[wdmmg-discuss] Fixing the CRA
wwaites at googlemail.com
Sun Feb 21 21:21:11 GMT 2010
On the cofog, I made a script that does some guesses, and then
filled in some of the remaining categories by hand. Not guaranteed
to be correct - I just did it quickly and haven't checked it over
but it should be ok.
Note that the "of which" sometimes refers to a level 2 function
and sometimes level 3 (so we actually have some data by sub-sub
Have a look here:
the tuples are
(proper_code, function_in_cra, subfunction_in_cra)
The UK extensions of the cofog have strings instead of numbers in
part of the code...
Le 10-02-21 à 22:10, Lisa Evans a écrit :
> I've just had a meeting with Alistair Turnbull about practical
> things we/I
> can do to improve the quality of the CRA data. We came up with a
> list of 3
> 1. The poor descriptions for the Program Object Group (POG) can be
> improved by a combination of FOI requesting more detail and meeting
> government departments for more explanation on what the POG means.
> Just to
> be clear: the people I know at the Treasury say there are not more
> detailed descriptions of POG in COINS.
> 2. Not all the government departments listed in the CRA make obvious
> e.g. there is a department called "PC CAPEX" with code "998". So an
> to determine what all the government departments refer to in the
> CRA, by
> talking to the Treasury/looking for this list online etc.
> 3. With the COFOG categories that are messed-up (I've tried to
> how it's messed-up in previous emails -- it is quite hard to explain
> in an email), we can use table 5.2 and 5.4 of PESA to map the 'of
> ..' statement to a reasonable approximation of what we think the COFOG
> spending categories should be for each item of spending.
> wdmmg-discuss mailing list
> wdmmg-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Email: wwaites at gmail.com
UK tel: +44 131 516 3563
UK mob: +44 789 798 9965
More information about the openspending-discuss