Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Staff summary/Progress report form/Q1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The purpose and content of this summary report to the FDC[edit]

FDC 2012–2013 Round 1 entities successfully submitted their progress reports for Quarter 1 (Q1) by the April 30, 2013 deadline. We would like to thank them all for submitting these reports.

The purpose of these progress reports is to give the FDC and the community an idea of how each entity is progressing toward its programmatic and financial goals throughout the term of the funds allocation. These reports are intended to track progress and document learning. These reports offer opportunities for entities to reflect and make changes in strategy and programs as needed. The reports also present the FDC staff and the FDC with opportunities to learn more about each entity and its work.

This FDC staff summary will have three sections:

  1. Comments about the reporting process: We will provide some general comments related to the reporting process that apply to all or many of these progress reports. Entities are encouraged to read this section carefully to better understand the reporting process. Since these are the first progress reports submitted to the FDC, entities and the FDC staff are still working to clarify some aspects of the reporting form and process. We hope to improve the process for future rounds. As always, we welcome your feedback on how to do this.
  2. Themes from 2012–2013 Round 1 Q1: Our summary will also highlight some common program areas that are visible across the entire portfolio and may present opportunities for learning among FDC entities.
  3. Summaries of each entity’s progress report for 2012–2013 Round 1 Q1: Finally, we will provide a brief summary of each entity’s progress with a link to each detailed report.

We would like to acknowledge and appreciate the time and effort that all entities devote to creating these reports for the FDC. We also want to recognize the progress each entity has made this quarter. We are truly excited to read more about each entity’s continued progress in the next progress reports.

Comments about the reporting process[edit]

The FDC staff has some suggestions after reviewing the first progress reports. In these notes, we address ideas that are common to all or many of the reports.

  • Focus on learning: While many entities do understand these progress reports as opportunities to transparently discuss progress, challenges and learning with the wider movement, some entities are not as open with their challenges. We strongly encourage all entities to report on both challenges and successes. Reporting on challenges demonstrates organizational maturity, especially when learning-focused entities adapt and re-design their programs and strategy after reflecting on experiences.
  • Differences in report and proposal: A few entities do not report on programs or spending by program in a way consistent with their proposal forms. This makes it very difficult for us to understand progress against plans. In future reports, we ask that entities report on programs and spending on programs in a way that is consistent with the proposal form.
  • Spending rates: On average, entities reported spending rates at about 14% of their annual projected spending: staff spending rates average about 19%, while non-staff spending rates average about 10% spent. These average rates exclude entities for which sufficient financial information was not provided to determine spending rates. We understand that activities and spending will not be equally distributed over quarters because many entities have planned activities in subsequent quarters; therefore, we expect to see a significant increase in programmatic spending in future quarters.
  • Growth: In the progress report template, we include a question on growth because we want to learn about how each entity understands the growth of its constituent communities and growth in its on-wiki areas of focus. For many entities, this will be shown by indicators of growth within a chapter community (for example, growth in membership) and within one or several editing communities (for example, more people editing a language Wikipedia) and their associated content areas (for example, 35 new articles in the categories associated with an editing contest). To see a useful example of how an entity answered this question on growth see Wikimedia France’s work in this area.
  • Metrics: We notice that many entities have not yet included metrics in their reports. We ask FDC entities to report in depth on metrics so we may all better understand and quantify progress. We encourage entities to see indicators as both qualitative and quantitative since we realize not all progress can be understood quantitatively. We suggest that entities consider metrics within their own contexts. Entities might ask themselves questions like the following: What would progress look like? What would be a good outcome for a certain activity, and how would we know? Answering these kinds of questions could help entities identify relevant and useful metrics.
  • Our learning: These progress reports are the first reports requested for the FDC. We are reflecting on the challenges entities are sharing with us in submitting reports. We are now making some small changes to the reporting process and reporting forms to improve the reporting in future rounds. We will also work with the Program Evaluation team in partnership with the global community to develop a shared understanding of metrics for programmatic and organisational work.

