Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round2/Wikimédia France/Staff proposal assessment

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. Members of the FDC review each proposal in its entirety, including relevant background documents, inputs from WMF grants officers, the learning and evaluation team, and finance staff. They also analyze the detailed discussions surrounding each proposal that include questions and comments from community members. FDC staff do not participate in the actual decision-making process of the FDC; their primary role is to identify key strengths and concerns for the FDC to consider while making funding recommendations.

This staff proposal assessment, which was refined after the first two years of the FDC process, consists of three parts: (1) Overview, including a financial summary and a summary of strengths and concerns; (2) Staff proposal assessment narrative, including a nuanced analysis of the programs, context, and the feasibility of each plan; (3) Staff proposal assessment rubric, assessing each proposal across three dimensions by identifying areas of strength and concern. Read more about the methodology behind the Staff proposal assessment rubric on this page.

Staff proposal assessments do not represent the views on any one staff person, since all FDC staff (unless one of them recuses for some reason) work together to complete each staff proposal assessment, and may consult with other key WMF staff and other experts as needed. While assessments will not be changed after they are published except to correct significant factual errors, organizations are welcome to share responses on the discussion page of each staff proposal assessment if they would like to provide the FDC with additional information or perspectives on the assessments.

Overview for all assessments

As in Round 1 of 2014-2015, proposals in 2014-2015 Round 2 are being assessed in the context of some preliminary impact data for grants and programs over the last two years, and our current and future approach is being guided by this analysis. In particular, we have been rigorous with our assessments of the Wikimedia organizations with the largest budgets and requests, as we expect them to be delivering outcomes to scale.

For example, we were able to access data from the first round of impact reports for grantees entering the APG process in 2012-2013 Round 2 (i.e. Wikimedia Norge and Wikimédia France), as well as progress reports received from the current grants (i.e. Q1 and Q2 reports) and project grant reports for all organizations but Wikimedia Italia, which is new to the APG program and did not receive significant project funding in the past. This allowed for a more detailed assessment of proposed goals against progress in the current year, as well as the current year’s progress against the current year’s goals. In some cases, we were also able to compare the current year’s goals and performance with past achievements. A move toward the inclusion of more easily comparable metrics in reports also assisted with this analysis.

There are a few overarching themes we noticed in this year’s proposals that we want to highlight. Please note that any examples used are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

Train the Trainer approaches

In this round, we noticed a focus on Train the Trainer (TTT) approaches, which builds on the interest from Round 1. With a TTT approach, organizations target and train a group of participants on specific topic areas so they may in turn train others. If designed and implemented well, this program approach may have potential to expand reach in the movement and improve relevant skills beyond an organization’s direct sphere of influence.

This approach, which takes significant resources and organizational focus, requires more clearly articulated strategies, documented/centralized resources, and measurement and evaluation of the results. Most organizations are not yet evaluating skills developed, results of trainings after the original trainings, or attitudinal shifts, and so it is difficult to understand the impact of these programs. Furthermore, we are concerned not to see plans for sustaining engagement with these trainees after trainings.

We encourage organizations to document results and resources invested in these programs. We also encourage organizations to develop engagement plans before new training programs are implemented. Finally, we also encourage organizations start small before making the decision to invest in programs more significantly.

Metrics and evaluation

As in Round 1, we realize that all Wikimedia organizations in this round are improving their measures of success and attempting to demonstrate impact. This work is not easy; we recognize the effort. For example, we are pleased to see some (including Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, and CIS) offer baselines and projected outputs and outcomes. This is a significant improvement from 2013-2014 Round 2 proposals.

However, not all programs include metrics, particularly around outcomes. We are very concerned, particularly in the case of the larger organizations, about the lack of a baseline and project outcomes beyond outputs. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are both important. The Wikimedia Foundation will provide continued support to organizations who request it to develop capacity in evaluation. On the quantitative side, we encourage organizations to establish systems to track the global metrics, as they will need to report on in order to understand their work in a broader context, and also to continue to carefully consider what metrics will be most relevant in their contexts.

Diversification of funds and resources

Especially for organizations with larger budgets, we are monitoring reliance on APG funding. Organizational reliance on APG funds (expressed as a total percentage of revenue) may be increasing for some, and in other cases may not be decreasing at a sufficient pace. In some cases, large organizations are not meeting fundraising targets or cultivating sustainable longer term institutional partnerships. We are particularly impressed with organizations in the global south who have been able to cultivate donors.

