Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round2/Wikimedia Norge/Staff proposal assessment

The staff proposal assessment is one of the inputs into the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) proposal review process, and is reviewed by the FDC in preparation for and during the in-person deliberations each round. The purpose of the staff proposal assessment is to offer the FDC an overview of the expert opinions of the FDC staff team about this annual plan grant proposal. Members of the FDC review each proposal in its entirety, including relevant background documents, inputs from WMF grants officers, the learning and evaluation team, and finance staff. They also analyze the detailed discussions surrounding each proposal that include questions and comments from community members. FDC staff do not participate in the actual decision-making process of the FDC; their primary role is to identify key strengths and concerns for the FDC to consider while making funding recommendations.

This staff proposal assessment, which was refined after the first two years of the FDC process, consists of three parts: (1) Overview, including a financial summary and a summary of strengths and concerns; (2) Staff proposal assessment narrative, including a nuanced analysis of the programs, context, and the feasibility of each plan; (3) Staff proposal assessment rubric, assessing each proposal across three dimensions by identifying areas of strength and concern. Read more about the methodology behind the Staff proposal assessment rubric on this page.

Staff proposal assessments do not represent the views on any one staff person, since all FDC staff (unless one of them recuses for some reason) work together to complete each staff proposal assessment, and may consult with other key WMF staff and other experts as needed. While assessments will not be changed after they are published except to correct significant factual errors, organizations are welcome to share responses on the discussion page of each staff proposal assessment if they would like to provide the FDC with additional information or perspectives on the assessments.

Overview for all assessmentsEdit

As in Round 1 of 2014-2015, proposals in 2014-2015 Round 2 are being assessed in the context of some preliminary impact data for grants and programs over the last two years, and our current and future approach is being guided by this analysis. In particular, we have been rigorous with our assessments of the Wikimedia organizations with the largest budgets and requests, as we expect them to be delivering outcomes to scale.

For example, we were able to access data from the first round of impact reports for grantees entering the APG process in 2012-2013 Round 2 (i.e. Wikimedia Norge and Wikimédia France), as well as progress reports received from the current grants (i.e. Q1 and Q2 reports) and project grant reports for all organizations but Wikimedia Italia, which is new to the APG program and did not receive significant project funding in the past. This allowed for a more detailed assessment of proposed goals against progress in the current year, as well as the current year’s progress against the current year’s goals. In some cases, we were also able to compare the current year’s goals and performance with past achievements. A move toward the inclusion of more easily comparable metrics in reports also assisted with this analysis.

There are a few overarching themes we noticed in this year’s proposals that we want to highlight. Please note that any examples used are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

Train the Trainer approachesEdit

In this round, we noticed a focus on Train the Trainer (TTT) approaches, which builds on the interest from Round 1. With a TTT approach, organizations target and train a group of participants on specific topic areas so they may in turn train others. If designed and implemented well, this program approach may have potential to expand reach in the movement and improve relevant skills beyond an organization’s direct sphere of influence.

This approach, which takes significant resources and organizational focus, requires more clearly articulated strategies, documented/centralized resources, and measurement and evaluation of the results. Most organizations are not yet evaluating skills developed, results of trainings after the original trainings, or attitudinal shifts, and so it is difficult to understand the impact of these programs. Furthermore, we are concerned not to see plans for sustaining engagement with these trainees after trainings.

We encourage organizations to document results and resources invested in these programs. We also encourage organizations to develop engagement plans before new training programs are implemented. Finally, we also encourage organizations start small before making the decision to invest in programs more significantly.

Metrics and evaluationEdit

As in Round 1, we realize that all Wikimedia organizations in this round are improving their measures of success and attempting to demonstrate impact. This work is not easy; we recognize the effort. For example, we are pleased to see some (including Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, and CIS) offer baselines and projected outputs and outcomes. This is a significant improvement from 2013-2014 Round 2 proposals.

However, not all programs include metrics, particularly around outcomes. We are very concerned, particularly in the case of the larger organizations, about the lack of a baseline and project outcomes beyond outputs. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are both important. The Wikimedia Foundation will provide continued support to organizations who request it to develop capacity in evaluation. On the quantitative side, we encourage organizations to establish systems to track the global metrics, as they will need to report on in order to understand their work in a broader context, and also to continue to carefully consider what metrics will be most relevant in their contexts.

Diversification of funds and resourcesEdit

Especially for organizations with larger budgets, we are monitoring reliance on APG funding. Organizational reliance on APG funds (expressed as a total percentage of revenue) may be increasing for some, and in other cases may not be decreasing at a sufficient pace. In some cases, large organizations are not meeting fundraising targets or cultivating sustainable longer term institutional partnerships. We are particularly impressed with organizations in the global south who have been able to cultivate donors.

