New Policy Markers have been published by the OECD DAC:
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/dacandcrscodelists.htm (last updated - April 2014 - Marker tab. The retrieved file is also attached)
The new Policy Markers are:
- Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH)
(NB: Spelling mistake is in the original source list from OECD DAC)
These specific markers have their own set of Significance codes, which are separate to other Markers:
- 4 Explicit primary objective
- 3 Most, but not all of the funding is targeted to the objective
- 2 Half of the funding is targeted to the objective
- 1 At least a quarter of the funding is targeted to the objective
- 0 Negligible or no funding is targeted to RMNCH activities/results. RMNCH is not an objective of the project/programme
(blank) not screened
In IATI, the Policy Marker and Policy Significance codelists are "embedded", so changes and additions to these need to be considered within the change control cycle.
Proposal could be to append the new Policy Marker codes to the existing list, but create an additional Policy Significance list. The challenge would then be as to how to guide usage.
Suggestions and proposals welcome
(Original discussion thread on IATI Technical discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/iati-technical/8cd8vvmaYiU)
Moving to the 1.05 upgrade forum
There is only 1 new policy marker named:
Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH)
The official DAC codelist spreadsheet (http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/Codelist10072014.xls) explicitly states "Policy objective: Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH)" (not the singular "Objective"). Also the CRS++ template adds only one additional "RMNCH" marker column.
On the guidance of how to use the policy significance list:
- would it be possible to add the correct use of signifinace values as a business rul in the XSD validation file?
- additionally the correct usage of significance codes, could maybe also be a part of the data quality dashboard.
I agree. Extending the list of possible values of the marker significance codes is probably the most practical way to go. Unfortunately we have to live with the fact that not all policy markers are equal with regard to their allowed list of signifcant codes.
Ah - thanks for clarifying it is only one new Policy Marker, Herman!
Is there also a new option in terms of Policy Significance of:
"(blank) not screened"
that we need to deal with?
I am seeing this on this spreadsheet, under the 'Marker' sheet:
I am not sure thats needed. By ommitting the marker and its significance score in the XML file, it is by definition 'not screened'. In CRS++ you report markers in the column of the spreadsheet. Therefore you can not ommit the marker even if you want to ommit it. You only ommit the value of the field.
In other words, allowing a blank significant score in the XML would in my opnion be redundant. Just do not report the marker when it is not applicable or not screened.
This is being implemented via: