[wdmmg-discuss] PESA and CRA and differences between.

Mon Jun 28 11:57:28 UTC 2010

What I don't understand from this is that they seem to say it can't be
allocated to sub-functions (at least when regional). However, it *is*
allocated that way in PESA ...

Couldn't the CRA dataset just have a bunch of entries in which region
(and PO) were not specified but other classifiers
(function/subfuction/department/etc) were?

Rufus

On 28 June 2010 10:14, Lisa Evans <lisa.evans at okfn.org> wrote:
> This email from the CRA team goes some way to answering our questions about
> the CRA and PESA.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:01:29 +0100
> To: Lisa Evans <lisa.evans at okfn.org>,
> Subject: RE: PESA and CRA and differences between.
>
> Hi Lisa
>
> Unfortunately I can't install flashplayer on my computer so I'm unable to
> see you website properly. I should be able to still answer your questions
> though.
>
> ENG_LA simply stands for English local authority spending. The problem you
> are facing with ENG_LA data is because we do not allocate sub-functions to
> local authority data by region. We only do this by country, i.e. England as
> a whole, for chapter 10. We believe that the regional data that we obtain
> isn't robust enough to also split it by sub-function. Some of the regional
> amounts by sub-function would be quite small and we do not think that the
> data quality enables us to carry out such low-level analyses.
>
> In addition, we receive England LA data from CLG that is not organised along
> PO Groups unlike the rest of the data - one of the reasons why we do not
> allocate the regional data to sub-functions.
>
> When refering to Housing, I assume you are looking only at spending that
> falls under 10.6 Social Protection/Housing and you exclude 6. Housing and
> community amenities in this?
>
> I am not sure where the £3.097bn for the CRA come from exactly but I have
> attached a spreadsheet that uses the Chapter 10 interactive tables from our
> website. This shows that total CRA spending for 2008-09 on 10.6 is £19.7bn
> and that ENG_LA's share of this is £16.6bn. As I mentioned above, when you
> look a chapter 10, you will be able to analyse each country by sub-function.
> However, it is not possible to look at 10.6 by English region.
>
> ENG_HRA is slightly different and easier to deal with. It refers to the
> Housing Revenue Account (so you could make this its PO Group name) and it's
> sub-function is 6.1 Housing development - of which: local authority housing.
>
> I hope this makes sense but do let me know if any of this is unclear.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Evans [mailto:lisa.evans at okfn.org]
> Sent: 23 June 2010 10:53
> Subject: PESA and CRA and differences between.
>
>
> Dear [snip],
>
> Since we last met, and you gave such help advice to my questions about the
> CRA, the 'Where Does My Money Go?' team have built a visulisation for the
> CRA:
>
> http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/
>
> to accompany the visulisation you saw for PESA:
>
> http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/_prototype/
>
> We don't expect the two diagrams above to be the same as the CRA shows
> where money has had effect in different regions and the PESA report show
> actual spending (or at least that is how I understand it, please correct
> if that isn't the case).
>
> However when we used the CRA data for the visulisation we included the
> departments: ENG_HRA and ENG_LA and this has caused some problems because
> neither the COFOG level 2 nor programme object group are provided for
> these departments. To cope with this we have defined these spending lines
> as "Unknown" bubbles (For example, underneath Education (82bn) there is a
> 44bn Unknown (for 2008/09 tax year)).
>
> Could you advise how we could better deal with the ENG_HRA and ENG_LA
> department's spending items, and why do they not have Programme Object
> Group or COFOG level 2 descriptions?
>
> A specific example of the problems the ENG_LA data in the CRA is causing
> is in Housing:
>
> Housing under the Social Protection bubble is 20bn in the PESA analysis
> <for 2008-09; this can be viewed at
> http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/_prototype/ >, and 3.097bn in the CRA
> analysis
> <http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/#/uk-bubble-chart/focus=10&year=2008-0>.
> The difference, 17bn, is somewhere in the "Unknown" bubble, but this is
> all the data marked as "LA data subfunction" in the CRA.
>
> So you can see from this example that we can get some guidance from PESA
> about how money has been allocated in the CRA, but we don't know for sure
> if this is correct.
>
> Looking forward to hearing your advice and I would be happy to visit you
> again if you would like to explain in person or over the phone.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Lisa Evans
> _______________________________________________
> wdmmg-discuss mailing list
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wdmmg-discuss
>
>

-- 
Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/