[wdmmg-discuss] "Unknowns" and Why is PESA better than CRA?
david.jones at okfn.org
Tue Jun 22 21:39:20 BST 2010
Lisa, I think most of this is review, but the last half of the e-mail
could be worth bringing up with contacts at Treasury.
Moving forward from my earlier e-mail about COFOG classifiers for
education ( http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/wdmmg-discuss/2010-June/000286.html
), and summarising the investigation I mostly did in ticket 402:
The current dashboard has some large "Unknown" bubbles (For example,
underneath Education (82bn) there is a 44bn Unknown (for 2008/09 tax
year)). Pretty much most of these large Unknowns are the "LA data"
problem described in Alistair's earlier e-mail:
There are 2 key observations:
1) This data is better in PESA (than CRA);
2) The "Unknowns" disappear in more recent tax years (because they are
projections? if so, why is that?).
A spreadsheet compares the "Social Protection" spending described in
the PESA and the CRA:
>From this we can see that the spending totals are roughly similar, but
the granularity of the CRA is less good than that of PESA. Question
to ask the Treasury: Why is that? (and can Treasury make it better).
A specific example is 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=2008-09
). The difference, 17bn, is somewhere in the "Unknown" bubble, but
this is all the data marked as "LA data subfunction" in the CRA.
More information about the openspending-discuss