All organizations in this round are proposing significant total budget growth. Each organization’s growth must be examined in context, but in some cases this rapid growth does raise capacity concerns.

As we noted in Round 1, the diversification of resources is not only needed in order to maintain the sustainability of each individual organization and the global movement, it is also a way to build awareness of the Wikimedia mission.

Lobbying and political advocacyEdit

In Round 1, we saw organizations express significant interest in policy, advocacy, and awareness.

In Round 2, Wikimedia Italia has proposed to engage a lobbyist to address legal threats to its program. Any lobbying work requires some oversight from the Wikimedia Foundation. We will monitor this work over time.

Increase in program activities and organizational capacityEdit

In many cases, organizations are planning a large number of programs, with a many activities. This raises concerns around organizational capacity. Beyond the activity and staff expenses for each program, programs represent a significant investment of organizational focus. We encourage organizations to group programs or prioritize them appropriately in order to present a clear picture of what they are trying to achieve and why, and in order to reduce strain on volunteer boards, staff, online contributors, and offline volunteers active in program areas that can result from too many dispersed activities. We encourage organizations to focus on their strengths rather than to experiment in every area. In this way, organizations can experiment with thoughtful adaptations of existing approaches based on local context and the organization’s expertise, and with small scale pilots with potential to scale up.

As we noted in Round 1 around proactive and responsive community engagement strategies, we realize it is not easy to achieve a good balance of responding to community needs and leading strategic work for the movement. Refining focus will be an ongoing process.

Diversity and work on projects other than Wikipedia and CommonsEdit

As in Round 1, an interesting development is the increasing focus on Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia. For example, we have seen CIS and Wikimedia Armenia integrate work on Wikisource and Wiktionary into key programs.

As in Round 1, we are also assessing proposals across the dimension of diversity, and we have seen Round 2 organizations focusing on this in their contexts through both a regional and a gender-focused lens. Some organizations have diversity at the core of their missions (e.g. CIS, Wikimedia Armenia), some are approaching this work through a cross-cutting approach (e.g. Wikimedia Italia) and others have designed specific programs to address diversity (e.g. Wikimedia Norge).

OverviewEdit

Overall assessment and eligibilityEdit

Organization

Wikimedia Norge

Eligibility

Confirmed

SummaryEdit

Current (projected)

Upcoming (proposed)

Proposed change (as a +/- percentage)

FDC or PEG funding

$168,544 $273,357 62%

Budget

$182,734 $333,365 82%

Staff

1.70 3.00 76%

Overview of strengths and concernsEdit

This section summarizes the key strengths and concerns identified by staff, which are explained in the detailed narrative section of this assessment.

StrengthsEdit

  • Stable and effective leadership, including a diverse board
  • Focused and feasible plan that builds on expertise (e.g. GLAM, online contests) with a reasonable number of programs and deepening approaches (e.g. partnerships)
  • Wikimedia Norge is moving toward assessing opportunities in its external environment and core content gaps on the projects

ConcernsEdit

  • Have not demonstrated sufficient past impact commensurate with funding
  • Wikimedia Norge has not taken a measured approach to growing its staff, and is increasing its reliance on APG funding to support staff growth
  • Wikimedia Norge needs to grow in reflection about successes and challenges, and in its ability to budget more accurately

Staff proposal assessment narrativeEdit

This section takes an in-depth look at the strategy behind this proposal, this organization's broader context, and the feasibility and risks of this plan.

Context and potential for impactEdit

This section takes a close look at this organization's context, since there will be unique factors specific to this organization or to its environment that enable this plan to have impact or that make this plan less likely to have impact. Here are some questions we will consider:

EnvironmentEdit

How does this organization's environment (including its local context and its community) enable this plan to succeed and have impact? Are there risks and opportunities presented by this organization's environment? Are there extraordinary events or other factors that need to be considered as part of this organization's context?

  • Wikimedia Norge is cultivating opportunities in its local context to engage with GLAM institutions and encourage content donations.
  • While Wikimedia Norge invests in activities for members to meet offline, it is unclear how Wikimedia Norge is engaging with online contributors or how it connects these offline activities with online work.
  • Wikimedia Norge works with several small language communities, and so may be better placed to impact content rather than participation in its language contexts. Wikimedia Norge is actively strategizing about how to increase female participation in its projects, which may be present the best opportunity for impact in this area.

Past performanceEdit

Will this organization's past performance with program implementation enable this plan to succeed? Does it raise any concerns?

  • In past years, Wikimedia Norge has not demonstrated significant impact commensurate with the amount of funding received.
  • In the course of funding period 2014-15, Wikimedia Norge revised its goals so significantly that results are difficult to track against targets.
  • While Wikimedia Norge has achieved 20,000 images uploaded and 1600 articles created through its GLAM and Gender Gap work, it is unclear if any progress has been made in the area of advocacy / awareness.

