Jump to content

Grants:Simple/Committee/Workroom/Assessment tool

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Read more about Simple Annual Plan Grants.

This form will be used by the volunteer committee to assess applications. This is a shorter version of the staff proposal assessment used for full process Annual Plan Grants, and it is aligned with the Simple Annual Plan Grants criteria for decision making across three dimensions:

  1. program design
  2. effectiveness
  3. community participation and expertise

The assessment considers both the applicant's current plan and past achievements, since past achievements are an important indicator of an applicant's ability to succeed with a new plan. Individual committee members receive a link to complete an assessment and their feedback is then aggregated and analyzed, so that they can produce a recommendation to each applicant.

Assessment descriptors[edit]

All criteria are assessed according to the relative size of an applicant's funding request. Applicants requesting more funding or staff in their local contexts will be held to higher standards.

  • Major strength. The applicant does this very well; this is a strong indicator of future success.
  • Strength. The applicant does this well; this could indicate future success.
  • Neither a strength nor a concern. Either this does not indicate future success or makes funding the application a risk, or aspects of this criterion conflict with each other.
  • Concern. The applicant does not do this well, which suggests risks in funding the application.
  • Major concern. The applicant is not strong in this area, which suggests serious risks in funding the application.

Assessment criteria[edit]




P1. Program plan

The application includes SMART objectives for all programs, with clear links between activities and results.

P2. Potential for impact

The programs will lead to impact on the Wikimedia movement that corresponds to the amount requested.

P3. Evaluation plan

The programs include a plan for measuring results and ensuring learning, including specific targets for each program.

P4. Diversity

The programs will expand the participation in and reach of the Wikimedia movement in emerging communities and/or among non-males.


E1. Good practices

The applicant has a history of following good practices in effectiveness, including resource management.

E2. Past results

The applicant has had success with programs or approaches in the past, which includes measuring the results of its work and managing funding responsibly, as well as achieving results that correspond to amounts received in the past.

E3. Learning

The applicant has been effectively documenting its results and experiences, and has used learning to improve its programs.

E4. Capacity

The applicant will have the resources and ability to do the plan and to continue to be a healthy group or organization. This includes having enough effective volunteers to do the activities in this plan and evaluate results, and good potential for the applicant to sustain itself and its programs over time.


C1. Expertise

This applicant brings thematic or local expertise that is valuable to the movement, and this expertise makes a significant investment worthwhile

C2. Community partnership

This applicant has a history of working effectively with the communities affected by its programs, and will continue effective partnership with the community.

How this tool is used by the committee[edit]

As part of their assessment process of applications, the Simple APG committee uses this tool. Individual committee members submit their responses for each applicant, and are presented with aggregated results from the group. This tool helps the committee continue its discussions while being grounded in these specific criteria, but the committee has decided not to publish aggregate results as part of specific funding recommendations. Since the committee does not form a consensus for each score and because scoring is done early in the application assessment process, aggregate scores could potentially be inconsistent with the final decision or confusing to applicants when presented as part of a final decision.