IATI Consultations Archive

Live discussions and consultations can be found at discuss.iatistandard.org.

Additions to Organisation-Type codelist

(from Mike Smith, WaterAid)

Proposal to add two items to the organisation-type codelist

1 - Anonymous - for instances where organisation details are redacted

2 - Supporter-giving - for instances to describe donations from "the public"

Both would help with reporting, and could be assigned a relevant code via DAC, on investigation

Have more questions? Submit a request

20 Comments

  • 0
    Avatar
    David Carpenter

    We think  this may have far reaching consequences around the way we would operate the registry and the way we would assess the various organisations in terms of their data and their relationship with IATI and each other. 

    Because of this, we think this is an integer style proposal and so will move it to the 2.01 process.

  • 0
    Avatar
    David Carpenter

    Moving into the 2.01 upgrade forum.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Bill Anderson

    While the proposed types are useful additions for describing a participating organisation or a party to a transaction, they will cause problems for the reporting-org element (and the Registry). This needs further thought and in my opinion is too late for inclusion in to 2.01

  • 0
    Avatar
    David Carpenter

    Moving to the Modifications, Additions, Improvements forum

  • 0
    Avatar
    Cristián Mansilla Aguilera

    I have another issue. We have a participating (France Expertise International, FEI) that is both International NGO and Government. I don't know if I could assign two organistion types to the same organisation?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Steven Flower

    Hi Christian

    Thanks for the example.

    At face value I'm not sure how an organisation can be both a Government and NON-Government organisation simultaneously - is this the actual case for : http://www.fei.gouv.fr/ ?

    But - I appreciate your query that a organisation could have two @type attributes, particularly as these are not necessarily legal statuses.

     

    Looking forward to comments from others....

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    Cristián Mansilla Aguilera

    It is exactly the case of FEI

  • 0
    Avatar
    Theo van de Sande

    The same organisation can have multiple attributes. The particular relation is described per agreement (ie the agreement reflects the (legal) character of the relation in a specific activity. Eg. providing a subsidy to an NGO or cooperating with that same NGO in a PPP.

    Does this help?

  • 0
    Avatar
    IATI Tech Team

    This item has been moved to the '2.02 Decimal Upgrade Proposals' forum for inclusion the upcoming decimal upgrade.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Theo van de Sande

    Since this discussion on the organsation type code list has been moved under the decimla upgrade proposals, I would like to reiterate an earlier contribution on this topic, not addressed so far.

    In order to be able to generate crs++ from IATI, it is necessary to adjust the code list of the organisation type against the DAC channel parent category. The current IATI organisation types can not be matched with the DAC channel parent category.

    Codes
    Code Name
    10 Government
    15 Other Public Sector
    21 International NGO
    22 National NGO
    23 Regional NGO
    30 Public Private Partnership
    40 Multilateral
    60 Foundation
    70 Private Sector
    80 Academic, Training and Research

    Whereas DAC channel categories:

    11 donor government
    12 recipient government
    13 third country government
    21 international ngo
    22 donor country based ngo
    23 developing country based ngo
    31 public private partnership
    32 network
    41 united nations agency, fund or commission
    42 european union institution
    43 imf
    44 world bank group
    45 wto
    46 regional development bank
    47 other multilateral
    51 university, college or other teaching institution, research institute or think tank
    52 other

    Any suggestions for a way out?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Bill Anderson

    Thanks for highlighting this Theo.

    I suggest that the best way for us to be compatible for CRS reporting is to create a new element within the CRS-Add section dedicated to the DAC Channel of delivery. Given that the channel codes are a mixture of organisation types and names any other solution will be messy.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Herman van Loon
    Having 1 unique list of organisation types which is both IATI and DAC compatible would have huge benefits for data analysis along the channel axis. Having two systems of organistion types causes a lot of interpretation problems. An possible solution would be to add an DAC 2 digit parent level to the existing IATI codelist ( e.g. IATI foundation and private sector under DAC parent 52 Other) and to split up some IATI codes (e.g. the government category). The only real problem would be the possibly conflicting defintions of codes 22 and 23. I would suggest that we adopt the DAC names because they seem much clearer.
  • 0
    Avatar
    IATI Tech Team

    This proposal has been discussed amongst the IATI Technical Team following the end of the initial suggestion phase of the v2.02 upgrade.

