Data Quality Index Consultation


Sub-section 2.8.2 Humanitarian

Instructions for submitting your feedback

1. Read through the proposed methodology for this measure and / or download the attached PDF at the bottom of this page; 

2. Share your feedback through the comment box below, consider the guiding questions in your comments and include the question number in your response;

Proposed Measures - 2.8.2 HUMANITARIAN

Please find below the proposed methodology for this measure. 

DEFINITION For humanitarian activities, assess which other humanitarian fields are being used.


  • Percentage (humanitarian scope)
  • Percentage (humanitarian cluster)



Count number of active humanitarian activities (taken from DQI measure 2.8.1) that have a valid humanitarian-scope element.

Divide by the total number of humanitarian activities.

Valid humanitarian-scope

  • @type and @code attributes must be present and not empty

Count the number of active humanitarian activities (taken from DQI measure 2.8.1) that have a valid sector element with vocabulary 10.

Valid sector

  • At least one sector element present at activity level OR in all transactions. If activity level AND more than 1 per vocab, percentage must add up to 100 per vocab



For each discussion, the IATI Secretariat will organise a webinar to explain the proposed methodology, answer questions and further explain how to engage.

  • Please find an overview of the most frequently asked questions of the Timeliness and Validation webinar here.
  • Missed the DQI Webinar on Data Completeness held on March 30? Watch the recordings here or read the summaryhere!

Comments (4)

Michelle Levesque

2.8.2 - I struggle using the vocabularly 10 as it doesn't provide codes when clusters are combined in a particular country.  My understanding is that many (or at least some) country plans create hybrid combinations of some clusters. To artificially split or track based exclusively on this list can be a lot of work and not actually be all that accurate.  By providing a list that provides all valid combinations of clusters which have been combined, it may not be as neat as data users would want but it will tie to how things are reported in other reporting systems and be less of a guess at the splits.  Similar to the fact that there is no universally published code list of all appeals which are out there, some publishers might find that a custom code list for clusters  is necessary so that the list can go beyond the top level so that these combo clusters have some code to match to.   IOM does that for our appeals because not all appeals we are involved in are on the OCHA list of appeals.  Within the custom list we have the OCHA codes but we also have other UN appeal codes and our own appeal codes. 


Evgenia Tyurina

In ILO's view it would be better to divide this measure into two - one for humanitarian scope and another one for humanitarian cluster (sector vocabulary 10) or to indicate that it is one OR another not both at the same time.

In the methodology the reference is made to the activities “taken from DQI measure 2.8.1”, but the measure 2.8.1 refers to activities OR transactions marked with humanitarian flag. For cases where humanitarian flag is used at the transaction level the humanitarian scope cannot be published because it only exists at the activity level. Publishing it at the activity level for activities where not all transactions are marked as “humanitarian” would be misleading. The sector vocabulary 10 can be added at both activity and transaction level and therefore does not have this problem.

Amy Silcock

Thanks for your comments both. It would be useful to hear the views from other colleagues who do humanitarian reporting, changing the measure may be sensible here.


[~573] [~295] [~401] [~515] [~433] [~556] + other colleagues any views on this?

Justin Senn

Hi Amy and all, UNHCR publish a sector breakdown using the Humanitarian Global Clusters (Vocab 10) in all activities. We don't have a problem of multi-sectorial activities like IOM. However we do have an issue with activities that can't be mapped to any sector. Because of this, the 100% calculation is based the activities that can be mapped. That is, if we have 40% "2-Early Recovery", 40% "10-Protection" and 20% that can't be mapped, we published a 50/50 split over codes 2 and 10. Ideally, a code should be available for activities that can't be mapped (or maybe the requirement for the sector mapping to add up to 100% could be dropped). I guess this has probably come up before as it affects other vocabularies as well.

Please log in or sign up to comment.