How can DTM facilitate accurate partners analysis?


Jan 03 2020 Print

Targeted presentations of Key DTM findings

  • Field experience consistently highlights the effectiveness of targeted presentations of results by DTM to Inter-Cluster/Sector or Sectoral/Cluster Groups.
  • This is useful as few people have the time to read whole reports and presentations of results can be very effective in supporting accurate interpretation by subject-matter experts, cultural/context experts and decision makers (e.g., in a cluster meeting).
  • As presenting to all partners in separate meetings would be very time-consuming, it is suggested to start with presentations at inter-sectoral or inter-agency fora (ICCG, HCT, IMWG), and explore the possibility of presenting results to one or two different cluster/sector/WG per DTM round
  • In some situations, organizing regular meetings to present results to all interested partners has proven appropriate modality (meetings frequency will vary depending on the need and DTM rounds, e.g., once a month, once every 4 months…)
  • Remember that presentations are also venues for hearing and discussing in-depth feedback from partners, so to adjust the DTM exercise. 

Provide metadata to support partners’ accurate analysis

  • In order to correctly analyse and use DTM results, Partners need to fully understand the methodology and have metadata included in the datasets. DTM and global partners developed a checklist of “what to include in reports and datasets” for DTM coordinators
  • In order to enhance the usability and use of DTM data by partners, the following information should be included in DTM reports and datasets:

In DTM Reports

  • Questionnaire or Link to questionnaire
  • Link to Public Datasets
  • Contact details for feedback
  • Contact details for non – public datasets
  • Link to methodology (including how data reliability was calculated)
  • Date of collection (start and end dates)
  • Key informant type (if “key informant” is the methodology )– e.g. tribal leader, community health worker, etc.;
  • Table of Content (to allow reader to find the topic they are interested in)
  • Highlight the geographical boundaries of assessment, and identify what part/s of the country was not assessed
  • Include definitions, for example what is a “site”, the minimum number of HH that form a “site”
  • Clearly identify the number of IDPs assessed, noting if assessed areas varied compared to previous or other round (to avoid wrong comparisons of totals), and referring to previous or other round for non-assessed areas through a link.
  • Link to DTM Global and Country websites
  • Data source (for any information from non-DTM sources) – e.g. organization or project name if other than DTM, name government department if applicable

In DTM Datasets

  • Dates when data were collected – start date and end date per dataset/location
  • Link to Methodology used to collect those specific datasets/location (e.g., key informant, head count, dwelling count, remote sensing, registration, community list, survey, etc.)
  • Specific methodology used for population figures and groups, per location if not all have been obtained through the same methodology (calculator, head count, KI, list). Data Dictionary includes questions on this, e.g. M398, M399 and M481.
  • Key informant type (only for those where “key informant” is the methodology )– e.g. tribal leader, community health worker, etc. per dataset
  • Contact details for feedback and questions


Available Tools