Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round2/Wikimedia Czech Republic/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimedia Czech Republic received a funds allocation in the amount of 0 in 2012-2013 Round 2.
This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 28 April 2013 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 31 May 2013.
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimedia Czech Republic's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 2 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
| Wikimedia Czech Republic | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 03/01/13 |
| Adherence to proposal process [yes/no] | no |
| 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) | CZK |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 19.525 CZK |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | US$ 14,084.50 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | 275,000 CZK |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | Not a valid FDC proposal |
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) |
| US$ 0 | US$ 14,084.50 | NA | NA |
Strategic alignment
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- It is not possible to measure Wikimedia Czech Republic’s plans to address the movement’s strategic priorities through its proposal to the FDC alone: Wikimedia Czech Republic has not presented a valid proposal to the FDC for an annual plan that includes both programmatic and administrative activities (see the "Feasibility and risks for the annual plan" outlined below).
- Therefore, FDC staff have relied on a combination of past grants records, the current proposed plan for 2013 and the proposal to the FDC to offer a more rounded view of the chapter’s work. This should not be considered an endorsement or evaluation of the proposal, which does not meet the criteria and goals outlined in the framework for the creation and initial operation of the FDC. Members of the FDC and FDC staff contacted Wikimedia Czech Republic repeatedly in the week before and after proposal submission to express concerns about the proposal and offer alternatives to seeking funding from FDC. Despite this, Wikimedia Czech Republic did not withdraw its proposal.
- The activities outlined in the proposal as articulated are not related to movement goals or strategic priorities, but other program activities executed by the chapter or presented in its annual plan, such as the activities funded by its Medigrant and Presentation & Outreach grant are aligned with the strategic priorities of "increasing participation" and "improving quality."
- Wikimedia Czech Republic is exploring innovative strategies and tools that may be replicated by other organizations: examples are the grants tracker (http://tracker.wikimedia.cz) and the memory card game to promote Project Natural Areas. The entity has supported quality work on the Czech Education Program and shared this work with the movement. The Czech Wikipedia is an active Wikipedia with a healthy ratio of active editors to total editors and thus presents a good opportunity for impact. A stronger case for strategic alignment would be made if Wikimedia Czech Republic had submitted a proposal that established a clear link between program activities and the development of the Czech Wikipedia.
- While this entity has achieved some positive results from its past activities, Wikimedia Czech Republic has so far pursued activities with limited and local impact, such as supporting local travel to take photographs. Some metrics have been presented in its project grant proposals, but not in its annual plan or its proposal to the FDC.
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?
- Wikimedia Czech Republic has a history of engaging in movement-wide conversations. This entity also shares challenges and learning and collaborates with other groups in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region. Its activities have attracted positive recognition from within the movement and within its own community. Wikimedia Czech Republic seems to effectively enable some parts of its community of dedicated volunteers to execute its projects, while it has had challenges involving a wider cross-section of the community in its work.
- The Wikimedia Czech Republic Board and the volunteer community have been unable to resolve the internal conflicts that have been dividing their community for more than two years. These divisions have severely impacted the effective management and execution of WMF grants and continue to reduce this entity’s capacity to run effective programs despite the involvement of its volunteers. We are uncertain if this also affected the Board’s ability to create an effective and well-supported FDC proposal.
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?
- This proposal is incomplete; programmatic details are not included. Wikimedia Czech Republic has not shown that it understands the FDC process and requirements and has not provided sufficient information to the FDC to effectively evaluate its annual plan or proposal. Wikimedia Czech Republic did not respond to the recommendation of the FDC to withdraw this proposal, despite its incompleteness.
- There are also concerns with Wikimedia Czech Republic’s track record and its underspending on its ongoing Mediagrant (awarded in fiscal year 2010-11 and approved by WMF with no completion date). Only about US$ 7,430 of Mediagrant funds have been spent of about US$ 27,800 awarded, or only about 27% of the grant’s budget. The extent to which the community has supported or approved the development of this proposal is not clear and the general assembly has not yet endorsed the new annual plan or the annual report for the previous year.
- Without an annual financial report for the most recent fiscal year, it is difficult to evaluate past spending and program execution. Program costs are also not included in Wikimedia Czech Republic’s proposal to the FDC. Consequently, a detailed financial overview of Wikimedia Czech Republic’s plan is not possible.
- The FDC staff was not able to evaluate this proposal because it did not meet the FDC framework’s criteria and guidelines for supporting annual plans by funding both programmatic and operating costs.
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
- For detailed comments from the community, the FDC and FDC staff, please visit the proposal form discussion page. The summary is not an endorsement of the views expressed on the proposal form discussion page.
- Commenters express concerns about the costs of office space and discuss whether the chapter’s activities require or would benefit from permanent and dedicated office space. On the other hand, some commenters support the idea of a staff person and/or an office and particularly support an office rented at a below-market rate. These commenters cite the hiring of staff or the renting of office space as a positive step in the chapter’s development. Some make the argument that it would be difficult to raise funds locally to cover administrative costs and office space, while others express concern that the chapter does not take local fundraising seriously. The proposal is also criticized for its lack of strong metrics.
- The chapter appears significantly affected by internal conflicts and there is strong evidence of tensions between the community and Wikimedia Czech Republic’s Board on this proposal form’s discussion page. Members criticise specific elements of the proposal as well as one another. These concerns may be shared by only a few community members, but the Board should be concerned if this represents a larger cross-section of the community.
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 | 3 | While the proposal itself does not address the strategic priorities, other programs do address "Increasing participation" and "Improving quality." |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 2 | There is a tenuous relationship between the programs proposed and the global targets. | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 1 | The initiatives could have impact in the local community and the broader Wikimedia community, but the context of the entity will inhibit this impact. | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 3 | The entity has some relevant staff and volunteer capacity, but may be under-resourced for some initiatives due to its inability to resolve conflicts. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 3 | The entity has conducted similar initiatives in the past and has been successful in achieving desired results in some areas and not in others. | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 2 | There are serious concerns around stability and effectiveness of leadership because of this entity's inability to resolve conflicts. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 0 | This is not applicable, because the proposal is not a valid or complete FDC proposal. |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 2 | The entity has underspent significantly on past grants. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 2 | No metrics are outlined in this proposal, but some are presented in this entity's ongoing grants. |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | Some plans exist to track progress against indicators and some basic tools (e.g. grants tracker) are in use. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | There is little capacity to track and monitor metrics, but the plans in place do leverage volunteer efforts. | |
| 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 | 3 | Some initiatives may be innovative and relevant to other movement groups, such as the grants tracker tool. |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 4 | The entity has regular communication with other movement entities, especially in the Central and Eastern Europe region, is a somewhat regular participant in Wikimedia events, and has a fair track record of sharing with others. |
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: KLove (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)