Grants:Knowledge Sharing/Reports/Feedback Report: Wikimedia Community and Alliances Fund Round 2

All Wikimedia Foundation Funds reports

Round 2 Feedback report: perceptions from Regional Fund Committees and General Support and Alliances Fund applicants

• Global analysis of regional learning sessions
• Feedback Report: Wikimedia Community and Alliances Fund (Round 2)

Executive Summary

Wikimedia Foundation Funds - 2021-2022 Round 2 Application and Committee Feedback

Here is a brief of the high level bullet points for greater explanation of each please read the detailed summary. For an indepth look at the quantitative and qualitative data please refer to the slidedeck presentation.

Both the Regional Fund Committee and the applicants who responded to our survey share the perspective that the strategy is achieving its original goals of creating decentralized decision making, empowering autonomous committee members and creating a more trust based and partnership approach. However it is also clear that we are just beginning on this journey and there are still many requests and ideas for improvement. We will continue to reflect together, learn and iterate. We embarked on this new funding strategy to align with the strategic direction and also as an interim step to create learnings that will feed into the larger conversations of movement governance and movement strategy implementation. Questions about revenue and resource allocation in line with the recommendations of Increasing the sustainability of our movement and equity in decision making are part of that larger conversation happening. We are learning, iterating and adapting and sharing with the movement.  We thank all of the volunteer regional fund committee members for the dedication and to all the people who are applying and been on this first year of implementation with us.

Regional Fund Committee (RFC) Perspectives

• Members continue to feel that the new funding model supports decentralisation in decision-making (average score 4.1 out of 5, round 1 was 4.2).
• Members continue to feel a high level of empowerment and autonomy, going from 4.2 in round 1 to 4.4 in round 2 (Scale from 1 to 5). However, calls for improvements include participation in budget allocation, better Foundation documentation and more time during rounds to interact and deliberate.
• Whilst many RFC members feel capacities improved throughout the year, more formal and continuous training was requested.
• Almost half of members felt there were substantial improvements throughout the process, particularly during the group deliberation and feedback process (61% feeling it has improved substantially).
• 54% of RFC members feel that there was an increase in partnership/trust based mindset between committees and applicants, highlighting things like greater care taken in the tone of feedback and offering more interaction and support during the application process.
• 70% of members feel the Regional Committee model is key within these discussions and call for greater involvement and alignment with Movement Strategy discussions, particularly around Hubs and Charter and more interaction with communities in general to better understand how to engage in conversations with applicants about their strategies and making better funding decisions.

General Support applicant Perspectives

• 58% of the applicants stated that the current structure and process enables Regional Funds Committees to contribute to decentralised decision making,  up from 50% last round. 27% said it would with some changes.
• 52% believe the model definitely allows for a more trust based relation with the Foundation, 48% feel it is moving in this direction but needs more adjustments, such as Committees with more affiliate-work experience, more continuous engagement with committee members so they are more aware of affiliate work during implementation and more clarity on the role each partner plays, including the Foundation.
• 62% of applicants felt they left out something because of fear of not being approved: mostly resources for more staff, training teams and testing new approaches/innovations.  Clearer budget expectations were requested. Some applicants call for more openness to new institutions and innovative proposals.
• As in round 1, what was most valued (+70% of applicants) were 1:1 conversations with PO’s and multiple formats for support (email, calls, reminders, etc). Also having application templates and examples. Outreach: 68% hear about grant opportunities through communications via the regional program officers, very few from active search on Meta. Applicants that had conversations with Regional Committee members found it useful, but 40% did not know this was possible.
• Applicants in round 2 rated the quality of Committee feedback better, going from 3.5 to 4.3 (average). But overall more interaction with committee members is desired.
• Applicants feel it would be useful to have more learning spaces, online but also face-to-face related to regional conferences (like the former training days. That can allow for deep learning.

Alliances Fund applicant Perspectives

• Most applicants have a positive view of the funding process. They value the flexibility and that this provides an opportunity for non-Wikimedian organisations to contribute to the open knowledge movement, the support from Wikimedia Communities and the partnership offered by the Foundation.
• Looking to the future of the Fund, applicants found that it could be clearer what the main impact desired to narrow down applications. Also to be clear if it is seed funding type Fund (for shorter experimentation) or will it respond to the need for longer life-cycles. Applicants felt that the system should be easier to support smaller partners or organisations less familiar with the Wikimedia movement.