All organizations in this round are proposing significant total budget growth. Each organization’s growth must be examined in context, but in some cases this rapid growth does raise capacity concerns.

As we noted in Round 1, the diversification of resources is not only needed in order to maintain the sustainability of each individual organization and the global movement, it is also a way to build awareness of the Wikimedia mission.

Lobbying and political advocacy

In Round 1, we saw organizations express significant interest in policy, advocacy, and awareness.

In Round 2, Wikimedia Italia has proposed to engage a lobbyist to address legal threats to its program. Any lobbying work requires some oversight from the Wikimedia Foundation. We will monitor this work over time.

Increase in program activities and organizational capacity

In many cases, organizations are planning a large number of programs, with a many activities. This raises concerns around organizational capacity. Beyond the activity and staff expenses for each program, programs represent a significant investment of organizational focus. We encourage organizations to group programs or prioritize them appropriately in order to present a clear picture of what they are trying to achieve and why, and in order to reduce strain on volunteer boards, staff, online contributors, and offline volunteers active in program areas that can result from too many dispersed activities. We encourage organizations to focus on their strengths rather than to experiment in every area. In this way, organizations can experiment with thoughtful adaptations of existing approaches based on local context and the organization’s expertise, and with small scale pilots with potential to scale up.

As we noted in Round 1 around proactive and responsive community engagement strategies, we realize it is not easy to achieve a good balance of responding to community needs and leading strategic work for the movement. Refining focus will be an ongoing process.

Diversity and work on projects other than Wikipedia and Commons

As in Round 1, an interesting development is the increasing focus on Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia. For example, we have seen CIS and Wikimedia Armenia integrate work on Wikisource and Wiktionary into key programs.

As in Round 1, we are also assessing proposals across the dimension of diversity, and we have seen Round 2 organizations focusing on this in their contexts through both a regional and a gender-focused lens. Some organizations have diversity at the core of their missions (e.g. CIS, Wikimedia Armenia), some are approaching this work through a cross-cutting approach (e.g. Wikimedia Italia) and others have designed specific programs to address diversity (e.g. Wikimedia Norge).

Overview

Overall assessment and eligibility

Organization	Wikimédia France
Eligibility	Confirmed

Summary

	Current (projected)	Upcoming (proposed)	Proposed change (as a +/- percentage)
FDC or PEG funding	$671,418	$671,418	0%
Budget	$1,025,126	$1,138,999	11%
Staff	8.6	9.1	12%

Overview of strengths and concerns

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

Strengths

• Wikimédia France is a movement leader with stable and effective leadership
• Wikimédia France excels at documenting and sharing learning, including failure, and has a detailed framework for partnerships, a key approach.
• Wikimédia France is improving evaluation processes through implementation of a quality approach, and is focusing staff time on evaluating and measuring results

Concerns

• Based on past performance, it is unlikely that Wikimédia France will be able to meet the ambitious targets set in this proposal
• Despite receiving full funding in 2013-14 Round 2, Wikimédia France is not on track to meet its targets for the current year
• Wikimédia France is not measuring relevant targets for many of its programs that are essential to putting its work in context (e.g. bytes added, media used)

Staff proposal assessment narrative

This section takes an in-depth look at the strategy behind this proposal, this organization's broader context, and the feasibility and risks of this plan.

Context and potential for impact

This section takes a close look at this organization's context, since there will be unique factors specific to this organization or to its environment that enable this plan to have impact or that make this plan less likely to have impact. Here are some questions we will consider:

Environment

How does this organization's environment (including its local context and its community) enable this plan to succeed and have impact? Are there risks and opportunities presented by this organization's environment? Are there extraordinary events or other factors that need to be considered as part of this organization's context?

• Wikimédia France is continuing to assess opportunities in its local context for forming and deepening partnerships, and has many opportunities to do this within France.
• As a result of its location in Paris, Wikimédia France is well-positioned to work on French language projects, including French Wikipedia, which have significant potential to disseminate knowledge globally. There are opportunities for Wikimédia France to identify and fill content gaps on French-language projects.
• Wikimédia France has included information about how volunteers will be involved in each of its programs. At the same time, we would like more information in how online communities are engaging with Wikimédia France.

Past performance

Will this organization's past performance with program implementation enable this plan to succeed? Does it raise any concerns?

• The FDC set clear expectations that Wikimédia France would be expected to deliver significant results when it received a grant of 600,000 euros last year. Past performance must be assessed in light of the this large grant, which is greater than the overall budgets of many large APG organizations (e.g. Wikimedia Nederland).
• Wikimédia France is not on track to meet its targets for several of its programs, including training and awareness (minimal progress), territorial development (no progress yet), international activities (no progress yet).
• Wikimédia France is not on track to meet its targets around namespace contributions, nor its qualitative goals around diversity and innovation.
• With respect to the current year’s progress, some programs are timed to achieve more results in Q3 and Q4 of the current year, so more results may be seen in the coming year. At the same time, considering the amount of APG funding invested, we are concerned not to see more results by the end of Q2.

Organizational effectiveness

Will this organization's overall effectiveness enable this plan to succeed? Does it raise any concerns?

• Wikimédia France excels at sharing and documenting learning, and discussing what it has learned openly with the Wikimedia movement. Wikimédia France is a leader driving positive change in the movement.
• Wikimédia France’s board has been stable and effective even in times of crisis and times of change. Last year, Wikimédia France brought on a new executive director, who is successfully managing the organization and its programs. Wikimédia France is seeking ongoing improvements in the area of governance, and is challenging its board and leadership to rise to greater levels. Wikimédia France has recently established an advisory board to better incorporate the perspectives of experts from many fields in guiding its work.
• Wikimédia France is beginning to look at volunteer engagement as a cross-cutting approach. At this early stage, it seems like expectations around volunteer roles may not be realistic, but we are eager to see the results of experimentation in this area.
• Wikimédia France has now proven its ability to produce detailed budgets by functional area, program area, and including staff allocations, and is now consistently submitting clear financial reports to the movement. This is a significant improvement over previous years.
• While Wikimédia France has not yet been successful in meeting non-APG funding requirements, Wikimédia France is experimenting with funding models that may benefit Wikimédia France and the movement in the future (e.g. crowdfunding) and has prioritized diversification of funding in its action plan.

Strategy, program design, and program implementation

This section takes a close look at this organization's plans for its programs, including its past performance with program implementation. In this section, we may also identify specific programs that seem to have particularly high or low potential for impact. Here are some questions we will consider:

Strategy

Does this organization have a high-quality strategic plan in place, and are programs well-aligned with this strategic plan? Is this organization proposing significant changes to its strategy, or are the strategic plan and annual plan consistent with past strategies? Is this organization's strategy and are this organization's programs aligned with the Strategic Priorities of Increasing participation, Improving quality, or Increasing reach?

• Wikimédia France has a minimal strategic plan in place, which is strongly aligned with its current and proposed plans. Wikimédia France has supplemented its strategic plan with a detailed framework explaining its approach to partnerships.
• Wikimédia France has implemented a quality approach that is in line with its strategic plan. At the same time, it is difficult to establish continuity between the current year’s plan and the proposed plan (e.g. considering changes to program structure, including baseline metrics allowing for comparison with last year’s programs would have given more context for the targets presented in the plan).
• Wikimédia France has presented information about how its programs relate to the movement’s strategic priorities for each program, but it is still not easy to understand the bigger picture behind Wikimédia France’s programs (e.g. why programs are needed, how high-level program objectives are specifically linked to priorities around online impact).

Program design

Do proposed programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, and are program activities and results logically linked?

• Wikimédia France is implementing a new quality approach to evaluate the results of its programs, and is putting stronger systems in place around evaluation. For example, Wikimédia France plans to increase the amount of staff time allocated to documenting and evaluating results across all of its programs in order to do this work more effectively.
• Wikimédia France is looking at the link between offline and online involvement for its activities, and is looking at the ways volunteers are involved with each of its activities. These are important aspects of program design, and we are grateful for this context. We appreciate that Wikimédia France is prioritizing both of these approaches in its work, and hope to see the emphasis on these two cross-cutting approaches grow.
• While Wikimédia France provides detailed background on past work in similar areas, it is often difficult to understand if or how needs for each program were assessed. For example, little information is provided about how particular content gaps (e.g. sports) are assessed, and how filling these particular gaps will help people access more knowledge. It is not helpful that activities like communications and fundraising are included in this proposal as programs, since it makes it more difficult to understand the program focus of the organization.
• It may be difficult to understand the impact of the plan based on the targets provided. For example, Wikimédia France has assessed that edits to the main namespace are a relevant indicator of program impact (in terms of content and participation), while it has chosen not to include metrics around bytes added or removed or number of articles created and improved. In the context of Wikimédia France’s programs and objectives, metrics including bytes added or removed, or number of articles created and improved would have been more helpful in understanding the impact of its programs. We would also welcome the metrics of overall edits to the main namespace as a complement to these metrics, if Wikimédia France knows they are valuable indicators in its context.
• Furthermore, Wikimédia France is putting significant effort into programs that add media content to Wikimedia Commons and are measuring the number of quality images achieved. Despite this, there are not targets included around use of this media, and so it is difficult to understand if and how generating these quality images will improve projects other than Wikimedia Commons (e.g. the Wikipedias).
• Wikimédia France has set ambitious targets for the proposed year, including 11,500 participants, 1,600 new editors, and around 1,000 quality images. These targets do not align with Wikimédia France’s achievements so far in the current year.
• While targets for the proposed year are provided, we lack baseline metrics from current or past years to put these targets in context and provide continuity. For an organization of Wikimédia France’s size and funding history, more continuity is needed.

Specific programs

Based on proposed plans and past work, which programs may have the highest potential for impact corresponding to the amount of funding requested, and which programs may not have impact corresponding to the funds requested?

• Wikimédia France is building on past work in partnerships, and plans to test new approaches in the coming year (e.g. implementation of a partnership framework, focus on the Social and Solidarity Economy). While Wikimédia France has actively cultivated opportunities for partnerships for a number of years, we want to see results expanding beyond the number of partnerships to significant content contributed or participation driven in key areas. We hope that Wikimédia France’s increasing focus on evaluation will help us better understand the impact of this work in coming years.
• Wikimédia France is continuing its regional work to expand its reach by supporting volunteer communities in different areas of France. Wikimédia France has reframed the previous Territorial Development program as “autonomy and empowerment of local groups”. While no progress toward its targets has been made this year, Wikimédia France has laid the groundwork for future progress and proposed to continue this program in the coming year. Wikimédia France has documented its learning from past implementations of similar work, and is adjusting its approaches accordingly.
• Wikimédia France has identified significant challenges with its failed Afripedia program, particularly around establishing effective local partnerships. Despite this, and despite concerns around this program expressed in the past, Wikimédia France has chosen to revive this program in the coming year. Overall, “Developing international links” may not have strong potential for impact with respect to cost.
• Wikimédia France groups activities like online contests with its communication work, and also includes its fundraising work as a program activity. This may be valuable work, but it is difficult to assess these activities as programmatic rather than operational.

Budget

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

• While Wikimédia France is not requesting an increase in APG funding, it is planning a significant increase in total expenses; furthermore, APG funding will still make up 59% of total revenue if fundraising targets are met. Given the size of Wikimédia France’s proposed budget of $1,138,999, potential for impact does not correspond to the size of the budget.
• Wikimédia France has presented a detailed budget by program and functional area, showing staff allocations by program, yet the overall size of this budget and the APG funding request, alongside Wikimédia France’s past performance, is a significant concern.
• Spending is heavily weighted to staffing and office costs, and is also focused in communications and travel. When underspending in program areas is occurring, Wikimédia France is routing funds from program costs to increase staff costs. A high proportion of staff expenses may make sense in Wikimedia France’s context, where staff are focused on programs, but this may be an area to watch.

Feasibility and risks

How likely is it that this organization can implement this plan successfully if funded? Is this plan likely to achieve impact corresponding to the funds requested?

• Wikimédia France is a learning organization with effective leadership, and is building on past work in areas like partnerships and territorial development. Furthermore, Wikimédia France has made great strides in effectiveness in key operational areas like financial management, governance, and evaluation processes.
• We appreciate that Wikimédia France is experimenting with different approaches to raising non-APG funding, and has made diversification of funding a priority in its action plan, but results should be achieved before increasing staff costs. Without first reducing reliance on APG funding significantly, it may not be prudent for Wikimédia France to increase staff expenses at this time. Furthermore, based on past performance, proposed revenue targets may not be realistic.
• Wikimédia France’s funding request is a significant investment for the movement through this APG funding request, and Wikimédia France is not yet on track to deliver the results needed to justify such a significant investment. It does not seem feasible that Wikimédia France will meet its proposed targets, and based on past performance it is unlikely that the amount of funding requested will correspond to commensurate impact.