Themes from 2012–2013 Round 1 Q1[edit]

We would like to share a few themes from these reports that may present opportunities for sharing learning among FDC entities:

  • Many entities are currently challenged by low volunteer participation in their activities, including microgrants programs. Entities have noted that they struggle to find an effective balance between staff and volunteers in leading, coordinating and implementing activities. We hope that entities will work together to address this by sharing strategies that are working for them.
  • With non-FDC sources of funding, many entities are advocating for changing policies around content and licensing. While the FDC does not fund political or legislative activities, it is encouraging to note that a diverse set of partners is funding these activities and that there are opportunities for collaboration and learning across the movement and with other allied organisations.
  • Entities are learning about building and sustaining successful GLAM partnerships and some are developing tools to support this work.
  • Several entities are deepening or launching new phases of their education activities, including working with primary and secondary schools as well as universities. These activities seem to be generating excitement and gaining momentum.

Summaries of each entity’s progress report for 2012–2013 Round 1 Q1[edit]

These are high-level overviews of each entity’s progress in 2012–2013 Round 1 Q1. Detailed appreciation, suggestions for future reports and some requests for more information are shared on the discussion pages of each report. This summary document will give the FDC an overview of each entity’s progress and include comments on spending, highlighted program activities and high-level observations about each entity’s progress or report.

Wikimedia Argentina[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMAR’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMAR’s report includes some basic metrics and descriptions of activities organized clearly by program. WMAR is willing to share learnings with others through this report and through other collaborations.
  • WMAR has held an education summit to plan its new focus on education activities, has been organizing successful edit-a-thons and contests and is launching activities on legislative topics.
  • WMAR has hired a communications manager and is working internally to clarify workplans and roles. WMAR’s report also reveals that the entity is focusing on institutionalization. In future quarters, we hope to see a greater focus on the results of WMAR’s programmatic activities.
  • Total spending: WMAR’s spending this quarter is about 12% (US$15,770 spent) of the total annual budget ($130,970).
  • Staff spending: Its staff spending is reported at 22% ($12,359 out of $55,757 planned).
  • Non-staff spending: WMAR reports expenditures of 5%, having spent $3,411 out of $75,213 planned. We hope to see more progress in future quarters.

Wikimedia CH[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMCH’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMCH has hired two part-time community managers and hopes these two new positions will increase community participation and help WMCH make progress in GLAM and education partnerships.
  • WMCH’s membership has increased significantly after the fundraiser. Activity this quarter was low due to work on the fundraiser and so spending is behind schedule.
  • WMCH has recognized that it is difficult for them to pursue GLAM partnerships with limited staff time and is developing guidelines to address this challenge. Their Education Conference has been postponed, but we hope that WMCH will be able to move this forward. We appreciate that WMCH is willing to discuss its work openly and learn from its challenges.
  • Total spending: WMCH’s total spending rate this quarter is 10%, with $US66,022 spent out of US$658,710 planned.
  • Staff spending: WMCH reports it has spent 14% on staff salaries for this quarter (US$26,099 out of a planned US$191,160).
  • Non-staff spending: WMCH spent US$39,923 out of US$467,550 planned, or 9%.

Wikimedia Deutschland[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMDE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • This progress report does not provide sufficient detail or metrics for most activities. We understand that WMDE is currently launching its evaluation unit, and we hope that this new unit will enable WMDE to provide more detailed metrics with future reports.
  • Like many other entities, WMDE is facing challenges with managing the roles and coordination of volunteers and staff in its work. WMDE is experiencing challenges with its community grants programs and we hope they can share more details about these challenges in future reports.
  • WMDE is leading policy work within the European Union and is supporting several projects that may be useful to a wide range of communities, such as WikiData and Render. WMDE also supports and mentors other movement entities.
  • Total spending: WMDE’s overall spending is reported at 13% (US$987,831 spent against a budgeted US$7,423,000). WMDE has explained that this is consistent with its annual spending patterns and expects to demonstrate more progress in future quarters.
  • Staff spending: WMDE has spent US$708,228 of US$3,562,000 planned (or 20% to date) this quarter on staff salaries.
  • Non-staff spending: Non-staff expenditures are reported at US$279,603 of planned US$3,861,000, for a rate of 7%.

Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMF’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • The Wikimedia Foundation’s FDC grant period is from July 2012 – June 2013; therefore, their first quarterly report is a cumulative report that covers the first three quarters of this grant period.
  • The FDC approved WMF’s budget that included a distinction of “core” and “non-core” programs, but in the second quarter the Foundation abandoned this “core” and “non-core” distinction in favor of a “narrowing focus realignment” that converted some projects into grants. The WMF also cut some programs, including the Fellowships program.
  • Tests were conducted by the Editor Engagement team to identify ways to increase recruitment and retention of new editors: a “Getting Started” page and a tour were launched, and these resulted in a 3.9% increase in editing. More than 75 schools and universities are now enrolled in WMF’s education program, which has students edit and write Wikipedia articles as a part of classroom assignments, has had particular success in the Arab world. As the education program grew, WMF reports a parallel increase of about 10% in the number of articles on Arabic Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Zero program has developed partnerships with mobile operators, allowing 180 million mobile readers to access Wikipedia without data charges. In line with its new focus on grantmaking, the Individual Engagement Grants program was also launched.
  • Total spending: WMF does not provide details about its expenses by program area, but reports a total expenditure rate of approximately 60% for the first three quarters: WMF spent US$25,057,400 out of a budget of US$42,070,000, indicating a risk of a significant underspend. WMF acknowledges that they spent less than anticipated, primarily due to delays in filling open positions.

Wikimedia France[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMFR’s report, please see the progress report discussion page. WMFR published a revised budget based on the FDC’s recommendation. The FDC has since recommended that WMFR receive funding in 2012–2013 Round 2.

  • WMFR is measuring its activities in ways that appear meaningful to its context and community. We recommend other entities review WMFR’s approach to understand if it might be useful to adapt similar metrics to their own self-assessment process.
  • We greatly appreciate the frankness with which WMFR has reported its progress and activities; they have openly shared their successes and failures. Their progress report is filled with examples of sharing “what worked” and “what didn’t work,” and we believe their challenges will help other entities avoid similar problems.
  • WMFR reports 400 new contributors and 200 new articles as a result of its program work this quarter. WMFR hosted a successful Public Domain Day and media produced through one of its programs was voted Picture of the Year on Commons.
  • Total spending: Note that the 2012–2013 Round 1 FDC 6-month allocation is half-executed. WMFR has spent about US$230,749 this quarter out of US$504,608 projected budget; therefore, total actual spending for this quarter is at approximately 46% of the total projected budget.
  • Staff spending: WMFR has spent about US$86,726 this quarter of US$236,596 projected for spending on staff expenses, indicating they have spent 37% of their projected budget for staff expenses.
  • Non-staff spending: WMFR has spent about US$144,023 this quarter of US$268,012 projected spending on expenses other than staff, indicating they have spent 54% of their project budget for expenses other than staff.

Wikimedia Israel[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMIL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMIL has achieved an agreement with the government of Israel to release images from the websites of government ministries under a free licence. WMIL is also developing its relationships with cultural institutions such as the Israel Museum and the National Library. This quarter WMIL held 10 editing workshops for GLAMs and educators.
  • This past quarter WMIL experienced leadership changes and focused on building infrastructure.
  • Total spending:WMIL has spent about US$21,049 this quarter, but we are unsure of how this measures up to the total projected annual budget due to inconsistencies in financial reporting. Please see detailed comments for more information.
  • Staff spending: WMIL has spent about US$9,968 on staff this quarter.
  • Non-staff spending: WMIL has spent about US$11,081 on expenses other than staff.

Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMNL’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMNL recruited 23 new members and 2 board members in its first quarter. WMNL has made progress in GLAM partnerships, is evaluating Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) across the movement and has conducted a survey to guide its future strategy in WLM.
  • Many metrics were not yet available for this first quarter, but we expect WMNL to share more metrics in future quarters as their program activity increases.
  • WMNL seems reluctant to share lessons learned about challenges or activities that did not work. This is surprising since WMNL has in the past supported innovative activities that have been shared with and adapted by the global community, such as Wiki Loves Monuments, and have shared lessons about those activities. We hope to see more of this in future reports.
  • Total spending: WMNL has spent about US$61,061 this quarter of a US$469,755 projected annual budget; therefore, total actual spending for this quarter is at approximately 13% of the total projected annual budget.
  • Staff spending: WMNL has spent about US$36,801 this quarter of US$187,200 projected for annual spending on staff expenses, indicating they have spent 20% of their projected annual budget for staff expenses
  • Non-staff spending: WMNL has spent about US$24,261 this quarter of US$282,555 projected annual spending on expenses other than staff, indicating they have spent 9% of their projected annual budget for expenses other than staff.

