User:Mathnerd314159/Unified Grant Portal Proposal

To streamline the system and simplify the grant application process for applicants while maintaining the ability to allocate funding based on different types of grants and criteria, we can consolidate the process into a single, unified grant application. Behind the scenes, committees will use internal criteria to assess and allocate grants based on the project's size, scope (individual, group, or thematic), and alignment with global or regional goals. This approach reduces confusion for applicants while preserving flexibility for decision-makers.

Key Features of the Streamlined System:

Single Grant Application:
- Applicants—whether individuals, groups, or organizations—will use a single online grant application form.
- The application form will be a single form but with some basic questions made optional if they are inapplicable. For example, an individual applying doesn't need to list a corporate entity or the number of individuals in the organization.
- Grants will require more or less detailed information and plans depending on scope, but the general fields such as project description, expected outcomes, and budget outline will remain consistent.
- Tagging for Thematic Projects: Applicants will tag their project with relevant locations, themes or causes (e.g., education, gender equity), enabling the system to internally categorize the grant for evaluation by the relevant committee(s). Reviewers can adjust the tags if the proposal is miscategorized.
Unified Evaluation Criteria (Internally Applied):
- Regardless of the scale of the grant, the application will be evaluated based on core movement-wide criteria, such as:
  - Alignment with Movement Goals: Does the project align with Wikimedia's goals of diversity, equity, and content creation?
  - Impact and Reach: What is the project's potential impact on the target community or thematic area (regional or global)?
  - Inclusivity: Does the project encourage participation from underrepresented groups, or does it address specific gaps in content or representation?
  - Collaboration: Is the project collaborative, involving multiple individuals, groups, or regions?
  - Regional Relevance: How does the project address the unique challenges or opportunities in the targeted region?
  - Thematic Relevance: How well does the project align with the thematic priority (e.g., gender equity, climate action) across the regions it aims to impact?
  - Scalability and Cross-Area Impact: Can the project’s approach be scaled to other regions or expanded to other thematic areas? Is it designed to create cross-area synergies?
  - Feasibility: Does the project have the necessary support from both the regional and thematic perspectives? Can it realistically achieve its goals within the constraints of time, budget, and resources?
  - Sustainability: Is there a plan for sustaining its outcomes?
  - Diversity and Inclusion: Does the project foster diversity and inclusion across both thematic and regional lines?
  - insert other criteria here, this is just from ChatGPT. I am sure all of the relevant committees have well-developed evaluation criteria.
Internal Grant Tiered Routing Process:
- While the applicant fills out a single form, the evaluation process is tiered internally and routed to the appropriate committee(s) based on internal categorization.
- Tiers
  - Microgrant: If the request is below a certain threshold (e.g., $1,000), it is classified it as a microgrant and a single reviewer applies simplified evaluation criteria focused on immediate impact and minimal oversight. It can be fast-tracked for approval.
  - Mid-Level and Large-Scale Grants: For larger grants (e.g., $1,000–$10,000 or above $10,000), the system routes the application to a larger committee for further evaluation based on participatory decision-making or committee review. Grant applications are reviewed by peers (regional or thematic committees) in a participatory budgeting format. Large-scale grants undergo a more thorough committee review, potentially involving regional, thematic, and Wikimedia representatives to ensure alignment with movement-wide priorities.
- Routing:
  - Regional Committees (RFCs) handle grants based on geographic location for regional projects or initiatives.
  - Thematic Committees (TFCs) handle grants related to specific global causes (e.g., gender diversity, environmental sustainability).
  - Global Oversight ensures alignment with movement-wide priorities and equity standards.
  - Other ad-hoc committees as necessary
Dynamic Cross-Area Grant Detection:
- The single application form will include questions to identify projects with multiple focal areas (e.g., both regional and thematic components).
- Applicants can explicitly tag their projects as cross-area if they believe the project impacts both a geographic region and a thematic cause (e.g., a project promoting gender diversity across several regions or climate change awareness in a specific region).
- The system flags cross-area grants during submission and routes them through a modified evaluation process that involves collaboration between the relevant regional and thematic committees.
Collaborative Review Process:
- When the system detects a cross-area grant, a reviewer assigns primary responsibility to either the regional or thematic committee, depending on the project's focus, or forms a special cross-area evaluation committee for large or complex cross-area grants (for example, those exceeding a certain budget, e.g., $10,000).
- Cross-area grants are evaluated through a joint review process, involving both the relevant Regional Funds Committee (RFC) and the Thematic Funds Committee (TFC).
- Each committee will evaluate the grant based on both regional and thematic priorities, using a set of shared evaluation criteria to ensure consistency. This guarantees that the project aligns with both local needs and global thematic goals.
- These committees consist of representatives from both the regional and thematic committees involved, who convene virtually to discuss the grant.
- The committees collaborate on a joint recommendation, with shared responsibility for making the final decision.
- For example, if a project is primarily regional but has a gender diversity component, the regional committee takes the lead, and the thematic committee provides input and reviews it for thematic alignment. If a project is primarily thematic, the reverse happens.
- The lead committee is responsible for finalizing the decision, but it must consider and incorporate feedback from the collaborating committee.
- The committee's responsibility is to ensure that the project meets both regional needs (e.g., how it affects the community or region in question) and thematic goals (e.g., advancing gender diversity, environmental sustainability).

