Grants:APG/Feedback and continuous improvement of the FDC process/Process Survey/2012-13 Year Review

OverviewEdit

This is the summary of the survey results from the participants of the FDC process, 2012-13 Rounds 1 & 2. This particular overview was created for the FDC Advisory Group, July 2013.

 
Overview of the FDC process for 2012-13 Fiscal Year. It covers the feedback from Rounds 1 and 2 of funding collected via the Process Survey.

The summary was prepared by the WMF Grantmaking Learning & Evaluation (L&E) team. Likewise, the surveys themselves were conducted by the L&E team. The L&E team is a shared resource for the entire Grantmaking staff, not specifically dedicated to the FDC work or the FDC staff.

Executive SummaryEdit

  • Over the first year of the FDC process, average satisfaction rates of the FDC process have been between "satisfied" and "very satisfied." This was the overall average across all parties (e.g., FDC Advisory Group, FDC Staff, FDC Board Representatives, FDC applicants, Community Members, FDC).
  • While the process is deemed appropriately time-consuming given the amounts and nature of the funds, the FDC should continue to seek ways to minimize difficulties in the process. For example, the FDC could explore ways to:
  1. Incorporate other forms than MediaWiki for inputs, such as a Google spreadsheet for financial statements
  2. Continue to simplify the proposal template
  3. Identify the most critical questions during the proposal review period
  • Communication regarding eligibility, expectations, and proposal process should be augmented to better service different English skills and describe complicated policies. For example, the FDC could:
  1. Offer various channels (phone, skype, IRC, and if possible, in person) for entities to engage with the FDC and FDC Staff. This could occur pre-proposal or during proposal review
  2. Improve the portal to make it easier to find information and track conversations
  3. Provide detail on purposes of different grants programs offered by WMF
  • Clarify contentious points in the process, most particularly around eligibility requirements for the FDC, expectations during proposal review, and complaints and appeals process