Grants:APG/Proposals/2012-2013 round1/Wikimedia Argentina/Staff proposal assessment
Wikimedia Argentina received a funds allocation in the amount of 146,854 in 2012-2013 Round 1.
This funds allocation was recommended by the Funds Dissemination Committee on 15 November 2012 and approved by the WMF Board of Trustees on 1 December 2012.
This staff proposal assessment for Wikimedia Argentina's proposal to the FDC for 2012-2013 Round 1 may be viewed in tab view or standard view. To discuss this aspect of the proposal to the FDC, please visit the discussion page.
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.
Proposal overview
| Wikimedia Argentina | [Responses] |
| Date of submission [mm/dd/yy] | 10/01/12 |
| Adherence to proposal process [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to legal, regulatory, and policy regulations [yes/no] | yes |
| Adherence to US anti-terrorism laws [yes/no] | yes |
| Currency requested (e.g., EUR, GBP, INR) | ARS |
| Exchange rate used (currency requested to $US) and date accessed (mm/dd/yy) | 4.69 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in $US] | USD 143,527.66 |
| Total amount proposed to the FDC for the upcoming year annual plan [in currency requested] | ARS 666.904,70 |
| Summary staff assessment [substantial concerns: none/some/many] | none |
Annual plan
Table I: Financial summary
| FDC funds allocated last year ($US) | FDC funds proposed this year ($US) | Change from what was allocated last year (as a +/− %) | Proposed change in staff costs (USD and % increase or decrease) |
| USD 0 | USD 143,528 | NA | NA |
Strategic alignment
To what extent does the plan address the strategic goals and priorities of the movement (one to two paragraphs)?
- WMAR’s plan is well-aligned with the strategic priority areas of Increasing reach and Stabilizing infrastructure. WMAR’s plan focuses on organizational strengthening through increasing diversity and building the capabilities of its volunteer base, on GLAM partnerships, and on promoting Wikipedia to larger audiences in the Spanish-speaking world.
- There may be questions around whether WMAR’s focus on indigenous languages is positioned for optimal impact because these programs are focused on indigenous language Wikipedias rather than areas with stronger potential for impact such as Wikisource or Wiktionary. It is also worth noting that WMAR’s approach to Diversification and addressing the gender gap focuses on participation in chapter activities rather than participation on Wikimedia project sites: while this activity may be more easily measurable, it is not yet clear how or if these results are linked to recruitment and retention of female editors.
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 or maturity enable or inhibit the entity's potential for impact?
- It seems likely that WMAR is well-positioned to develop its role as a regional leader and produce programming and materials that may be replicated elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world as new Wikimedia affiliates develop in that region. Stronger metrics will make a stronger case for WMAR’s potential for impact in this context, as stronger metrics around diversification and participation may increase the likelihood that effective programs will be replicated elsewhere. WMAR has a good history of reporting and compliance. WMAR has been actively engaging with discussions about its proposal and its proposed program activities, which is typical of their engagement in discussions surrounding previous grant requests and impact reports since 2011. This engagement has also continued through periods of transition in leadership. WMAR expanded its activities after hosting Wikimania in Buenos Aires in 2009 and has been professionalizing successfully for the past year. They have recently appointed a strong ED with a positive track record within the community of affiliate entities. WMAR’s proposed plan relies entirely on funding from the FDC and in the future WMAR will likely need to diversify its funding sources in order to achieve greater organizational growth and stability.
Feasibility and risks for the annual plan
How feasible is the annual plan (one to four paragraphs)? 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?
- WMAR’s budget emphasizes programming: staffing makes up about 39% of the total budget and programs about 61%. It seems likely that WMAR will be able to execute its programs effectively with the staffing plan proposed. WMAR’s proposal has low admin costs and distributes program expenses relatively evenly across its program areas. In the past, WMAR has executed projects focused on its regional and global participation in the movement, and is still gaining experience with successful outreach programs.
- WMAR’s budget increased significantly last year and they are again seeking a significant increase; however, this is due in part to a significant rise in staffing costs as a result of professionalization.
- It seems likely that WMAR will be able to effectively execute its plan within the period specified: WMAR has defined feasible activities that fall within the scope of its initiatives. The most significant questions about WMAR’s plan are focused on WMAR’s ability to evaluate its programs and effectively measure success. While many initiatives are strongly aligned with Wikimedia’s strategic priorities, some do not yet have strong metrics in place to track results: see the Education, GLAM activities, and the diversification initiatives. For example, while WMAR would like to address the priority area Improving quality, it faces challenges with measuring quality that many other affiliated organizations are also facing.
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
- See discussion page.
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 global targets | 4 | The plan addresses strategic priorities of Increase reach and Stabilize infrastructure. |
|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to the global targets, if executed well | 4 | There is a clear correlation between the priorities and the strategies. | |
| (C) The initiatives in the plan have the potential to lead to significant impact, given context and amount of funds proposed | 4 | Impact is efficient for a relatively small amount. | |
| Ability to execute | (D) The entity has the resources, skills, and capacity (staff, volunteer, non-staff) for the plan to succeed | 4 | The entity has good resources at its disposal in terms of staff and volunteers. |
| (E) The entity has a record of success in similar initiatives | 4 | WMAR is mostly executing initiatives in which it has proven past success, such as GLAM programs and education programs. | |
| (F) The entity's leadership is effective, committed, and relatively stable | 4 | WMAR has shown strong leadership, even during staff transitions and has successfully embarked upon a professionalization plan. | |
| Efficient use of funds | (G) The funding requested is reasonable given the proposed initiatives | 4 | For the activities proposed, the request is efficient. |
| (H) The entity has a record of using funds efficiently and staying on budget | 4 | Good record with reporting and fair record with grant execution. Some grant reports have been late, but WMAR has been improving. | |
| Quality of proposed measures of success | (I) Clear indicators of success are outlined in the plan | 3 | Metrics outlined in the proposal are not strongly linked to the strategic priorities. |
| (J) A plan is in place to track the proposed metrics | 2 | It is unclear how WMAR will track these metrics. | |
| (K) The entity has a feasible plan in place to track the proposed metrics | 3 | If a better plan were in place, staff would probably have the capacity to track these 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 replicated elsewhere in the movement | 4 | There is a good potential for replication of programs within the region. |
| (M) The entity is ready to share with the movement the lessons learned from the initiatives | 4 | WMAR is a leader within their region and collaborates regularly with other local chapters to share learning within the region. |
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 global targets | The plan will not directly address any global targets | The plan will partially address global targets or other goals that are closely related to the global targets | The plan will directly address several global targets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (B) The initiatives have the potential to lead to the targets, if executed well | The initiatives have no clear connection to global targets | Some or all of the initiatives have an unclear relationship to global targets | The initiatives have been shown (by the entity or the movement) to lead to global targets | |
| (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 |
| (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 replicated 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 |
This form was created by: Wolliff (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)