Wikimedia Sverige[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMSE’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMSE is involved with some work that they hope will be replicated by other movement actors: pioneering Wiki Loves Public Art, placing the first Wikipedian-in-Academy and conducting research on Reader Participation. WMSE is developing and sharing resources to train educators.
  • In future reports, we hope WMSE will deepen its metrics and tie them more closely to the objectives of each program.
  • WMSE has adapted to changing circumstances by taking advantage of restricted funding to hire a GLAM technician. At the same time they have found it difficult to prioritize other programs in the midst of new focus areas (for example, Reader Participation).
  • WMSE has taken an admirable approach to sharing learning in its report. WMSE has shared that it struggles to see outcomes of free workshops and seminars when participants are not obligated to provide anything in return. We know this is a common challenge in the movement, and we look forward to learning how WMSE addresses this challenge.
  • Total spending: WMSE has spent about US$122,177 this quarter of a US$683,142 projected annual budget; therefore, total actual spending for this quarter is at approximately 18% of the total projected annual budget.
  • Staff spending: WMSE has spent about US$88,536 this quarter of US$441,860 projected for annual spending on staff expenses, indicating they have spent 20% of their projected annual budget for staff expenses
  • Non-staff spending: WMSE has spent about US$33,641 this quarter of US$241,282 projected annual spending on expenses other than staff, indicating they have spent 14% of their projected annual budget for expenses other than staff.

Wikimedia Österreich[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMAT’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • WMAT has received its fundraising certification, a significant accomplishment.
  • In laying the foundation for the Austrian State Parliament photography project by creating institutional partnerships, WMAT has also celebrated success with its Landtagsprojekt.
  • WMAT is not yet using concrete metrics to measure its activities. We encourage WMAT to develop metrics and share them in future reports.
  • Total spending: WMAT did not show staff expenses separately in their financial report, which made it difficult to understand their progress on spending. WMAT reported spending about US$42,391 this quarter out of US$278,173 projected annual budget; therefore, total actual spending for this quarter is at approximately 15% of the total projected annual budget.

Wikimédia Magyarország[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMHU’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • We appreciate WMHU’s report on its activities, which includes some metrics.
  • WMHU appears to be making progress in reactivating its volunteer base and we look forward to more success in this area in future quarters.
  • Total spending: WMHU has spent about US$9,000 on salaries and administration this quarter and did not receive any grant funds until the second quarter. We expect to see more activity in future quarters.

WM UK[edit]

For a more detailed discussion about WMUK’s report, please see the progress report discussion page.

  • Reviewing WMUK’s first progress report proved difficult because the 37 “programs” listed correspond to budget line items that do not match the program areas listed in the proposal form. We recommend that WMUK not take this approach in future reports, but instead link programs to the FDC proposal to make it easier for the FDC and the community to understand WMUK’s progress.
  • Corresponding metrics were listed in the proposal but were not reported on, making it difficult to assess the progress of each program.
  • WMUK created a five-year plan through a collaborative process involving 35 people and their GLAM-Wiki conference was attended by more than 200 participants.
  • WMUK faces challenges around low volunteer participation in its events, its institutional framework and its microgrants programs.
  • Total spending: WMUK has spent about US$171,410 this quarter of a US$1,113,920 projected annual budget; therefore, total actual spending for this quarter is at approximately 15% of the total projected annual budget.
  • Staff spending: WMUK has spent US$55,672 this quarter of US$319,242 projected for annual spending on staff expenses, indicating they have spent 17% of their projected annual budget for staff expenses.
  • Non-staff spending: WMUK has spent about US$115,738 this quarter of US$794,678 projected annual spending on expenses other than staff, indicating they have spent 15% of their projected annual budget for expenses other than staff.