Universal Reporting and Feedback Mechanism

- Applicants receive clear and concise feedback based on the unified evaluation process. Regardless of the grant type (micro, mid-level, or large), they are notified about their project's status using a single communication channel.
- Feedback includes recommendations for improvement or clarification, if necessary, and information about the next steps in the funding process.
- Regardless of grant size or type, all recipients are required to submit a final report on the outcomes of their projects. This is done through the same platform used for grant applications, maintaining simplicity for users.
- Peer Learning and Review: These reports are made publicly available for peer review, fostering a culture of shared learning across the movement.

Benefits of the Streamlined System:

Simplicity for Applicants: There is one unified application process for all applicants, whether they are seeking microgrants, mid-level, or large-scale grants, even for cross-area projects. The system adjusts its complexity automatically based on the nature of the request.
Internal Complexity, External Simplicity: Internally, the system applies different criteria and routes applications based on size, scope, and theme, but applicants don't need to navigate this complexity to apply. An applicant may expect to be funded under one program but the final funding may instead be allocated from a different program category without any bureaucratic overhead.
Flexible but Transparent: The system remains flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of projects—from small individual initiatives to large global collaborations—while ensuring transparency and accountability at every level.
Broad Participation: The participatory budgeting and committee review processes ensure that groups, organizations, and thematic bodies retain influence, while individuals can still access microgrants with ease.
Global and Regional Alignment: By routing grants internally to the relevant regional or thematic bodies, the system maintains alignment with both regional needs and global movement goals.

Collaborative Decision-Making:
- By involving both regional and thematic committees, the evaluation process ensures that cross-area projects are fully aligned with both local and global goals.
- The creation of cross-area evaluation committees for large grants fosters collaboration between committees and ensures balanced decision-making.
Tailored Feedback:
- Applicants receive unified, coherent feedback that integrates both regional and thematic perspectives, helping them refine their project for maximum impact.
Alignment with Movement Goals:
- The system maintains alignment with movement-wide priorities while still addressing specific regional needs, promoting scalability and cross-area learning.
Accountability:
- Joint oversight ensures that the project is accountable to both regional and global communities, with continuous monitoring and transparent reporting.

This system strikes a balance between ease of use for applicants and effective allocation of resources across multiple grant types, without burdening users with complex decision-making processes.

Example of the Unified Process in Action:

An Individual Applying for a Microgrant:
- An individual from North Africa applies for a microgrant to host a Wikipedia edit-a-thon on local cultural heritage.
- The smart application form detects that the project fits within the microgrant category and asks for a brief project description, outcomes, and budget.
- After submission, the grant is approved by a reviewer based on simplified criteria (impact and alignment with Wikimedia goals). The individual receives funding quickly without needing to navigate additional steps.
A Regional Organization Applying for a Mid-Level Grant:
- A regional organization in South Asia submits a request for a $5,000 grant to organize a regional conference on Wikimedia outreach in schools.
- The form prompts the organization for additional details (budget breakdown, timeline, etc.), but the application process remains straightforward.
- The system routes the proposal to the South Asia Regional Committee (RFC), where it undergoes peer review via participatory budgeting.
- The organization is informed of the result, receives constructive feedback, and—if approved—gets funding.
A Thematic Group Applying for a Large-Scale Grant:
- A global gender equity organization applies for a $20,000 grant to conduct a series of workshops across multiple regions to improve representation in Wikipedia.
- The smart form automatically tags this as a thematic project and routes it to the gender diversity thematic committee (TFC), which specializes in such causes.
- The global oversight body also reviews the proposal to ensure alignment with strategic movement goals.
- Once the project is approved, the organization receives funding and is required to submit detailed reports post-project completion.

Detailed Process of Evaluating Cross-Area Grants

Let’s walk through how a cross-area grant, such as a project focused on promoting gender diversity through educational workshops across multiple regions, would be evaluated.

Step 1: Grant Application Submission

An applicant submits a grant proposal that aims to conduct workshops on gender diversity in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa while aligning with global gender diversity goals.
The smart application form detects that the project spans multiple regions and also touches on a thematic cause (gender diversity). The project is flagged as a cross-area grant.
The system prompts the applicant to provide specific details about how their project contributes to both the regional communities and the global thematic cause.

Step 2: Internal Routing to Committees

The system routes the application to both the South Asia Regional Committee and the Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Committee, as well as the Gender Diversity Thematic Committee.
Based on the project description, a reviewer identifies that the gender diversity component is equally important as the regional impacts, so it triggers a joint evaluation process.