Organizational effectivenessEdit

Will this organization's overall effectiveness enable this plan to succeed? Does it raise any concerns?

  • Wikimedia Norge has made great strides in board diversity in the current year, in accordance with its gender diversity goals and has hired an Executive Director to manage its programs.
  • Wikimedia Norge does not have a strong track record of consistent or realistic budgeting, and concerns around its financial systems (including dependence on a single board member, and the need to upgrade to new systems) were noted during a 2014 site visit.
  • While it has made some improvements, Wikimedia Norge is still not showing a sufficient amount of reflection on lessons learned and challenges in its reports. For example, we are surprised that an organization of Wikimedia Norge’s size does not produce quality monthly or annual activity reports on par with organization’s of a similar budget. We are encouraged to see more evidence of learning and reflection in the proposal form itself, which provided details about past successes and challenges, as well as progress against goals and metrics for each program.
  • As part of its strategic plan, Wikimedia Norge is actively gathering information about its working environment. We welcome this approach and look forward to learning more about how it leads to improved program design. Wikimedia Norge notes that “the development of (core) article cover is poorly mapped and understood, and should be addressed in the upcoming period.” We also think this will be essential for Wikimedia Norge to better articulate the needs for its content-focused programs.
  • Wikimedia Norge has not taken a measured approach to growing its staff. Wikimedia Norge expanded its staff significantly while reducing program expenses when it did not meet revenue targets for the current year. This is a concern, since staff represent an ongoing commitment for Wikimedia Norge and the movement, and the expansion of staff should be carefully considered. This is also a concern, as it is not clear that volunteer engagement is deepening at the same pace that staff is expanding, resulting in activities that seem mostly staff-led.

Strategy, program design, and program implementationEdit

This section takes a close look at this organization's plans for its programs, including its past performance with program implementation. In this section, we may also identify specific programs that seem to have particularly high or low potential for impact. Here are some questions we will consider:

StrategyEdit

Does this organization have a high-quality strategic plan in place, and are programs well-aligned with this strategic plan? Is this organization proposing significant changes to its strategy, or are the strategic plan and annual plan consistent with past strategies? Is this organization's strategy and are this organization's programs aligned with the Strategic Priorities of Increasing participation, Improving quality, or Increasing reach?

  • Wikimedia Norge has a strategic plan for 2011-2015, and a strategy document to guide its plan in 2014-2015. Wikimedia Norge had planned to produce a strategy document to guide its plan in 2015-16 in April.
  • Wikimedia Norge’s strategic plan is focused on institutionalization to some extent, but also includes a strong focus on quality. Wikimedia Norge’s GLAM work is strongly aligned with this focus.
  • At the same time, Wikimedia Norge is not on track to meet the ambitious goals set in the 2011-2015 document, which are focused on growing active editorship on Saami, Nynorsk, and Bokmal Wikipedias as well as the creation of significant numbers of articles on these projects. While images and gender gap are a relatively small focus of this strategic plan, Wikimedia Norge seems to have changed directions in order to emphasize these areas. Since the organization is emphasizing gender gap work and image uploads, it may be heading in a different direction in 2016 from their current plan.

Program designEdit

Do proposed programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, and are program activities and results logically linked?

  • Wikimedia Norge’s proposal is highly focused, with an emphasis on three key programs, and is exploring some of these approaches more deeply (e.g. changing approach to partnerships). We greatly appreciate the clear focus of the plan.
  • Throughout the proposal, there are not clearly articulated needs for each program, and so it is difficult to understand why Wikimedia Norge is pursuing these particular programs or how its programs relate to the needs of the online communities it work with.
  • In some cases, targets for programs are lower in the current year. This may make sense in the context of changing approaches (e.g. deepening partnerships rather than increasing the number of partnerships), but it is less clear why goals for content generated through GLAM partnerships seem lower (e.g. 15,000 images for next year, while 20,000 already achieved so far in the current year).
  • No relevant targets are provided for the Academic Wikipedia program, and so it is hard to establish a link between this program and online impact.
  • While Wikimedia Norge has chosen to present its gender gap work as standalone program, few targets have been set in this area (beyond participation rates). While it is good that Wikimedia Norge has included a target for 40% female participation in its activities, we need to see a link between offline work and online impact.

Specific programsEdit

Based on proposed plans and past work, which programs may have the highest potential for impact corresponding to the amount of funding requested, and which programs may not have impact corresponding to the funds requested?

