Flattening IATI into a CRS-like dataset


(Alex Miller) #1

Hi all,

I’ve seen a few topics here discussing the conversion of flat files into hierarchical IATI data. I’m attempting to do the reverse, and I’m interested in hearing your feedback.

The original idea was to create a flat file from IATI transactions and budgets that could fill-in for the gaps in the CRS (i.e. 2017 and beyond).

Here’s my work so far: https://github.com/akmiller01/iati_flat_testing

I’m not sure if this could be worked into a multi-purpose tool, given that whoever wants to flatten IATI data probably has different use-cases in mind, but maybe we could strip down some of the logic of splitting values by sectoral/recipient percentages.

Cheers,
-Alex Miller


(Andy Lulham) #2

Paging @markbrough! (I know he has done a bunch of work on this topic.)


(Steven Flower) #3

Thanks @alex_miller – pinging @bjwebb & @rory_scott, who have also done a lot of work around this – specifically via the aptly-named flatten-tool


(Andy Lulham) #4

Aha – @markbrough has just posted here: Generating spreadsheets of IATI data for use at country level.


(Mark Brough) #5

Thanks @andylolz – I also meant to reply on here so you beat me to it!

@alex_miller maybe we should also write down together, maybe in a GDoc, the assumptions we’ve made for how to handle data


(Bill Anderson) #6

Great idea
+1 to that


(Alex Miller) #7

Made a start here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/127FhZq9-nD7yj9hsPG6TjDUIZkLojqWP7n4eHlwNguw/edit?usp=sharing

Bill, could you fill in the assumption we’ve been making about recoding donors? Something about aggregating agencies for governments (like the UK), but being unable to disaggregate multilateral donors?


(Bill Anderson) #8

A few questions for UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, WFP that may help us avoid double counting through multilaterals.

You all report Incoming Commitment and/or Incoming Fund transactions

  1. Do you have activities that are funded by a mix of core and earmarked funds. or are the two exclusive of each other?
  2. Is it possible to say that activities that include Incoming Commitment and/or Incoming Funds transactions are 100% earmarked funding?
  3. Do you add incoming commitment/funds to all activities with earmarked funding?

@Riza @Reichner @dubeys @stevieflow @alex_miller


(Steven Flower) #9

Hi @bill_anderson

I can’t speak directly for FAO , but know that in their IATI publication the Incoming Fund transactions represent funding that is directed to that activity/project. In all cases (I think) there is a named donor for each project. This is also cited in the IF transactions.

Example: http://d-portal.org/q.html?aid=XM-DAC-41301-640544

One next step for FAO would be to connect together with the donor project, where applicable: https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-204019/


(Otto) #10

Hi Bill,
WFP is a 100% voluntarily funded organization and has no core funding.
Therefore all incoming funds reported by WFP are according your definition ‘earmarked’.
Rgds
Otto


(Abdul Riza) #11

We do have projects at UNDP that are funded by a mix of core and earmarked funds and we publish incoming commitment and incoming funds for all projects. When we publish the core contribution of a project, UNDP becomes the funding organization, and incoming commitment and incoming funds transactions are added with reference to UNDP as the provider organization.

  1. Yes
  2. No. UNDP publish it for all activities
  3. Yes

(Yohanna Loucheur) #12

Riza, when you publish incoming funds and commitments, do you include the donor’s 1) name and ID? 2) its Activity ID?