Staff proposal assessment framework

This framework assesses annual plan grant proposals across the three dimensions of (1) Program design and strategic alignment, (2) Organizational capacity and effectiveness, and (3) Budgeting by identifying strengths and concerns in each of these areas.

In each assessment, an organization’s context is taken into account and so criteria may be applied differently in different contexts. For example, a smaller organization with less experience will not be expected to have a formal learning and evaluation program that a larger more experienced organization might have, and so what may constitute a major strength for a smaller organization in the same category may not constitute a major strength for a larger organization. With this approach, the criteria listed here are not weighted equally, and so an “overall assessment” cannot be determined simply by adding up the numbers of strengths and concerns identified for each dimension. Also note that the scale here is not linear and so we do not assign any numerical values to the assessments given for each criterion. More information about each criterion is shared in the assessment. We believe a framework like this is helpful, as it ensures that each proposal is assessed consistently, even as they are applied with contextual nuance.

The dimension “Program design and strategic alignment” addresses many high-level elements, focusing on how likely programs are to achieve progress toward some of the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities. Programs need to show clear links between strategic priorities and program objectives, program objectives and targets, and targets and program activities. In addition, programs should focus on areas that will impact participation, reach, and quality on the Wikimedia projects, with an emphasis on approaches and programs that increase diversity.

Meanwhile, the dimension “Organizational capacity and effectiveness” looks at the ability of an organization to achieve its plan based on both past experience (as an indicator of future success) and current practice. An effective organization both learns from past experience and contributes to movement learning in the process. This dimension also includes effective and stable leadership that models good practices, and a rational approach to growth that is supported by the organization’s strategy and context.

Finally, we analyze the organization’s past experience with and current plan for budgeting. Here, we look at how the organization has performed against its plans and budgets in the past.

To complete the assessment, we assess each of the criteria in each category according to the following scale, which is not necessarily linear:

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

Criterion	Assessment	Description
Program design and strategic alignment
P1. Strategy and alignment	Neither	While some program objectives are aligned with the Wikimedia strategic priorities, others are less clearly aligned (e.g. Afripedia). Wikimédia France has a minimal strategic plan in place, but has also included supplementary documents such as its partnership framework to better articulate its strategy.
P2. Targets and logic models	Concern	While programs include targets that are relevant in Wikimédia France's context through its quality approach, many programs lack relevant targets that logically link activities to online impact and put Wikimédia France's work in the context of the broader movement (e.g. numbers of articles created or improved, bytes added or removed). This is a concern for an organization of Wikimédia France's size, with such a prominent leadership role in the movement.
P3. Needs assessments	Concern	While some programs objectives are developed in consultation with stakeholders, the needs for program work are not clearly articulated (e.g. it is difficult to understand why specific programs and activities are included in the proposal).
P4. Potential for impact at scale	Concern	Programs could lead to impact on the Wikimedia strategic priorities within France, but impact is not likely to scale beyond borders. At this level of funding, we would expect to see impact at a larger scale.
P5. Evaluation methods	Neither	Through the new quality approach, programs include a plan for measuring results and ensuring learning, and employ effective evaluation tools and systems. At the same time, targets on global metrics are missing for many programs in the proposal, which may create challenges as Wikimédia France tracks and reports on these metrics.
P6. New ideas and approaches, or thoughtful adaptations	Strength	The plan includes thoughtful program adaptations and approaches that are framed in Wikimédia France's context.
P7. Diversity	Concern	Programs are not likely to 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, commensurate with the funding requested. Programs in Africa have been challenging and not proven effective. Specific targets around gender diversity are not set in this proposal.
Organizational capacity and effectiveness
O1. Past results	Major concern	Wikimédia France does not appear to be on track for meeting its targets for the current year, despite receiving a significant increase in the current year's APG funding.
O2. Stability and leadership	Major strength	Wikimédia France has stable, effective leadership and good governance practices. Staff transitions, including the hiring of a new ED, have proceeded with ease. Wikimédia France has shown consistent leadership even in times of transition.
O3. Learning	Major strength	Wikimédia France excels at learning from and documenting past experiences, and is sometimes applying learning to improve its current and planned programs. It shares this learning frequently with the movement at large.
O4. Improving movement practices	Major strength	Wikimédia France is a strong movement leader that effectively shares learning about its work with the broader movement and beyond.
O5. Community engagement	Neither	Wikimédia France can improve in engaging online communities in its work.
O6. Capacity	Concern	Wikimédia France has set ambitious targets that are not likely to be achievable based on past performance. While plans for volunteer roles and deepening engagement are outlined, expectations for volunteers are very high and may not be realistic.
Budget
1. Past budgeting and spending	Neither	Wikimédia France has a mixed history of budgeting realistically and managing funds effectively in the past..
B2. Proposed budget is realistic	Neither	While this proposal includes a budget that is comprehensive and clear, revenue targets may not be realistic based on past performance.
B3. Budget is focused on programmatic impact	Major concern	Potential for impact does not correspond to the large amount of funding requested or the overall budget size, especially considering Wikimédia France's performance to date.

