Results – allow disaggregations of results data
Type of Change
Change to Schema
• Currently, you cannot have more than one target and actual per period. This means that it is not possible to disaggregate an indicator by more than one set of dimensions, specify other than by a technical workaround (see suggestions below).
• Why is this a problem?: Many donors ask for results data to be disaggregated by, for example gender AND disability status, or gender AND age. This is not currently allowed in the schema, as only one target and one actual is allowed per period (per indicator). “It is recognised widely that results presented as averages for entire populations will usually mask differences within that population group, for example, by gender, wealth, disability, ethnicity, etc. The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in particular have put this issue higher on the agenda, under the heading of “Leave no one behind”. In order to ensure equity and the inclusion of marginalised groups, it is vital that disaggregated data is collected (and many aid providers are increasingly requiring disaggregation by a number of dimensions - For example, DFID requires results to be disaggregated by gender and is rolling out requirements to disaggregate by disability status). For IATI data to be useful, it in turn must enable the publication of disaggregated results data.” https://www.bond.org.uk/resources/publishing-results-to-iati:
• Suggestion: The current workaround is to have two near identical indicators (eg through “dimension”) (or periods of time within indicators) for the same result. This leads to confusion as there is no sure way to know which values should be considered as disaggregations versus those that belong to separate indicators. It also causes duplicate information for the rest of the indicator, adding an unnecessary source of potential error and reporting burden.
Multiple target and actual values (representing each disaggregation) should be permitted for a given period of an indicator. Change cardinality of “target” and “actual” elements from 0…1 to 0…*
(see http://iatistandard.org/202/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/result/indicator/period/target/ and http://iatistandard.org/202/activity-standard/iati-activities/iati-activity/result/indicator/period/actual/ for relevant sections of the standard))
Workshopped at the TAG 2017 and mentioned at the end of the Standards day as part of the results section. Although there was very little time to discuss the proposal, no criticism of the proposal was offered. Proposal has been on IATI Discuss since March 2017.
• This topic has been discussed and agreed previously but missed in implementation: Disaggregation of results
• A more recent discussion is here: Results: allow disaggregation
• This topic addresses Principle 4 from a consultation driven by Monitoring and Evaluation experts from UK CSOs Jan – Mar 2017 – see Results: discussion space and TAG 2016/17 path. Technical suggestions were devised by technology specialists at the Nethope Athens conference March 2017. In all around 30 M&E and technical specialists were involved in this consultation and it builds on a previous consultation by Bond 2015-16 (https://www.bond.org.uk/resources/publishing-results-to-iati - also on discuss.iatistandard : Sharing Results using IATI data standard: will it improve learning and accountability? ).