Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/sunlightlabs/clearspending

Conflicts:
	templates/summary.html

templates/analysis.html

@@ -5,10 +5,10 @@
 <div id="pageMain">
     <div id="ltColumn">
         <h3>Results</h3>
-        <p>Clearspending’s analysis consists of three metrics: consistency, completeness and timeliness. The consistency metric compares obligations reported in USASpending.gov with obligations reported in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). Timeliness is a measure of how quickly those obligationd are reported. Completeness is a measurement of how many required fields were completed for each transaction reported to USASpending.gov. Together, these metrics speak to whether the information reported by agencies is consistent with figures reported elsewhere and whether the reporting is occurring in compliance with Office of Management and Budget policy and U.S. law.</p>
+        <p>Clearspending’s analysis consists of three metrics: consistency, completeness and timeliness. The consistency metric compares obligations reported in USASpending.gov with obligations reported in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). Timeliness is a measure of how quickly those obligations are reported. Completeness is a measurement of how many required fields were completed for each transaction reported to USASpending.gov. Together, these metrics speak to whether the information reported by agencies is consistent with figures reported elsewhere and whether the reporting is occurring in compliance with Office of Management and Budget policy and U.S. law.</p>
         <p>Clearspending’s scorecard allows users to view these metrics on an agency level and on a program level. For more information on how these metrics were calculated, please see our <a href="{% url methodology %}">methodology.</a></p>
         <p>Although our <a href="{% url scorecard-index %}">scorecard</a> provides a detailed view of each metric for every agency and program, here we present some aggregate figures that illustrate trends over the entire USASpending.gov dataset for the years 2008-2010.</p>
-        <p>In the past three years there has been an increase in the number of programs reporting to USASpending.gov. However, the reported data suffers from an abundance of errors. There are also serious problems with the data’s timeliness and completeness. Previously, we reported that out of the total amount the government spent on grants in 2009, $1.3 trillion – 94% -- was incorrectly accounted for on USASpending.gov. Since that time, more late transactions have flowed into USASpending.gov, increasing the misreported percentage to 95.3%. For 2010, 94.5% of obligations failed at least one of our three metrics described above. These figures are summarized in the table below.</p>
+        <p>In the past three years there has been an increase in the number of programs reporting to USASpending.gov. However, the reported data suffers from an abundance of errors. There are also serious problems with the data’s timeliness and completeness. Previously, we reported that out of the total amount the government spent on grants in 2009, nearly $1.3 trillion – 94% -- was incorrectly accounted for on USASpending.gov. Since that time, more late transactions have flowed into USASpending.gov, increasing the misreported percentage to 95.3%. For 2010, 94.5% of obligations failed at least one of our three metrics described above. These figures are summarized in the table below.</p>
 
         <h5 class="table-header">Failed Program Obligations By Fiscal Year</h5>
         <table class="results-table">
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ <h5 class="table-header">Spending Inconsistently Reported by Fiscal Year</h5>
             </tbody>
         </table>
 <p>Despite the pervasiveness of reporting errors, a significant number of programs report obligations figures to both the CFDA and USASpending.gov that are consistent with one another. In fact, over the past three years the percentage of all programs that report consistently has hovered around 33%, or one-third of all programs. However, between FY2008 and FY2010, the overall percentage of consistently reported obligations appears to have decreased. A similar trend was apparent in our last run of this analysis, which covered FY2007-FY2009. This is most likely due to the high latency that we have observed in the reporting to USASpending.gov.</p>
-<p>In all three years examined, at least one-third of all programs reported obligations consistently.  262 programs reported consistently for all three of these years. The agencies with the highest number of consistently reporting programs were the Department of Health and Human Services (110), the Department of Education (44) and the Department of Agriculture (25). </p>
+<p>In all three years examined, at least one-third of all programs reported obligations consistently, with 262 programs reporting consistently for all three of these years. The agencies with the highest number of consistently reporting programs were the Department of Health and Human Services (110 programs), the Department of Education (44) and the Department of Agriculture (25). </p>
 
         <h4>Completeness</h4>
         <p>Tracking where the money goes is just as important as tracking how much was spent. The FFATA requires that data regarding the recipient, location, agency and CFDA program of each obligation be reported. However, these fields suffer from serious data quality problems. For each year between 2008 and 2010, at least 50% of all obligations were incompletely reported. The table below shows the obligations for programs that have failed our completeness metric.</p>