Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/Wikimedia Nederland/Staff proposal assessment
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. See a note from FDC staff explaining the process is more detail here: FDC portal/Note on staff proposal assessments 2013-14 Round 1.
- 1 Methodology behind the 2013-2014 Round 1 FDC staff assessments
- 2 Proposal overview
- 3 Financial summary
- 4 Annual plan
- 4.1 Overview of staff assessment
- 4.2 Strategic alignment
- 4.3 Context of the entity and community
- 4.4 Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
- 4.5 Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary
- 5 Scores, comments and feedback
- 6 Scoring rubric
Methodology behind the 2013-2014 Round 1 FDC staff assessments
The FDC staff assessments provide a snapshot of the staff review of Annual Plan Grant (FDC) proposals, and identify both strengths and concerns with the work proposed.
- We did this through both portfolio analysis - looking across proposals and calibrating across different organizations - as well as assessing the context of each individual organization and its proposal. We did our best to be as nuanced as possible. For example, we understand that an organization that is beginning to formalize structures and bring on staff may have far fewer resources for learning and evaluation processes than an organization with a longer history and full-time staff. At the same time, a larger organization is also likely to have complex program structures and processes, that reflect in its use of metrics and measures.
- We significantly increased the inputs to the staff assessment process from last year. They include:
- The proposals themselves, with the attached documents (strategic plans, annual plans, detailed budgets etc)
- Past and current reports (FDC quarterly progress reports, grant reports etc)
- A portfolio view of financials across proposals: FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Financial_overview.
- Internal financial, evaluation and compliance inputs from the WMF Finance, Programs, Legal and Grantmaking teams.
- We used a few key principles for the assessment, across all proposals. These are not new, and are detailed in the narrative and scoring sections of the assessment. They include:
- Impact on Wikimedia projects and the global movement. We looked for the rationale behind the work organizations do, aligning them to the Wikimedia strategic priorities and goals. We looked particularly for direct and indirect impact of this work on Wikimedia projects; for example, growth in contributors and content donation. Most importantly, we looked at whether the funds requested were justified in the context of current and potential impact of the proposed work.
- Organizational strategy, leadership and governance. We looked for evidence that an organization had a good understanding of its own context, and the needs, opportunities and challenges of the communities it seeks to serve or partner with. We looked for board, staff and volunteer leadership that is committed, effective and engaged with these communities and practising movement values of openness and transparency.
- Rates of growth and financial management. In this round, only two returning applicants asked for funds within the recommended maximum growth rate in movement resources (annual plan grants/FDC allocations) of 20%, which is itself a significant rate in many contexts. In addition, many organizations are underspending on previous grant allocations and/or have extensive reserves, which makes overall growth rates even higher. We appreciated organizations that were not spending for spending’s sake, and being careful and prudent about resources; we hope this continues. However, significant underspends (particularly on programs) across a number of organizations flag the challenges of budgeting, planning and program design. It may be that the most effective and impactful programs do not always need significant resources. We specifically looked at the nature of long-time underspends in the context of organizations with a history of overbudgetting and underspending.
- Program design, learning and evaluation. We recognize that the Wikimedia movement at large is still developing a more nuanced understanding of how we measure our impact, as volunteers and as organizations. We looked at each organization’s self-defined metrics and measures for success, both qualitative and quantitative. We searched for indicators that went beyond process (or outputs) and looked at intended outcomes and specific goals or targets. We recognized, however, that many organizations are in the process of establishing baselines for their work, and incorporating learning into program design and re-design. We appreciated organizations that were open about these challenges and were honest and reflective about their own capacities and systems.
Note: We shared our nearly final draft assessments with all FDC applicants a day ahead of publishing them, so that organizations had some lead time for sharing these with their Board and staff. We then took all responses into consideration where possible, making factual changes and clarifying our statements where necessary. We encouraged organizations to note all substantive comments and concerns on the Discussion pages of these assessments.
|Name of eligible entity||Wikimedia Nederland|
|Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many]||Several concerns|
|Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan in currency requested||323,000 EUR|
|Estimate of total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan in US dollars||436,312 USD|
|Exchange rate used to calculate estimate in US dollars and date accessed (mm/dd/yy)||1.35081 US dollars to 1.00000 Euro (calculated 1 October 2013)|
|Date of proposal submission||Octover 1, 2013|
|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|
A detailed summary of the financial information from all proposals is here: financial overview document. Movement resources are defined as what the entity received through FDC allocations or grants or what the entity retained via payment processing in the prior funding cycle.
|Projected 2013||Proposed 2014||Proposed change (as a +/− %)|
|Movement resources*||269,231||323,000 EUR||20%|
|Overall budget||309,828 EUR||356,068 EUR||15%|
|Number of staff||3.4||3.9||15%|
Overview of staff assessment
What are the top strengths of the plan?
- Strong community involvement, steady and effective leadership, and engaged Board
- Thoughtful planning process that includes pilots, needs assessments and community surveys
- Has improved in its willingness to reflect and share
What are the top concerns with the plan?
- Proposed growth is too rapid, and amount requested is high in proportion to impact on Wikimedia projects
- Proposal is not focused enough on programs that will have strong online impact; more than 50% of its budget is dedicated to administration and travel
- Small group of active volunteers
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement?
- The Content program is aligned strongly with Quality and the Community program is aligned strongly with Participation. To some extent, the emphasis on operations in WMNL’s proposal detracts from this strong strategic alignment.
- WMNL provides a detailed strategic plan which has clearly informed the development of this proposal.
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 enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- WMNL and the Dutch community have been movement leaders in work on Commons, with Wiki Loves Monuments and related activities, which is potentially a high impact area on a global scale. However, the overall number of Dutch Wikipedia editors continues to decline.
- WMNL may be ready to share more with the movement and, to a limited extent, aim to support the movement beyond the borders of the Netherlands.
- WMNL is an experienced entity that has been entrusted with a large amount of movement resources in the past.
- WMNL provides regular monthly reports. Reports are submitted on time, but past reports have lacked reflection around challenges. See, progress report for Q1.
Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
How feasible is the annual plan? 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 is requesting 323,000 EUR (US$363,680) or a proposed 20% increase in movement resources ,which is within the 20% maximum recommended in the guardrails; however, this is in the context of a planned underspend of its it budget.
- WMNL takes a thoughtful and measured approach to piloting new programs, using tools such as needs assessments and surveys in its program design.
- WMNL has a good track record of reporting clearly on its finances, and with reporting on the progress of its activities against goals (see, its reporting on its 2012 annual grant. It has already in the process of gathering baseline data that will be valuable in measuring future work.
- WMNL has strong and stable internal leadership, and its small community of volunteers enables the work outlined in the plan.
- WMNL has been building on its work from previous years, like its work in GLAM and Wiki Loves Monuments, and are also piloting new areas of work with libraries and in education.
- WMNL is beginning to think about improving and strengthening its relationship with the Dutch Wikipedia community, including facilitating discussion on the social climate of Dutch Wikipedia, and measures to welcome new editors.
- WMNL is proposing significant growth in the context of underspending on its current grant. In its proposal, it notes a projected underspend of 19%, although in its Quarter 3 progress report, it has revised its budget down recently to reflect variance in its expected revenues.
- While work on operations and governance may be foundational work to support impactful programs, the funds requested for “Resources,” “Organization” and “Administration” total 75,378 EUR, or US$101,821. These costs seem disproportionately high with respect to the potential online impact of WMNL’s request. See, expenses by program for more detail.
- The total amount requested is also large with respect to the size of WMNL’s community.
Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary
Summary of the opinions of subject-matter experts on the plan
- None requested.
Summary of community commentary on the plan
- For detailed comments from the community, the FDC and FDC staff, as well as responses from the organizations themselves, please visit the proposal form discussion page. The summary offers a brief overview of the questions or comments from community members, and is not an endorsement of the views expressed on the proposal form discussion page.
- One community member offered congratulations for WMNL’s detailed proposal and noted the difficulties in creating such a proposal. This member also pointed out that some of the thematic approaches could be applied to all GLAM work.
- One member of the community suggested coordinating with WMRS on its World War I focus. Another member responded, noting that there was a lack of detail and context for the World War II area of work, and later noted an appreciation for WMNL’s work with NIOD (the National Institute for War Research).
- One member of the community requested that Dutch Wikiversity be featured in the 2014 plan, highlighting the need for WMNL to further promote the sister projects of Wikipedia.
- Another community member suggested that WMNL improve member participation by arranging virtual meetings and providing regular updates.
- Another community member was pleased to see WMNL focusing on improving Dutch Wikipedia, and feels that the projects in the proposal are limited, well-defined and therefore feasible.
Scores, comments and feedback
Scores provide only a preliminary assessment for consideration by the FDC. The rubric for scoring is below.
|Dimensions||Criteria||Score (1–5)||Comments and feedback|
|Potential for impact against strategic priorities||(A) The plan addresses the Wikimedia movement strategic priorities of the Wikimedia movement (infrastructure, participation, quality, reach, and innovation)||4.00||Programs in this plan address strategic priorities, and some rationale is provided. Complemented by a detailed strategic plan.|
|(B) TThe initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to movement strategic priorities, if executed well||3.50||Potential for global impact through work on Commons, with Wiki Loves Monuments and related activities, but overall number of Dutch Wikipedia editors continues to decline.|
|(C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed||2.50||Programs may lead to impact in a local context and in a global context to a limited extent, but funds requested are very large with respect to potential impact.|
|Ability to execute||(D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed||4.00||Effective and committed staff; an active but small community.|
|(E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives||4.00||Is building on past successes with similar initiatives; particularly with Wiki Loves Monuments. The|
|(F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable||4.00||Leadership is effective, committed, and stable.|
|Efficient use of funds||(G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives||2.50||Although their proposed growth is in the guardrails, budget may be overly focused on administration rather than programs.|
|(H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget||4.00||Financial reporting is clear, transparent, and meticulous. WMNL has a history of underspending, including a projected underspend for this year. In Q3, WMNL revised its budget downwards to reflect variance in expected revenues.|
|Quality of proposed measures of success||(I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan||4.00||Indicators are clear and timebound, with rationale.|
|(J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics||4.00||They have a plan in place.|
|(K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics||3.50||Some capacity to measure these indicators, although we expect more sophistication for a request of this size. They have shown capacity to track against goals.|
|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 adapted elsewhere in the movement||4.00||Have been pursuing effective approaches to strategy and program design, including surveying their community and conducting a feasibility assessment.|
|(M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives||4.00||Active within the movement; good history of timely and clear reports; improving with respect to reporting on challenges.|
|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 strategic priorities||The plan will not directly address any strategic priorities||The plan will partially address strategic priorities or other goals that are closely related to the strategic priorities||The plan will directly address several strategic priorities|
|(B) The initiatives have the potential to lead to the strategic priorities, if executed well||The initiatives have no clear connection to strategic priorities||Some or all of the initiatives have an unclear relationship to strategic priorities||The initiatives have been shown (by the entity or the movement) to lead to strategic priorities|
|(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 adaptedelsewhere 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|