Grants:APG/Staff proposal assessment form

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Correct.svg This page is currently a draft. More information pertaining to this may be available on the talk page.

The staff proposal assessment is one of the inputs into the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) proposal review process, and is reviewed by the FDC in preparation for and during the in-person deliberations each round. The purpose of the staff proposal assessment is to offer the FDC an overview of the expert opinions of the FDC staff team about this annual plan grant proposal, and includs (1) An overview about all applications in the current round; (2) A narrative assessment; (3) An assessment that ranks each applicant according to specific criteria in program design, organizational effectiveness, and budgeting.

Overview for all assessments[edit]

Overview[edit]

Summary[edit]

Current (projected)

Upcoming (proposed)

Proposed change (as a +/- percentage)

FDC or PEG funding

{{{fdccurrent}}} {{{fdcproposed}}} {{{fdcgrowth}}}

Budget

{{{budgetcurrent}}} {{{budgetproposed}}} {{{budgetgrowth}}}

Staff

{{{staffcurrent}}} {{{staffproposed}}} {{{staffgrowth}}}

Overview of strengths and concerns[edit]

This section summarizes the strengths and concerns identified by staff, which are explained in the detailed narrative section of this assessment.

Strengths[edit]

{{{strengths}}}

Concerns[edit]

{{{concerns}}}

Staff proposal assessment narrative[edit]

This section takes an in-depth look at this organization's past performance and current plans.

Context and effectiveness[edit]

This section takes a close look at this organization's context. Here are some questions we will consider:

Environment[edit]

How does this organization's environment (including its local context and its community) enable this plan to succeed and have impact?

{{{environment}}}

Past performance[edit]

Will this organization's past performance with program implementation enable this plan to succeed?

{{{performance}}}

Organizational effectiveness[edit]

Will this organization's overall effectiveness enable this plan to succeed?

{{{organization}}}

Strategy and programs[edit]

This section takes a close look at this organization's programs. Here are some questions we will consider:

Strategy[edit]

Does this organization have a high-quality strategic plan in place, and are programs well-aligned with this strategic plan?

{{{strategy}}}

Programs[edit]

Do proposed programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, and are program activities and results logically linked? Are there specific programs with a high potential for impact? {{{design}}}

Budget[edit]

Is this plan and budget focused on the programs with the highest potential for online impact? {{{budget}}}

Summary of expert opinions (if applicable)[edit]

This section will summarize any expert opinions or other research.

{{{commentary}}}

Staff proposal assessment framework[edit]

This framework assesses annual plan grant proposals across the three dimensions of (1) Program design, (2) Organizational effectiveness, and (3) Budgeting. To complete the assessment, we identify whether each criterion is a strength or a concern:

  • Major strength
  • Strength
  • Neither a strength nor a concern
  • Concern
  • Major concern

Criterion

Assessment

Description

Program design

P1. Strategy||{{{P1}}}||{{{P1 description}}}

P2. Potential for impact at scale||{{{P4}}}||{{{P4 description}}}

P3. Evaluation methods ||{{{P5}}}||{{{P5 description}}}

P4. Diversity ||{{{P7}}}||{{{P7 description}}}

Organizational effectiveness

O1. Past results ||{{{O1}}}||{{{O1 description}}}

O2. Learning ||{{{O3}}}||{{{O3 description}}}

O3. Improving movement practices ||{{{O4}}}||{{{O4 description}}}

O4. Community engagement ||{{{O5}}}||{{{O5 description}}}

O5. Capacity ||{{{O6}}}||{{{O6 description}}}

Budget

B1. Past budgeting and spending ||{{{B1}}}||{{{B1 description}}}

B2. Budget is focused on programmatic impact ||{{{B3}}}||{{{B3 description}}}


This staff proposal assessment is the work of FDC staff and is submitted by: <tvar|sign>{{{signature}}}</>

Staff proposal assessment framework[edit]

  • Major strength. This is something the organization does very well, and this is a strong indicator of future success.
  • Strength. This is something that the organization does well, and this could indicate future success.
  • Neither a strength nor a concern. This is something that does not indicate future success or make funding the application a risk, or aspects of this criterion conflict.
  • Concern. This is something that the organization does not do well, and this could make funding the application a risk.
  • Major concern. This is an area where the organization is not strong, and this could make funding the application a serious risk.

Criterion

Description

Program design||

P1. Strategy

The organization has a quality strategic plan in place, programs are aligned with this strategy, and this strategy is aligned with online impact.

P2. Potential for impact at scale

Programs could lead to significant online impact at scale, and corresponding to the amount of funds requested.

P3. Evaluation methods

Programs include a plan for measuring results and ensuring learning, and employ effective evaluation tools and systems. Programs include SMART objectives, targets, and logic models.

P4. Diversity

Programs will expand the participation in and reach of the Wikimedia movement, especially in parts of the world or among groups that are not currently well-served.

Organizational effectiveness||

O1. Past results

This organization has had success with similar programs or approaches in the past, and has effectively measured and documented the results of its past work.

O3. Learning

This organization is addressing risks and challenges effectively, is learning from and documenting its experiences, and is applying learning to improve its programs.

O4. Improving movement practices

This organization effectively shares learning about its work with the broader movement and beyond, and helps others in the movement achieve more impact.

O5. Community engagement

This organization effectively engages communities and volunteers in the planning and implementation of its work.

O6. Capacity

This organization has the resources and ability (for example, leadership, expertise, staff, experience managing funds) to do the plan proposed.

Budget||

B1. Past budgeting and spending

This organization has a history of budgeting realistically and managing funds effectively in the past.

B2. Budget is focused on programmatic impact

Based on past performance and current plans, funds are allocated to programs and activities with corresponding potential for programmatic impact.