• The majority of applicants felt very supported throughout the process, rating the support 4.5. They most valued 1:1 support from POs. Improvements include better guidelines such as the level of partnership required with local affiliates, budget expectations, language accessibility and maintaining the funding timelines. More consistency in the support and feedback across applicants is needed, as is greater interaction with RFC members and support to engage with local affiliates, particularly for organisations new to the Movement.
• Grantees would like to have regular check-ins with POs and affiliates during implementation.
• Based on this feedback and various CR team reflections some adjustments were made to the Funding criteria, such as adjusting regional budgets, making previous experience with Wikimedia projects and communities a requirement before applying, focus on methodologies and knowledge that supports underrepresented groups.

More detailed summary of the outcomes

Regional Fund Committees

• Generally Committee members continue to feel that the new funding model supports decentralisation in decision-making (average score 4.1 out of 5, round 1 was 4.2). There are regional variations with LAC, NWE and USCA feeling less positive about the model than  the other regions. Positive factors highlighted are being closer to the context and communities where they are approving proposals, being able to openly and transparently discuss proposals in an autonomous manner with support, but not intervention, from the Foundation. Some committees also valued the model in terms of the diversity of committee members. Overall the view of their own role is positive, 60% feel very satisfied, 54% say their role helped them increase their wider participation in the Movement.  
• However, many members across regions call for more participation in the general budget allocation and deeper connections to spaces where Movement strategy discussions are happening, particularly those related to their role such as resource allocation and governance structures. Committee members feel they do not have the tools or necessary involvement/visibility, and that this is crucial to making future funding decisions strategically, for engaging in discussions with affiliates, and reflecting on how best their role is working towards MS priorities (read some of these perceptions in RFC own voices in the deck)
• In general RFC members still felt a high level of empowerment and autonomy, going from 4.2 in round 1 to 4.4 in round 2 (Scale from 1 to 5).  Regional variation: higher in South Asia and CEE (around 4.7 increasing from last round) and lower in LAC with 3.8 (down from last round). The CR team is working to address some of the reasons for the feeling of lower levels of empowerment/autonomy.
  • More immediate procedural aspects: having more clarity about budgets in each round (particularly mentioned in USCA and NWE) and improving rounding timelines and Foundation documentation and staff reviews.
  • More structural aspects that may take more time and thinking together: There are some that require more time, such as building better communication and trust between grantees, RFC members and applicants, however the CR team has been opening spaces for joint reflections around data and insights, as well as and for more interpersonal connections. Another aspect is empowering RFC members to feel more involved in regional strategic reflections and Movement Strategy discussions.
• Whilst many RFC members feel capacities improved throughout the year, more formal and continuous training was requested, particularly about specific thematic areas, budgets and defining metrics. Committee faces challenges when applicants use different criteria or provide different levels of information, and there is a lack of history or context provided to judge the numbers. Many believe the Foundation should help provide this. The CR regional learning reports and sessions, seek to provide information that can help start building these references and supporting grantees. Guidelines for reviewing learning and evaluation were also shared.
• Based on RFC members request, in the next months we are going to start cohort meet-ups to exchange knowledge between committees and use these spaces for more continuous peer learning, as well as inviting external expertise to support this.
• Almost half of members felt there were substantial improvements throughout the process, particularly during the group deliberation and feedback process (61% feeling it has improved substantially). Many attribute this to improvements in documentation, and teamwork (more interaction and discussion) and growing confidence as committee members and as a group. However, having more time to review and deliberate was a common request in all regions.
• 35% stated that improvements should still be made, particularly to documentation provided by staff with some regional variation (MEA and ESEAP with a more positive perception, whilst NWE and half of USCA survey respondents feeling that changes had been minimal and were needed). Requests: more in depth understanding of the applicant's context and history, even more 1:1 connection with applicants during rounds,  more knowledge of conversations between the Foundation and applicants, more joint design of application review frameworks. 35% believe substantial changes should still be made to the application form to better understand grantee’s proposals. Most regions requested to have more 1:1 interactions with applicants to better discuss aspects of the proposal and committee feedback, and thus more timing is still needed for this process.
• 81% stated that their team dynamics improved, highlighting greater mutual understanding and confidence in each other's work.  11% said they had more difficulties, they were all LAC members that felt the need for more shared responsibility, creating space for less visible voices, more support in managing difficult situations with grantee feedback and also more clarity in the Foundation’s role.
• Committees have the agency to determine the need for expanding their committee and reviewing criteria for participating (for instance if any of the current criteria should be changed). Most regions have now brought in new members -  MEA, ESEAP, NWE, USCA and CEE and 68% of committee members see this as a necessity to include more diversity (language/cultural/geographic/gender) and skills set (such as affiliate management and thematic expertise).
• View about applications: 41% RFC members feel that the quality of applications improved, 46% said the quality remained the same.
• 54% of RFC members feel that there was an increase in partnership/trust based mindset between committees and applicants, seeing a bit more mindshift change on their side, highlighting things like greater care taken in the tone of feedback (particularly in regions such as South Asia) and offering more interaction and support during the application process. However, many think that there is still work to be done. 30% say they don’t fully understand what this dynamic or mindset implies. Some committees felt the interaction was still very limited.
• Ideas to increase this partnership were:
  • Greater interaction with more time. Increase interaction in spaces like proposal writing clinics and other peer learning spaces.
  • Sessions to give feedback prior to submission (some committees implemented this tactic in round 2) and actually discuss issues, not just a Q&A dynamic.
  • Small videos from committee members to welcome new applicants and explain their role and what applicants can expect from the review.

