-a).

HQAI is the organisation currently accredited to certify organisations against the Core Humanitarian Standard. Although it also has a three-year cycle, unlike independent verification, certification confirms compliance or non-compliance with the Standard. This approval is, moreover, conditional on annual maintenance audits. If the outcome of these additional audits is negative, the certificate can be withdrawn or suspended.

Does the Core Humanitarian Standard improve the quality of humanitarian action?

The Core Humanitarian Standard has changed how quality and accountability in humanitarian action are understood

Despite initial resistance to an external certification system, the Standard and the way it has been introduced into the humanitarian system have marked a before and after in accountability to people affected by crises and emergencies.

Driven forward at a time when, moreover, the geopolitical context was eroding the credibility of humanitarian organisations, the Core Humanitarian Standard brought conceptual clarity, unity among diverse actors, and a common standard that continues to grow and spread today.

The Core Humanitarian Standard is not the only framework for addressing accountability in humanitarian response. United Nations agencies such as UNHCR and IOM have their own frameworks for accountability to affected populations (AAP), and the IASC has adopted and promoted a collective AAP framework for the entire humanitarian response (IASC, 2023). However, all these frameworks are closely aligned with the Standard, both in the nature of their content and in their recognition. UN agencies' frameworks are applied through their own internal systems, whereas the Standard can be externally verified by NGOs.

Recognition of the Core Humanitarian Standard has expanded, though unevenly

The Core Humanitarian Standard is today widely recognised by humanitarian organisations, governments and donors (CHS Alliance, 2026). However, there are important geographical differences in this recognition.

The donors that recognise, require or subsidise CHS verification are mostly European. Irish Aid requires independent verification as a condition for accessing multi-annual funding, Luxembourg only funds certified organisations, and Sida (Sweden) subsidises the cost of audits. Other donors such as ECHO (European Union), GFFO (Germany) and FCDO (United Kingdom) recognise CHS audits in their due diligence or partner assessment processes (CHS Alliance, 2024). However, donors such as USAID have never formally required or recognised CHS verification.

It is no coincidence, therefore, that humanitarian organisations that are independently certified or verified against the Core Humanitarian Standard are mostly European, or nationals of other Global South countries that receive aid through a grant fund. The vast majority of US NGOs, when they engage with the Standard, self-assess, but very few are verified or certified (HQAI, n.d.-c). Their main donors do not reward the seal.

Core Humanitarian Standard verifications and certifications may be driven by the wrong incentive

Although the value of external audits in ensuring compliance with a set of requirements is undeniable, this does not guarantee that the focus is placed where it should be. Some authors speak of "accountability myopia", where focusing on assessing requirements ends up reducing the attention paid to the outcomes of actions or to learning processes (Ebrahim, 2005).

The Core Humanitarian Standard is an accountability-to-affected-people initiative. In many cases, however, the real incentive to carry out self-assessments, independent verifications and certifications comes from donors. And when access to humanitarian funding depends, in part, on holding a seal or a certification, upward accountability ends up weighing more than downward accountability (Ebrahim, 2005).

As a result, more emphasis is often placed on ensuring that project language includes key terms, on giving the impression of a high level of accountability, and on documenting that participatory processes have taken place, than on achieving a level of empowerment that makes humanitarian responses fairer and more effective (Nepal & Klein-Kelly, 2023).

🧠 Let's pause and reflect

Today, the most effective incentive for an organisation to verify its compliance with the Core Humanitarian Standard is access to funding: the seal matters because donors value it. How could affected people be given power equivalent to that of donors? In what way should their views condition the renewal of a certificate, the funding of a project or an organisation's presence in a response? What risks would each option carry?

  • 1Think and write your answer.
  • 2Click on «Copy and open».
  • 3Paste to receive feedback.

📚 This is the NotebookLM for this topic. It uses only carefully selected references. | What is NotebookLM?

The complexity and cost of Core Humanitarian Standard audit systems can limit their effectiveness

Having good tools is never a guarantee that they will serve all the purposes they should, that they will be used correctly, or that what is expected under laboratory conditions will actually play out the same way in real ones. 

Better accountability to people affected by crises does not always improve the outcomes of humanitarian action (Garrard, 2014). It is precisely the people who promote these initiatives who acknowledge that carrying out audits and self-assessments is not enough to produce a positive impact on the quality of humanitarian responses and the services provided (CHS Alliance, 2023).

If quality and accountability values do not permeate organisations' culture, change does not happen (Doherty, 2023). And precisely because of their complexity and growing specialisation, matters of quality and accountability tend to remain in a technocratic silo of head offices, senior technical teams and external consultancies (ALNAP, 2025), far from and beyond the control of the staff who design and implement projects, who work on the front line of the response, or who are even in charge of day-to-day monitoring and learning. To this can be added a further barrier for many local and national organisations which, despite being able to access subsidies for audits, struggle to cover the cost of certification and verification.

Affected populations still have little power and control over the actions of humanitarian organisations

Although progress in quality and accountability has been notable, the people and communities affected by humanitarian crises still have less power over it than they should. They are consulted during audits, and there are mechanisms through which they can raise complaints and lodge reports with HQAI, the external auditor of compliance with the Core Humanitarian Standard. But this is not known to everyone, it is not an easy channel to use, nor is it designed to guarantee the desired outcomes.

When a journalistic investigation (Flummerfelt & Peyton, 2020) revealed abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo committed by workers from several humanitarian organisations, one of them was certified against the Core Humanitarian Standard by HQAI. The system worked flawlessly: a new short-notice audit was carried out that served to verify that the safeguarding policies, systems and procedures of the organisation in question remained compliant with the Core Humanitarian Standard (HQAI, 2020). But the mechanism had not been able to prevent the incident from happening, nor had the channels available for reporting it come to be known and used by the victims (Flummerfelt & Peyton, 2020).

Today, the mechanisms for collecting the views and complaints of assisted people still seem to have little influence on how programmatic, operational and strategic decisions are made (Doherty, 2023). Moreover, many assisted people still perceive that they lack the legitimacy or the backing of the humanitarian system to demand fair, quality assistance, or to claim their right to have information, to be consulted and to have their voice heard and taken into account at every stage of the humanitarian programme cycle. In some cases, they are even afraid to criticise humanitarian organisations and lose their assistance (Doherty, 2023).

A good self-regulated certification system for humanitarian accountability is not enough

There are still calls today for a strong commitment to transparency with people affected by crises about what organisations really can and cannot do, for mechanisms that enable participation in difficult decisions about what to do or not and how to do it, for breaking the technical silo in which accountability to affected populations sits and integrating it into programmes, and for giving more power to local organisations (ALNAP, 2025).

Asking whether the decision to reject the recommendation to create an ombudsman twenty-five years ago was the right one will probably not produce the answers the humanitarian system needs today. It may, however, be pertinent to ask whether self-regulation through Core Humanitarian Standard verification is the only option for the future, when the accountability to affected people that it promotes risks becoming, in practice, a means to another end: accountability to donors.

References

Humanitarian standards, quality and accountability

NotebookLM

You can explore my bibliographic references on the Core Humanitarian Standard using this NotebookLM, an AI-powered research assistant. Want to learn more?

How to cite this page

Abarca, B. (July 17, 2026). Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS): quality and accountability in humanitarian action. Salud Everywhere. https://saludeverywhere.com/en/humanitarian-aid-and-international-development/core-humanitarian-standard/

Search
Scroll to Top