Grants:APG/Staff proposal assessment form v1

This page and discussion page is maintained for archival purposes. For the current version of the form see Grants:APG/Staff proposal assessment form

Purpose

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.

Proposal overview

Name of eligible entity
Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many]
Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan in currency requested
Estimate of total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan in US dollars
Exchange rate used to calculate estimate in US dollars and date accessed (mm/dd/yy)
Date of proposal submission
Adherence to proposal process [yes/no]
Adherence to legal, regulatory, and policy regulations [yes/no]
Adherence to US anti-terrorism laws [yes/no]

Annual plan

Financial summary

	Projected 2013	Proposed 2014	Proposed change (as a +/− %)
Movement resources*	...	...	...
Overall budget	...	...	...
Number of staff	...	...	...

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.

Overview of staff assessment

What are the top three strengths of the plan?
What are the top three concerns with the plan?

Strategic alignment

To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement?

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?

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?

Summary of expert opinions and/or community commentary

Summary of the opinions of subject-matter experts on the plan
Summary of community commentary on the plan

Table II: Scores, comments and feedback

Scores provide only a preliminary assessment for consideration by the FDC. The rubric for scoring is in table III.

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)
	(B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to movement strategic priorities, if executed well
	(C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, 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
	(E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives
	(F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable
Efficient use of funds	(G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives
Efficient use of funds	(H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget
Quality of proposed measures of success	(I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan
	(J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics
	(K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics
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
	(M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives

Table III: Scoring rubric

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
Efficient use of funds	(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 adapted elsewhere 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