Community Resources/2016-17 Annual Plan
The following is a first draft of this team's annual plan for fiscal year 2016-17. It was submitted as an input to WMF's annual planning process in February 2016.
We understand that WMF leadership has chosen to break down initiatives into Core and Strategic areas for this annual plan, and the following represents our best guess of how our work can be divided into those areas.
Core
[edit]Objective
[edit]Resource impactful community-led ideas, programs, technologies and gatherings across the Wikimedia movement through increasingly accessible grant programs.
Top Initiatives
[edit]- Initiative 1. Transition, stabilize and maintain restructured grant programs as committed to in the 2015 Resources Consultation.
Activities include:
- maintaining core workflows within these structures to ensure priority community needs are met,
- improving prioritized support-systems for applicants, grantees and committees,
- evaluating the outcomes of grants awarded,
- continuing to adapt and improve systems as we learn.
Note that this work includes aligning "conference support" offerings with the outcomes from the 2016 Wikimania consultation in order to fulfill core support and funding functions for both Wikimania and regional events.
Milestones/Results
[edit]| What it is | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Q1 - All grantees and committees transitioned FROM Individual Engagement Grants + Project and Event Grants TO Project Grants + Rapid Grants + Conference Support | Fulfill commitment to serve community needs via improved grantmaking structures |
| Q2 - Finalize selection for Wikimania 2018/19 | Fulfill commitment to pilot changes for Wikimania setup to support and enhance the value of Wikimania and movement conferences identified by the community |
| Q2 - APG r1 grants decisions made & approved | Core workflow, supporting FDC process for annual plans |
| Q3 - Evaluation of Simple Process Annual Plan Grants pilot. | Ensure changes to Annual Plan Grants improve grantee outcomes and experience |
| Q4 - Evaluation of first outcomes from Project Grants, Rapid Grants, and Conference Support programs | Ensure changes to all grants programs improve grantee outcomes and experience. |
| Q4 - APG r2 grants decisions made & approved | Core workflow, supporting FDC process for annual plans |
Measures of success
[edit]| Target | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Over 50% of grants going to emerging communities (Comparative baseline: 2014/15 46% of grants and 20% of grant dollars went to Global South w/ Emerging Communities baseline!) | Indicator of increased reach and accessibility |
| At least 50,000 people supported (directly or indirectly) by grants per quarter, as reported by grantees. (Global Metric #3. Comparative baselines from 2015/16: Q1=40k, Q2=59k). | Indicator of reach and outcomes |
| Improved applicant, committee and grantee satisfaction with support received. (Comparative baseline from 2015/16: 55% say experience above average or excellent, 21% say below average) | Improved user experience |
| Time between first submission and approval falls w/in normal range, and decreases compared to old structure for some types of grants. | Indicator of speed and efficiency |
Strategic
[edit]Objective
[edit]Proactively identify gaps (e.g. addressing systemic bias, harassment, reach and support to emerging communities) and provide targeted resources to communities in order to address those gaps.
Top Initiatives
[edit]- Initiative 1. IdeaLab Campaigns. Run two (2) campaigns per year to source ideas focused on strategic themes
- Initiative 2. Community Capacity Development. Pilot and grow the most effective strategies for improving capacities in emerging communities
Activities include:
Milestones/Results
[edit]Initiative 1
| What it is | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| 1 strategic campaign per quarter, resulting in 100 ideas from 200 participants and 10 grant proposals per campaign | Increase chances of solving strategic issues using community-led initiatives |
| Q4: Identify 4 potential campaign topics based on current strategic and community needs for next FY | Sensitivity and responsiveness to new or urgent issues |
Initiative 2
| What it is | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| FYQ1 - Wrap up initial CCD pilots underway from prior fiscal | Many communities are lacking basic capacities like conflict resolution or media relations. A focused intervention building such capacities can help communities make a qualitative leap forward in their work. |
| FYQ2 - Public evaluation of pilot projects | Accountability for the work put in; assessment of whether further CCD interventions would be valuable |
| FYQ3 - Depending on pilot evaluation, either re-resource CCD and communicate plans to scale whats working, or end the program if unsuccessful | CCD is an experiment: it needs to either be proven a worthwhile investment and be scaled, or ended (with learning) |
Measures of success
[edit]Initiative 1
| Target | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Number of active editors involved: 100 per campaign | Consistent with general participation from active contributors in initial campaign on the gender gap and content curation/review |
| Number of individuals involved: 200 per campaign | Consistent with general participation in initial campaigns on the gender gap and content curation/review |
| Resourced projects demonstrate significant improvements compared to their baseline, to be defined based on the campaign theme. (e.g. Inspire campaign will see an increase in article quality or review / curating activity) | The purpose of a campaign is to rally editors on a particular set of problems or issues; the effect should be an tangible improvements in that area prior to the campaign. |
Initiative 2
| Target | Rationale |
|---|---|
| Resourced projects demonstrate significant capacity improvement compared to their baseline, to be defined per capacity. (e.g. Tamil technical skills pilot will see an 10% increase in number of community members engaging in technical work; Brazilian community will form a media response team) | Each intervention has a specific capacity as a target; so per intervention, capacity-specific targets will be defined |
| Number of active editors involved: at least 60 per quarter | 3 communities x ~20 people expected to show up for in-person training; dozens more per community affected on-wiki |
Budget
[edit]Note: As outlined at the top of this doc, this is the Community Resource team's original submission to the WMF's annual planning and budgeting process. We are currently planning $7,081,000 for all grants programs in the next fiscal year.
| 2016-17 Budget Name | Staff allocated to budget | Grants | Travel & Contractors | Staff meetings | Telephone | Merchandise | Grants software |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR General | Katy, Chris, Sati, Janice | $0 | $5,000 | $3,000 | $0 | $2,000 | $19,200 |
| Core | |||||||
| Project Grants | Alex, Marti | $900,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Conference Support grants | Ellie, Kacie | $475,000 | $0 | $0 | $500 | $0 | $0 |
| Annual Plan Grants | Winifred, APG PO | $5,656,000 | $0 | $500 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel Support grants | Alex, Marti, Kacie | $50,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Travel | All | $0 | $167,200 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Contractors | All | $0 | $105,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Core Subtotal | $7,081000 | $272,200 | $500 | $500 | $0 | $0 | |
| Strategic | |||||||
| IdeaLab | Chris | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Emerging Communities | Asaf | $0 | $78,300 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Strategic Subtotal | $0 | $78,300 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
| Overall Total | $7,850,000 | $355,500 | $3,500 | $500 | $2,000 | $19,200 | |