This staff proposal assessment is the work of FDC staff and is submitted by: KLove (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Staff proposal assessment rubric description

This rubric assesses annual plan grant proposals across the three dimensions of (1) Program design and strategic alignment, (2) Organizational capacity and effectiveness, and (3) Budgeting by identifying strengths and concerns in each of these areas.

In each assessment, an organization’s context is taken into account and so criteria may be applied differently in different contexts. For example, a smaller organization with less experience will not be expected to have a formal learning and evaluation program that a larger more experienced organization might have, and so what may constitute a major strength for a smaller organization in the same category may not constitute a major strength for a larger organization. With this approach, the criteria listed here are not weighted equally, and so an “overall assessment” cannot be determined simply by adding up the numbers of strengths and concerns identified for each dimension. Also note that the scale here is not linear and so we will not assign any numerical values to the assessments given for each criterion. More information about each criterion is shared in the assessment. We still believe a rubric like this is helpful, as it ensures that staff analysis of each proposal is based on the same criteria, even as they are applied in a nuanced way.

The dimension “Program design and strategic alignment” addresses many high-level elements, focusing on how likely programs are to achieve progress toward some of the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities. Programs need to show clear links between strategic priorities and program objectives, program objectives and targets, and targets and program activities. In addition, programs should focus on areas that will impact participation, reach, and quality on the Wikimedia projects, with an emphasis on approaches and programs that increase diversity.

Meanwhile, the dimension “Organizational capacity and effectiveness” looks at the ability of an organization to achieve its plan based on both past experience (as an indicator of future success) and current practice. An effective organization both learns from past experience and contributes to movement learning in the process. This dimension also includes effective and stable leadership that models good practices, and a rational approach to growth that is supported by the organization’s strategy and context.

Finally, we analyze the organization’s past experience with and current plan for budgeting. Here, we look at how the organization has performed against its plans and budgets in the past.

To complete the assessment, we assess each of the criterion in each category according to the following scale, which is not necessarily linear:

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

Criterion	Description
Program design and strategic alignment
P1. Strategy and alignment	Programs objectives are strongly aligned with the Wikimedia strategic priorities of increasing reach, improving quality, or increasing participation. The organization has a strategic plan in place.
P2. Targets and logic models	Programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, and programs present clear links between planned activities and desired results.
P3. Needs assessments	Program objectives are based on needs assessed in consultation with stakeholders, including the communities and volunteers that are working together with this organization to achieve its program objectives.
P4. Potential for impact at scale	Programs could lead to significant impact on the Wikimedia strategic priorities of increasing reach, improving quality, or increasing participation, at scale and corresponding to the amount of funds requested.
P5. Evaluation methods	Programs include a plan for measuring results and ensuring learning, and employ effective evaluation tools and systems.
P6. New ideas and approaches, or thoughtful adaptations	Programs will test new ideas and approaches or will thoughtfully adapt ideas and approaches that may work in this organization’s context.
P7. 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 capacity and 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.
O2. Stability and leadership	Stable, effective leadership and good governance will enable this plan to succeed. Any leadership transitions are managed effectively.
O3. Learning from the past	This organization is addressing risks and challenges effectively, is learning from and documenting past experiences, and is applying learning to improve its current and planned programs.
O4. Improving movement practices	This organization effectively shares learning about its work with the broader movement and beyond.
O5. Community engagement	This organization effectively engages key communities and volunteers in the planning and implementation of its work.
O6. Capacity	This organization has the resources and ability (for example, 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. Proposed budget is realistic	This proposal includes a budget that is comprehensive and clear, and that corresponds to the activities proposed.
B3. 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.