Step 3: Joint Evaluation Process

The regional committees in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa review the proposal to assess its relevance to their communities. They focus on:
- How well the workshops address local gender disparities in Wikipedia contributions.
- The feasibility of conducting the workshops in their respective regions (considering logistics, cultural context, and local partnerships).
Simultaneously, the Gender Diversity Thematic Committee reviews the proposal to ensure that it aligns with the global strategy for promoting gender equity in the movement. They focus on:
- How the project contributes to movement-wide goals related to closing the gender gap in content creation.
- How it fosters participation from underrepresented communities and incorporates inclusive practices.

Step 4: Collaborative Decision-Making

A cross-area ad-hoc evaluation committee is convened, consisting of representatives from all relevant committees: two members each from the South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa regional committees, and two members from the Gender Diversity Thematic Committee.
The committee discusses the proposal, addressing the project’s regional and thematic impacts. They evaluate it based on the shared decision-making criteria (regional relevance, thematic alignment, feasibility, and scalability).
They identify potential synergies, such as how lessons learned from the workshops in South Asia might inform the workshops in Sub-Saharan Africa, and how the outcomes of both can contribute to the global gender diversity goal.

Step 5: Decision and Feedback

The cross-area evaluation committee reaches a consensus decision on whether to approve the grant, approve with modifications, or decline.
If approved, the committee provides joint feedback to the applicant, detailing the conditions of approval and any required modifications. For example, they may recommend adjustments to the workshop format to better align with regional cultural norms.
If declined, the feedback will include recommendations for improving the project to better meet both regional and thematic goals.

Step 6: Oversight and Reporting

Once the grant is approved, the project is monitored by both the regional and thematic oversight bodies. This ensures that the project remains accountable to both regional needs and thematic goals.
The grantee submits progress reports through the unified platform, which are reviewed by both the regional and thematic committees.
After the project is completed, a final report is required, which is made available to the broader community for peer learning.

Strengths and challenges

1. Application Process

Single application process: Applicants submit one comprehensive application, regardless of whether the project is small, large, regional, thematic, or cross-area.
Internal routing: The system automatically detects whether the grant is cross-area (i.e., impacting both regional and thematic areas) and directs it to relevant committees for evaluation. The applicant does not need to submit multiple forms or applications for different focus areas.

The system offers a more streamlined experience for applicants, especially those working on cross-area projects, since it automatically routes the application to the relevant committees.

2. Grant Evaluation Process

Collaborative evaluation: Cross-area grants are evaluated by a joint review process involving both Regional Committees and Thematic Committees. These committees work together to evaluate proposals based on shared criteria such as regional and thematic relevance, feasibility, and scalability.
Cross-area evaluation committees: For large or complex grants, dedicated committees with representatives from both regional and thematic groups are formed to ensure a balanced review.

The proposed system is explicit in setting up joint review committees for large cross-area grants. The system involves community representation and focuses on a combination of thematic and regional expertise rather than purely academic merit.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation is based on shared decision criteria such as regional relevance, thematic relevance, feasibility, scalability, and diversity and inclusion. The system emphasizes the synergy between regional and thematic goals, ensuring that projects meet both local needs and global movement priorities.
The system has a focus on evaluating impact beyond the immediate goals of the project (regional or thematic in Wikimedia’s case).
The system integrates global diversity and equity as key goals, reflecting the broader movement’s focus on knowledge equity.
The system places emphasis on collaborative outcomes and inclusivity (e.g., how a project can bridge gaps in content, participation, or thematic areas). Proposals may be modified during review by the committees.

4. Oversight and Accountability

Joint oversight: Approved projects are monitored by both the regional and thematic committees, ensuring that they remain accountable to both local and global communities. There is an emphasis on continuous reporting and transparency, with grantees required to submit progress reports that are reviewed by all relevant stakeholders.
Conflict of interest: Reviewers can abstain from specific proposal reviews as necessary to avoid conflicts of interest.

The system emphasizes monitoring and accountability, but the system’s oversight involves multiple stakeholders (regional and thematic), which reflects the movement’s focus on community-driven decision-making.

5. Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Governance

The system is designed around a bottom-up approach, where community-elected committees from regions and thematic areas collaborate on decision-making. There is a strong emphasis on subsidiarity, allowing local or thematic committees to make decisions aligned with community needs.

The model is inherently decentralized, giving a greater voice to the community in decision-making. By involving regional and thematic committees in cross-area grant evaluations, the system empowers local communities and ensures that global thematic priorities are balanced with regional needs. However, the centralized grant system ensures Wikimedia has final authority over all decisions. In the event that regional and thematic committees are unable to reach consensus on a proposal, the grant decision may be escalated to a global Wikimedia committee.

Conclusion

The proposed grant system is focused on creating community-driven, decentralized decision-making processes, with an emphasis on equity, diversity, and inclusivity in both regional and thematic areas. The system allows collaborative evaluation for interdisciplinary or cross-area projects, and specifically focuses on a flexible and collaborative structure for evaluating cross-area grants, with committees that specifically address regional and thematic synergies.