Applicants (General Support Funds)

Just over half have a positive view of the model:

• 58% of the applicants stated that the current structure and process enables Regional Funds Committees to contribute to decentralised decision making,  up from 50% last round. 27% said it would with some changes. There were no marked regional differences. As with RFC members, closer contact and knowledge of the regional context (and its diversity) is valued.
• 52% believe the model definitely allows for a more trust based relation with the Foundation, 48% feel it is moving in this direction but needs more adjustments
• There are different ideas of how the model might work better:
  • Committees with more Wikimedia experience, those from outside the movement, bringing in more diverse projects, focusing on strengthening existing ones (particularly those associated with Affiliates).
  • More continuous engagement with committee members so they are more aware of affiliate work during implementation.
  • Better communication from the Foundation about each partner’s role in the decision-making process.  This has led to some regions having difficult or unclear applicant-committee relations.
  • Others (particularly in the NWE and USCA region) said that it would be good to open up proposals to new institutions and innovate proposals.
• Tools and support: Most grantees had a positive perception of the Community Resources team spaces and tools to support them. Despite applicants not being the same in round 1, it seems the changes made after round 1 helped to better support grantees. The score was 4.4 over 5, up from 4.0 in the first round. There were some regional variations, with USCA and MEA evaluating this more positively, South Asia and NWE.
  • As in round 1, what was most valued (+70% of applicants) were 1:1 conversations with PO’s and multiple formats for support (email, calls, reminders, etc). Also having application templates and examples. Outreach: 68% hear about grant opportunities through communications via the regional program officers, very few from active search on Meta.
  • 52% felt the application met its objectives, 45% thought it could better do this with minor adjustments.
  • There is a need to communicate some guidelines more widely  (50% of applicants stated that they did not know of these in some regions, particularly MEA and ESEAP).
  • Some resources need to be accessible material for different languages and for communities without project writing experience. Also more pedagogical guidelines and tools kits around Learning and Evaluation.
  • Having unified information available to all new applicants (like a kit) would be useful.
  • It is interesting to note that 62% felt they left out something because of fear of not being approved: mostly resources for more staff, training teams and testing new approaches/innovations.  Clearer budget expectations were requested.
• Perception and engagement with Regional Committee members:
  • Applicants that had conversations with Regional Committee members found it useful, but 40% did not know this was possible. This was the same in most regions.
  • Applicants in round 2 rated the quality of Committee feedback better, going from 3.5 to 4.3 (average). There were improvements in regions such as  NWE, USCA and SA, and less so in LAC and MEA. In some regions (such as NWE and ESEAP)  mediation by Foundation staff to give this feedback was appreciated. Others appreciated that the feedback helped further explain the proposal.
  • However, many felt there was still room for improvement. For instance, more live feedback with discussion would be useful, as applicants' responses to committee questions often go unanswered. Others feel that the questions did not lead to any adjustments, just further explanations. More technical or strategic analysis with recommendations would be useful.  
• Call for more support during implementation:
  • Applicants feel it would be useful to have more learning spaces, online but also face-to-face related to regional conferences (like the former training days. That can allow for deep learning.
  • Peer learning spaces to learn from other grantees during implementation, particularly to learn what systems other affiliates and applicants are using to collect and manage learning and evaluation data and reporting requirements.
  • Quarterly check in with staff would be beneficial also.
  • More than support, many applicants request more formal training (particularly in the MEA, LAC and ESEAP regions).
• Future ideas and expectations: Whilst many applicants perceive positive changes in the current model it is important to note that in community spaces such as the Summit there were open debates about how future funding structures could be different, and not grantmaking, particularly for the affiliate base. It may not be so fruitful to mix these levels and assess the current model against this more structural change. It would be important to separate the discussion. 1. Short term: Analyse the necessary changes within the current funding structure that would better support communities, 2. Guarantee clarity around the spaces for future thinking about very different models in alignment with Movement-wide discussions around the Charter, Hubs, etc and where this decision will take place.

