[wdmmg-discuss] CRA 2010: description and questions

Lisa Evans lisa.evans at okfn.org
Thu Aug 12 09:14:36 UTC 2010


Good write up Anna.

I think there is no loss of granularity in the data though, it is just 
organised differently this year, organised better.

Both sets describe the same spending, it is just one describes the *areas* 
the money was spent in in more detail, and the other data set describes 
the *type* of spending on in more detail.

I think we can join them. Will take one programme object group and see how 
they are presented in each report and then will report back.

Lisa

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Anna Powell-Smith wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've just started some work on the WDMMG data store, and Lisa and I
> have been looking at the data for CRA 2010, preparatory to loading it
> into the store.
>
> Here's what we've discovered, and some questions for discussion
> (Alistair, Will?):
>
> **The data**
>
> CRA 2010 consists of *two* spreadsheets, both in the CKAN package at
> http://www.ckan.net/package/ukgov-finances-cra
>
> As well as now being in two spreadsheets, it has also become slightly
> less granular.
>
> The two tables both show total spending, but classify it differently:
> by region and by sub-function. Table 9 classifies spending items by
> country, 9 regional areas, and COFOG 1 (e.g. England, East Midlands,
> Social protection). Table 10 classifies its items by country, COFOG 1
> and COFOG 2 (e.g. England, Social protection, Old age).
>
> Both have just over 20,000 rows and show data from 2004-5 onwards. The
> Treasury claims the tables are consistent. One more difference between
> the two: Table 9 has projected spending for 2010-11, but Table 10 does
> not.
>
> **Differences from CRA 2009**
>
> Last year every item was classified by both region and sub-function,
> so the data seems to have become less granular overall. Basically, you
> can now classify it either by region, or by sub-function, but not
> both.
>
> A few minor differences: we have gained Treasury classifications of
> spending, which seem to be analogous to COFOG but not identical. The
> 'CG or LG' column (central or local government) has gained a third
> option and is now 'CG, LG or PC' (public corporation - like the Met
> Office & World Service).
>
> Lisa says that the 'unknown' fields that caused problems last time are
> less problematic this time - I don't know much about this, but it
> sounds like good news.
>
> **Questions**
>
> 1. Do we load this as one slice or two, given the two ways of
> classifying data? One slice seems feasible, but messy (I guess you
> just have columns for both region and cofog2, and always leave one of
> them null, and have a lot of potentially duplicate rows and fairly
> complex queries). Advice appreciated.
>
> 2. We now have actual 2009-10 spending to compare with last year's
> projected spending (though unfortunately less granular). I'm thinking
> of adding a projected/actual key to the data store to deal with this,
> it seems to be a common issue with spending data, unless anyone
> objects. Also, do we want to do anything with this comparison?
>
> 3. On a related note, should I load in the data from past years in CRA
> 2010? or do we assume that this would just duplicate CRA 2009?
>
> 4. Finally, I'll add the Treasury classifications as a new key, unless
> anyone objects.
>
> best wishes
> Anna
>
> _______________________________________________
> wdmmg-discuss mailing list
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wdmmg-discuss
>
>




More information about the openspending mailing list