As Data Administrators are following up on the July 3 announcement - P2 Report Corrections, it’s become apparent that the loop on the ‘why?’ behind this request for correcting the P2 reports hasn't adequately been addressed for them, and PEAB Administrators may not recall the rationale presented to them. (For review, please see PEAB Presentation 2013-14, beginning at approximately minute 5:30.)
The following context may help. If not, please feel free to contact Cheryl directly.
The ‘cycle’ that the P2 report is attempting to follow is identified in the WAC (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=181-78A-250), specifically
There was no coding of RECOMMENDATION ResponseType in the 2012-2013 Standard 1 Data Manual, so there was no way for connecting recommendations and program responses. This inability to follow this cycle last year is why the RecommendationId element was added to the Standard 1 Data Manual for 2013-2014.
You can create a pivot on the RecommendationId code to illustrate the path of ResponseTypes from RECOMMENDATION through other ResponseTypes to FINAL REPORT* and follow the ‘cycle’ of program responses to an Advisory Board recommendation.
The pivot table below demonstrates what that pivot table might look like.
* ResponseTypes, including FINAL REPORT, may occur in a year subsequent to a RECOMMENDATION ResponseType being made. Those subsequent ReponseTypes should still carry the RecommendationId code of the original RECOMMENDATION ResponseType.
** The numbers are counts of the types of ResponseTypes associated w/a RECOMMENDATION and simply show the kind of work related to a particular RECOMMENDATION and are not in any way evaluative.