Applicants (Alliances Fund)

Perception of the Model:

• Most applicants have a positive view of the Fund model. They value the flexibility and that this provides an opportunity for non-Wikimedian organisations to contribute to the open knowledge movement, particularly in contexts where this funding is difficult (ie ESEAP). They also value the support from Wikimedia Communities and the partnership offered by the Foundation, in their view, different to traditional grantmaking processes.
• Applicants found that their model allowed them to add value in different ways, beyond just contents and contributors. Mainly 1.  Raising awareness about open knowledge policies and value of Wikimedia (particularly in sectors such as journalists and teachers) 2. Contributing quality/valuable contents /opening up institutional resources (ie. Libraries in Africa onto Wikidata), 3. Innovate in approaches/ technology  (ie. Armenia with graphics, Open Street Map), 4. Capacity-building that may otherwise be difficult (transfer knowledge to affiliates around different methodologies, create training resources, train Wikiemdians around key issues related to their work - ie, legal issues/policies),  5. Improve and expand established work with Wikimedia communities (ie by increasing geographical scope - rural areas/ key cities or bringing in new audiences and networks).
• Applicants hoped to see good case study documentations about the value of these funds.
• Improvements and ideas for the future:
  • Given the funding limitations (1M globally), some applicants found that it could be clearer what that Foundation or Movement really “wants with this fund”. This could help direct applicants more. For instance, having  thematic focus or certain impact that the fund seeks over a period of 1 or 2 years to narrow down the applications.
  • Some feel that the Fund should be mainly “seed funding”, a smaller amount for a larger number of short projects to experiment new ideas that can then be scaled through other funding opportunities (such as General Support). Successful projects either have a short life-cycle where knowledge is shared or transferred within the movement, or migrate to other sources of funding (either with General Support Fund in alliance with affiliates) or external funding. For topics that have different grant opportunities in the world (ie. Glam, Climate change, etc), the Wikimedia Alliances Funds are very small in comparison, so it is more useful to test ideas and then scale them with larger external sources, however this funding opportunity may not be available in all regions.
  • Many applicants agreed that in some cases longer time frames (2-3 years) were needed to really be able to learn and innovate. Some talked of a mixed approach with a set amount for new projects each year, and others for sustaining work when required. This should be measured by the impact of the first year and the need for funding to increase the value they are going to bring.
  • A question was raised and left open for debate: should the fund be more focused on “looking inside” and generating value for existing Wikimedia communities or “looking outside” and generating value for Wikimedia and the ecosystem with those not connected today.
  • Many applicants felt that the system should be easier to support smaller partners or organisations less familiar with the Wikimedia movement (making the application simpler, more language accessibility, more outreach in communications through social media, more support in connecting to local Wikimedia communities). Also to support those less connected with the Movement today (academics, industry, etc).

