Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Nederland/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimedia Nederland received a funds allocation in the amount of 350,000 in 2012-2013 Round 1.
This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 15 November 2012 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 1 December 2012.
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimedia Nederland's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 1 may be viewed in tab view or standard view. To discuss this aspect of the proposal to the FDC, please visit the discussion page.
Applicants should read this document to familiarise themselves with the assessment criteria; however, it should be edited only by FDC-related staff. The staff will use the document to set out their objective assessment of each funding request from eligible entities – specifically, to determine the extent to which plans align with the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement, and the extent to which the entity is well-placed to execute those plans effectively. The staff will base this report on proposals from entities and input from the community and other stakeholders (including, where required, deeper due-diligence on the entity's previous track record within the Wikimedia movement). The staff will provide completed reports to the FDC, which will then make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees on funding allocations.
Proposal overview
| Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 10/01/12 |
| Adherence to proposal process [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to legal, regulatory, and policy regulations [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to US anti-terrorism laws [yes/no] | yes |
| Currency requested (e.g., EUR, GBP, INR) | EUR |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 1.3 as of 24/09/12 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | 471,445 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | 362,650 |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | minor or none |
Annual plan
Table I: Financial summary
| FDC funds allocated last year ($US) | FDC funds proposed this year ($US) | Change from what was allocated last year (as a +/− %) | Proposed change in staff costs (USD and % increase or decrease) |
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Strategic alignment
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- WMNL's plan is most strongly aligned with the strategic priority Stabilize infrastructure through its initiatives around community building, new member recruitment, building a strong financial position, support of other movement entities, professionalization, and good governance. Beyond stabilizing infrastructure, WMNL plans to increase participation and reach, and improve quality, through volunteer support programs such as its microgrants program, through GLAM partnerships and through content-focused programs like Wiki Loves Monuments.
Context of the entity and community
- To what extent does the context of the entity (e.g., community participation, fundraising context, sociopolitical environment) enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- To what extent does the entity's experience or maturity enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- WMNL was established in 2006, and pioneered the successful Wiki Loves Monuments photo hunt in 2010 that led to much global replication this year. In 2009 onwards, the volunteer Board was not able to invest enough time and offer guidance at the start of its professionalization process: an office was established but staff were not hired until late 2011. WMNL is now setting up systems and structures for governance and programmatic impact, and the proposed annual plan has reasonable goals and metrics, both quantitative and qualitative.
- WMNL plans to seek increasing opportunities for partnerships within the cultural sector in the Netherlands, and to increase the credibility of the Wikipedia brand in the Netherlands. WMNL plans to diversify its funding base (aiming for no more than 50% of annual income to be provided by movement funds by 2015), but the chapter is concerned by the effects of the economic crisis: increased competition amongst nonprofit organizations, and the growing prominence of groups in Dutch society against 'cultural involvement'.
- While WMNL is currently focused on building its infrastructure, it has produced innovative program work that has been replicated by other movement groups internationally: notably, Wiki Loves Monuments. WMNL was instrumental in creating and supporting the systematic framework that made WLM a global success, and many other groups owe some of their success at WLM to WMNL’s guidance and support. WMNL has a good history of reporting its activities within the movement and a good history of compliance with respect to its current annual grant, although the execution of its Professionalization grant presented some concerns around organization and tracking.
Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
How feasible is the annual plan (one to four paragraphs)? Specifically:
- To what extent are the budget, staffing, availability of volunteers, and other resources realistic for achieving the anticipated outcomes?
- Are the timelines realistic for the proposed initiatives and associated activities?
- Are there acknowledged and/or unacknowledged risks in the proposal?
- WMNL plans to increase its budget by nearly 50%, from USD 405,600 to USD 607,945, while increasing its staff count from 2.3 fullitme positions to approximately 3.55. The FDC funding request for of USD 471,445 is 78% of WMNL's total budget, and a substantial increase over funds received from the WMF in the current year through its annual grant. WMNL’s main challenge is to continue its programmatic activities and increase community engagement while a substantial amount of its resources are devoted to staffing, structures, and systems.
- WMNL is concerned that the professionalisation process may alienate volunteers and current members, and is hoping to mitigate the negative effects of professionalization by making the case that professional staff step in only when 'a job cannot reasonably be carried out by a member of the community'.
Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary
- Summary of the opinions of subject-matter experts on the plan
- Summary of community commentary on the plan
- See WMNL's talk page
Table II: Scores, comments and feedback
Scores provide only a preliminary assessment for consideration by the FDC. The rubric for scoring is in table III.
| Dimensions | Criteria | Score (1–5) | Comments and feedback |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | 4 | The plan addresses the strategic priorities, particularly stabilising infrastructure, but also reach and participation. |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 4 | There is a clear correlation between the priorities and the strategies. | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 4 | There is relatively high potential for impact within the Netherlands, should WMNL succeed in implementing this plan. | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 4 | With the professionalisation process, WMNL has begun to build good capacity in staff, although there are concerns around volunteer involvement. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 4 | WMNL has demonstrated innovation and impact, particularly through its Wiki Loves Monuments initiative. | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 4 | The current staff and Board are committed, active and relatively stable. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 3 | While there is good rationale for the professionalisation process, there is some concern that programmatic impact may suffer, given unstable volunteer involvement |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 4 | Reporting has been reasonably timely and adequate, with budgets in alignment with initiatives. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 4 | Clear strong metrics have been outlined, with correlation with goals. |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 4 | There is a clear plan in place for tracking. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 4 | The plan is feasible, with capacity for tracking. | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives in the plan, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | 4 | WMNL projects have proven to be replicable (particularly WLM). |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 4 | WMNL is active in the movement and collaborative. |
Table III: Scoring rubric
| Dimensions | Evaluation criteria | 1 = Weak or no alignment with criterion | 3 = Moderate alignment with criterion | 5 = Strong alignment with criterion |
| Potential for impact against strategic priorities | (A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement global targets | The plan will not directly address any global targets | The plan will partially address global targets or other goals that are closely related to the global targets | The plan will directly address several global targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives have the potential to lead to the targets, if executed well | The initiatives have no clear connection to global targets | Some or all of the initiatives have an unclear relationship to global targets | The initiatives have been shown (by the entity or the movement) to lead to global targets | |
| (C) The initiatives have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives will have marginal impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives proposed may have a significant impact in the local community, given context and amount of funds proposed | The initiatives could have significant impact at scale, both in the entity's local community and in the broader movement, given context and amount of funds proposed | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | The entity has neither the number nor the amount of resources, skills, and capacity needed for success. | The entity has some relevant staff and volunteer capacity, but may be under-resourced for some initiatives | The entity is well-resourced with the relevant skills and capacity for success |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | The entity has had trouble succeeding in similar initiatives | The entity has not engaged in similar initiatives in the past | The entity has conducted similar initiatives in the past and has been successful in achieving desired results | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | Leadership has been unstable (e.g., changing on an annual basis) | Current leadership is committed to the entity; some concerns exist around stability or effectiveness of leadership | Current and past leaders have demonstrated the ability to develop and execute on strategic plans; leadership team has been stable and transitions have been smooth | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the plan contains significant over- or under-budgeting, and/or has not thoroughly accounted for costs | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is generally consistent with the initiatives; some initiatives are likely to be over- or under-budgeted | Based on FDC experience and relative to other proposals, the budget is reasonable, and rigorous cost projections have been presented |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | The entity has a poor record of budgetary management: e.g., consistently and significantly below budget (such as 50% underspending), and drawing on organizational reserves due to overspending | The entity has a middling record of budgetary management; e.g., generally on-budget for its biggest initiatives and cost items, properly recording any over- and under-spending, and with plans in place for improvements | The entity has consistently strong record of financial management; e.g., consistently staying on or below budget (within ~5% of budget), and putting surplus funds towards the entity's and/or movement's goals | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | Initiatives have no associated indicators of success, or the proposed indicators are unrealistic and/or unmeasurable | Each initiative has indicators of success, but at least some indicators are unrealistic or are not clearly connected to the initiative | Each initiative has a realistic and carefully framed set of indicators of success associated with them, which are rigorous and time-bound |
| (J) A system is in place to track the proposed metrics | The plan does not include methodology or timing for tracking and collecting metrics to measure progress against proposed indicators of success | A proposal to track progress against indicators exists, but has flawed methodology or unrealistic timelines and initiatives | The plan includes timing and tracking of proposed metrics, and additional initiatives (e.g., surveys, research) to track indicators | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible system to track the proposed metrics | No systems are in place to track metrics, or staff or volunteer capacity to manage metrics tracking | There is some overall capacity (e.g., staff, volunteers) to track and monitor metrics, but the entity does not clearly have the relevant skills to do this | High-quality systems, and the necessary skills and capacity to manage these systems, are in place | |
| Potential to add knowledge and/or other benefits to the movement | (L) The initiatives, if successful, could be helpful and/or productively replicated elsewhere in the movement | The initiatives would not be relevant to other movement groups | Some initiatives may be relevant to other movement groups | Many initiatives proposed are new or have seldom been tried elsewhere in the movement; if successful, other movement entities would benefit from doing similar initiatives |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | The entity is isolated from other movement groups and rarely shares information; the entity's leaders and members seldom participate in movement-wide functions | The entity is somewhat active within the movement, and is developing more relationships with other movement entities with which it could share lessons learned | The entity has regular communication with other movement entities, is a regular participant in Wikimedia events, and has a track record of sharing with others |
This form was created by: --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)