Grants without recipient organisations - for listing groups of individual grants

[prbass]

Feature request from Paul Hamlyn Foundation - they want to be able to include information about grants they have made but where the individual recipients are not disclosed for data protection reasons etc.

These are the example rows - won't include them in the files I upload for now, but they are in the published file at: http://www.phf.org.uk/news.asp?id=2237

Recipient Org: Name	Classification: Grant Programme	Classification: Grant Fund	Title	Currency	Total Amount awarded
Awards to eight individuals/organisation through Breakthrough Fund	Arts	Breakthrough Fund 2013	Breakthrough Fund 2013	GBP	1811000.00
Awards to Individual Composers	Arts	Awards for Artists 2013	Awards for Composers - to three composers	GBP	150000.00
Awards to Individual Visual Artists	Arts	Awards for Artists	2013 Awards for Visual Artists - to five individuals	GBP	250000.00

[practicalparticipation]

To be addressed in documentation. We could consider a suggested organisation ID for anonymous grant data.

[timgdavies]

The issue of being able to explicitly identify grants to individuals has also come up as a result of looking at SORP guidance, where a charity may wish to report on the breakdown of:

• Grants to individuals
• Grants to institutions

At the moment the CSV and JSON models explicitly refer to Recipient Organisation, and not just to Recipient, so saying that 'individuals' could just be put in the Organisation section would be problematic.

There are also data protection issues with respect to individuals (as noted in the original comment), such that the standard may want to discourage publishing individuals details.

Proposal

• We should add a boolean field to the standard for grantToIndividual which should appear just before the Organization rows.

In addition:

• The validator should include warnings when Organization identification information is present when the grantToIndividual flag is set

[caprenter]

We should be aware the pull https://github.com/ThreeSixtyGiving/standard/pull/147 made recipient orgs required. This make sense for the vast majority of grants (we think) and leads to a better user experience around validation.

We do need to take this case into account tho

[mlenczner]

Already our federal arts funder is publishing grants made to both orgs and individuals. They display different info for each in the name of personal privacy.

On Wednesday, 1 June 2016, caprenter notifications@github.com wrote:

We should be aware the pull #147 https://github.com/ThreeSixtyGiving/standard/pull/147 made recipient orgs required. This make sense for the vast majority of grants (we think) and leads to a better user experience around validation.

We do need to take this case into account tho

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ThreeSixtyGiving/standard/issues/18#issuecomment-222949125, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAKna0Q3DOXM-riF7tbF3p9RsKjJsx1Gks5qHVlQgaJpZM4CQAqs .

Michael Lenczner Director of Powered by Data http://www.poweredbydata.org/, a Tides Canada Initiative | CEO of Ajah http://www.ajah.ca/ +1-514-708-5112

[caprenter]

Just a note that current documentation does tell us how to deal with this situation: http://www.threesixtygiving.org/standard/identifiers/#toc-organisation-identifier

Is the proposal for grantToIndividual still wanted?

[stevieflow]

@timgdavies are you thinking grantToIndividual is still something to pursue in the schema?

Elsewhere, we have a couple of documentation pieces that talk about this - there is a need to rationalise

But first of all then we just clarify grantToIndividual

[timgdavies]

I think grantToIndividuals still has value as both a substantive field for analysis (supporting SORP reporting), and to assist us in providing more privacy-protecting tools (we can warn when there are grantsToIndividuals in a dataset, and double-confirm during data quality tool process whether the user has properly removed any information they should have kept out of the data.

[stevieflow]

Ok thanks @timgdavies

@morchickit did you plan some wider discussion on this in the forum?

[mlenczner]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Tim Davies notifications@github.com wrote:

I think grantToIndividuals still has value as both a substantive field for analysis

+1

Several of our partners are already publish grants to individuals. Please feel free to ask us directly if you have use cases for which you want feedback.

Mike

(supporting SORP reporting), and to assist us in providing more privacy-protecting tools (we can warn when there are grantsToIndividuals in a dataset, and double-confirm during data quality tool process whether the user has properly removed any information they should have kept out of the data.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ThreeSixtyGiving/standard/issues/18#issuecomment-328553445, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKnazJ-CbK_GMvYqx8cTG-2X-hTUjctks5shUhPgaJpZM4CQAqs .

[BobHarper1]

Just flagging a comment from @jacklord on https://github.com/OpenDataServices/social-finance-data-spec/issues/13#issuecomment-338030548 provides a potential solution in having a recipient field with a oneOf for either recipientOrganization (as it currently is) or recipientIndividual (a new schema).

[stevieflow]

Ive removing this from the version 1 project

[mariongalley]

I think this is fixed by the ability to declare grants to individuals in the 360Giving Data Standard #339

Happy to close @KDuerden ?