Tools and support:  

• The majority of applicants felt very supported throughout the process, rating the support 4.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5. MEA and LAC applicants rated this a little below the average (4.3), as did those not funded (3.8). As with General Support applicants, what was most valued were 1:1 meetings and support through mail. They also valued PO’s feedback that helped adjust proposals or find solutions for their viability. Many applicants recognised that this type of partnership is not common in normal grant making processes and really valued this.
• Many applicants, particularly in Taiwan, Indonesia and Ghana recognised the support offered by local Wikimedian Communities.
• 75% said they heard from the Alliances Fund through Wikimedian communities, (19%) through Foundation posts on social media.
• Only 32% of applicants said they felt they could not include something in their proposal because they thought it would not be approved.
• Improvements needed include:
  • Better accessibility for newcomers and organisations not so linked to the Wikimedia movement. Also considering the effort it takes to apply, that was a big even for larger organisations.
  • Better guidelines such as the level of partnership required with local affiliates (also recognising the different levels of affiliate capacity to offer this partnership) and general budget limitations/expectations. Many felt they could have adjusted their proposals if this had been much clearer.
  • Whilst applicants valued fluxx and the application guidance received, there was feedback on simplifying the application form and making some guidelines clearer (ie around fiscal sponsorship, time taken to apply).
  • There was also a call for more language accessibility (58% said they did not experience language support).
  • Making sure affiliates were open to provide the needed partnership/support is also important before referring applicants to them.
  • Making sure that all applicants have the same level of support. Whilst some said feedback and support had been very active, others felt that it was minimal and more interaction was needed to adjust proposals. A few also mentioned having to work over holiday periods and then being left several months without a response, which was stressful.
  • Maintaining the funding timelines was also seen as a key improvement, as many stated that this affected their organisational planning.
  • Allowing projects to have a longer time frame (often a year is not enough from some processes). Also to enable applicants to include more staff/administrative costs.

Feedback and funding decision:

• Most applicants agreed with the funding decision, scoring the funding decision at 4.0 (from 1 to 5). There was some variation between those funded and not, with those not funded rating it at 3.7. The majority found the feedback useful to “push them in the right direction” and valued the level of support and “mutual understanding”.
• Those with a lower rating stated that the feedback had been lacking and expected more to adjust the proposal in time. A few applicants also mentioned the lack of clarity of where and when the feedback was given. For them, the  reasons why it was rejected were not altogether clear. 30% agreed with the funding decision but do not recall having seen detailed feedback (ESEAP, MEA).
• It is interesting to note that Regional Fund Committees were only mentioned in one region, indicating that more knowledge and interaction with them was needed.
• There was a call for better alignment between what is asked in the application and what PO’s or committees asked for.  

Relations to affiliates:

• One of the criteria of the alliance fund is to work closely with local Wikimedian communities, particularly affiliates. 65% of applicants stated that they already had a history of close relations to affiliates. 25% engaged with them for the first time and found it easy and supportive. However 10% found it difficult and felt that they needed more support in these conversations.
• Things to improve:
  • The Program Officers in the Community Resources team should support new organisations in establishing these relationships when there are difficulties or they are not so familiar with Wikimedia movement dynamics. Also in connecting applicants with Wikimedia Staff that can provide context or expertise regarding their proposal (ie. education).
  • There were also cases where the affiliate did not have presence whether the alliance's applicant was working so supporting their proposal was not necessarily viable. The different capacities of affiliates should be considered here, as a mission-aligned organisation may actually help build these capacities or greater geographical presence through their work.

• Call for more support during implementation: grantees would like to have regular check-ins with POs and affiliates (every two months) to share expertise and recommendations, also to address any support needed with local communities or resolving contractual obligations.

Based on these applicants’ reflections about this new Fund, the Community Resources team held several team reflection sessions to see what were the immediate adjustments for 22/23 and what could be left for future discussion and agreement. Click here to see the eligibility criteria and application process.