    The IATI Technical Team do not consider this to be a priority at this time, although we invite further discussion and encourage others who support this proposal to post accordingly before a final decision on inclusion within v2.02 is made.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Laia Grino

    Has adding a new organization type for private/individual donations been decided against? I believe this would be helpful for NGO publishers. Otherwise, what is the secretariat's recommendation for how to report privately funded projects? Other revenue sources for NGOs include things like membership dues and program fees.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Daniel Mackenzie

    I agree with the original proposal from Steven Flower, which has been brought up again by Laia Grino.

    At the moment organisations struggle to describe funds raised from appeals, public fundraising etc. It gets messy when referring to themselves as the funding organisation, as a secondary reporter and so on. Having a 'public fundraising' attribute would be very useful. 

    Quite a few orgs raise the issue of anonymous donors. While having this attribute by itself would perhaps not be helpful (we would lose detail of what kind of org the anonymous donor was, and therefore lose analysis of which types of orgs are more likely to require being reported as anonymous or which NGOs use anonymous funding) we could include 'anonymous' as an org type to be used in connection with another org type. 

  • 0
    Avatar
    Mike Smith

    <!--?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?-->

    Following Steven’s, Laia’s and Daniel’s posts:
    Re: aggregating donors into types such as “supporter-giving”, “private”, “individual donations”, “membership dues”, “program fees”. The original proposal was made in realisation that it is just not practical in some circumstances to list every single member of the public's quarterly donation to a charity - this can easily be millions of entries per charity per quarter.  The organisational overhead in obtaining consent to publish to this level of detail could be immense and I would strongly suspect provide little value above publishing aggregated donor types (which are already required for e.g. Statutory accounting so readily available within organisations) given the primary purposes of IATI. I agree that some careful thinking might be required to create categories that are not mis-used and accurately reflect all use cases, but not beyond possible.
    re: anonymous donors - "los[ing] detail of what kind of org the anonymous donor was” is exactly the original purpose of the proposal for using “anonymous” - the donor does not wish their organisation type to be disclosed.  Whether publishing this is useful I think goes back to establishing the “standard" way of reporting in IATI: is it better to report that there is a donor that has requested to be anonymous vs. reporting nothing at all? I suggest the former is better as the latter might be confused with incomplete data.  The former would also allow one to gauge how much data is being anonymised which could be used to help lobby organisations against requiring their data to be anonymised in the first place. 
  • 0
    Avatar
    Steven Flower

    On reading this thread from top to bottom, I have some observations :

    - The original topic is just under two years old

    - There seem to be multiple discussions taking place / points raised:

    -- Addition of Organisation Types Anonymous/Supporter Giving - and some discussion around the use/impact of this (particularly for NGO use cases)

    -- How some organisations may have a legitimate need to express Org Type more than once

    - - How the IATI Org Type code list may not be aligned to the DAC channel categories

     

    Given that the main driver for these threads is to get to a clear proposal for change to the IATI standard, is it fair to say that this thread isn't doing that?  However, the points raised and discussed are very valuable, and may need more clarification, discussion and consideration.  How best to proceed ?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Sarah Johns

    With reference to Steven's comment, there are two solid solutions proposed in this thread:

    1. To integrate DAC Channel codes into IATI data either through the CRS-ADD or as an extension of IATI identifier codes. As this is only relevant for those who publish to both CRS and IATI, it makes sense that this is done via CRS-ADD.

    2. To integrate several more organisation types into the organisation type code list in order to make it more useful for NGO reporting. The types identified by Mike and Laia make sure that private flows of funding can be tracked as well as ODA. This surely is essential if IATI is to become reflective of all development flows not just ODA. I don't see that this will add an issue for reporting-org type (Bill's comment) - it's pretty obvious that an organisation couldn't report their own org type as 'private/individual donations'

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    IATI Tech Team

    This proposal has been discussed amongst the IATI Technical Team. The issue around ensuring that DAC Channel codes are consistent with IATI codelists is addressed in another version 2.02 proposal (DAC Channel of Delivery), which itself has been accepted and work towards an implementation proposal is ongoing. 

    In terms of the proposal around addition of 'Anonymous' and 'Supporter-giving' codes, the Technical Team see this as a valid improvement to the standard, however this will require a wider consultation to ensure this is integrated into the standard in the most appropriate way.  In our assessment, we will not be able to process this element in the remaining time allocated for this upgrade but it is a proposal that we would encourage further discussion on as a candidate for inclusion within the next upgrade process.

  • 0
    Avatar
    IATI Tech Team

    This proposal has been moved back to the 'Modifications, Additions, Improvements' forum, as a candidate for inclusion within the next upgrade process.

Please sign in to leave a comment.