Grants:APG/FDC portal/Feedback and continuous improvement of the FDC process/Process Survey/2012-13 Round 2
This is the summary of the survey results from the participants of the FDC process, 2012-13 Round 2. This includes both the Process Survey (N=16) and the Cost-Benefit Survey (N=1).
Context of Round 2 edit
- Round 2 had four total applications: 25% of the number of applicants as Round 1 (R1)
- 50% of the applicants received 0% of their requested funding, due to eligibility
- The other 50% of applicants received a collective 67% of requested funds
- One applicant was re-applying after Round 1, upon the R1 recommendation of the FDC
- Less than 25% of the respondents from the Process Survey were applicants, and only one of the four applicants responded (partially) to the Cost-Benefit survey
- This means we are unable to accurately assess the amount of resources that went into R2 on the part of the applicants
Executive Summary edit
- The results of these survey should be viewed in light of the overall context of the Round 2 FDC process
- The “Overall” results are heavily weighted towards WMF-FDC Staff and FDC members
- The “Entity/Community” results are mostly negative
- The Entities (respondents) that applied for funds in Round 2 were dissatisfied with the process and did not agree that the process was fair, reasonable, or well-communicated
- Those directly involved with managing the process (FDC / ombudsperson / staff) are satisfied with the process overall, though largely agree that impact remains to be seen in strategic goals.
- The FDC application process should consider changes to improve clarity and increase efficiency.
- For example, avoiding “corporate speak,” defining key terms (e.g., “programs”), clarifying eligibility, and exploring application avenues outside of MediaWiki (e.g., video chat, Google spreadsheet, in-person interview)
Process improvements resulting from this survey edit
- Revamp the FDC portal - Planned revamp prior to Round 1, 2013-14
- Clarify eligibility requirements - requiring Letter of Intent from all applying entities; ongoing monitoring of eligibility compliance of applicants throughout process:
- The detailed eligibility checklist now outlines upcoming requirements (e.g. per chapter or grant agreements or current grant requirements) to maintain FDC eligibility status throughout the FDC process. These are noted as “potential gaps,” and as those deadlines come up, entities will need to fill those gaps (for example, by posting their documents and linking to them from the Reports page on Meta) in order to maintain their eligibility status with the FDC. This change was made to allow entities, the FDC, and the FDC staff to track eligibility better and ensure that everyone is informed of potential as well as current issues that may affect eligibility.
- Simplifying language - using less jargon and more definitions on proposal form, working with Program Evaluation & Design team on a glossary of terms