Hoping to crowd source some ideas on best practices. Apologies if this has been discussed before but I didn’t see it in previous discussions but admittedly I’m crap at finding old threads. If I missed it don’t hesitate to point me to it.
There are AidType vocabulary for both OECD and Grand Bargain (GB) and from what I can tell you can code the same activity (default level) or transaction (transaction level) against both.
Assuming that a publisher is:
- receiving money from a donor
- is not passing it on to an implementing partner
- coding at the transaction not activity level
Questions, is it correct to assume:
- that codes 1-3 would only be used for incoming commitment (transaction type 11) or incoming funds (transaction type 1)
- code 4 would be for expenditures?
- is it best practice to code both transaction types 1 and 11 with aid types 1-3 or would it only be for the incoming commitment?
Rather than replicating AidTypes in two different transaction types, it could simply be coded at the activity level. But if these 3 vocabularies are only related to two transaction types won’t that mess up assumptions on the disbursement (3) and Expenditure (4) transaction types?
In looking at the list of GB signatories, only a handful actually code to the GB aid type vocabulary 2-4 so perhaps @stolk, @pelleaardema, @stevieflow can chime in here as they work for/with a few of them.
Thanks in advance.