  • Wikimedia Norge’s GLAM program is its strongest program, and builds on Wikimedia Norge’s past experience with GLAM partnerships.
  • Wikimedia Norge is reducing the number of partnerships planned to focus on deepening gaining content contributions through these partnerships. We hope this approach leads to a significant amount of meaningful content and fills online content gaps.
  • Wikimedia Norge is a pilot global community of the Wikimedia Library. This work has high potential to benefit online contributors and enable quality content creation and the participation of very active editors in Wikimedia Norge’s communities. We are very much looking forward to the results of the pilot, and thank Wikimedia Norge for taking on this work.
  • Wikimedia Norge has shown good results through its editing competitions, which have resulted in the creation of articles on topics related to women. We would like to see significant reflection on this work as Wikimedia Norge continues to run competitions and refine them to achieve even better results.
  • Wikimedia Norge’s gender gap work may have potential, but we would like to see a clear connection between offline work (increasing female participants in Wikimedia Norge’s activities), and greater diversity in online communities.
  • Academic Wikipedia is Wikimedia Norge’s least high potential program, as it is not clearly linked to online impact and lacks targets. Significant budget resources are devoted to the Wikipedia Academy (as part of the GLAM program), and it is also not clearly linked to online impact.

BudgetEdit

Is this plan and budget focused on the programs with the highest potential for online impact?

  • While Wikimedia Norge is requesting a significant increase in APG funding, and has received significant increases in APG funding over the past several years, this year’s request does not correspond to potential impact.
  • Funding is focused on staff and operating expenses, and proposed new staff would be dedicated to Academic Wikipedia, a program without clear potential impact. Wikipedia Academy is the most expensive program, and yet it lacks clear targets related to online impact.
  • Wikimedia Norge’s budget is not sufficiently detailed for an organization of its size. In many cases, it is difficult to understand how the expenses for certain activities would lead to impact.
  • We are concerned that Wikimedia Norge has not been successful in meeting its modest external revenue targets. It is not growing non-APG funding or its volunteer community at an appropriate pace to match its growth in budget and staff-supported activities.
  • Wikimedia Norge has a history of inaccurate budgeting, with constant revisions, and a spotty history of reporting. However, Wikimedia Norge’s reporting has greatly improved since it joined the APG process.

Feasibility and risksEdit

How likely is it that this organization can implement this plan successfully if funded? Is this plan likely to achieve impact corresponding to the funds requested?

  • Wikimedia Norge has a focused plan and is building on past program experience in areas like GLAM partnerships, and it seems feasible that Wikimedia Norge can deliver the results proposed.
  • Even if Wikimedia Norge executes this plan successfully, proposed impact will not be commensurate to the funding requested. An increase in APG funding is not likely to lead to a corresponding increase in impact, based on proposed targets and current and past performance.
  • We do not recommend that Wikimedia Norge increase its staff without securing significant non-APG funding to support its continued growth. An increase in APG funding to support ongoing staff expenses could be a significant risk for the movement, since growing staff further may not correspond to commensurate online impact.


Staff proposal assessment frameworkEdit

This framework assesses annual plan grant proposals across the three dimensions of (1) Program design and strategic alignment, (2) Organizational capacity and effectiveness, and (3) Budgeting by identifying strengths and concerns in each of these areas.

In each assessment, an organization’s context is taken into account and so criteria may be applied differently in different contexts. For example, a smaller organization with less experience will not be expected to have a formal learning and evaluation program that a larger more experienced organization might have, and so what may constitute a major strength for a smaller organization in the same category may not constitute a major strength for a larger organization. With this approach, the criteria listed here are not weighted equally, and so an “overall assessment” cannot be determined simply by adding up the numbers of strengths and concerns identified for each dimension. Also note that the scale here is not linear and so we do not assign any numerical values to the assessments given for each criterion. More information about each criterion is shared in the assessment. We believe a framework like this is helpful, as it ensures that each proposal is assessed consistently, even as they are applied with contextual nuance.

The dimension “Program design and strategic alignment” addresses many high-level elements, focusing on how likely programs are to achieve progress toward some of the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities. Programs need to show clear links between strategic priorities and program objectives, program objectives and targets, and targets and program activities. In addition, programs should focus on areas that will impact participation, reach, and quality on the Wikimedia projects, with an emphasis on approaches and programs that increase diversity.

Meanwhile, the dimension “Organizational capacity and effectiveness” looks at the ability of an organization to achieve its plan based on both past experience (as an indicator of future success) and current practice. An effective organization both learns from past experience and contributes to movement learning in the process. This dimension also includes effective and stable leadership that models good practices, and a rational approach to growth that is supported by the organization’s strategy and context.

Finally, we analyze the organization’s past experience with and current plan for budgeting. Here, we look at how the organization has performed against its plans and budgets in the past.

To complete the assessment, we assess each of the criteria in each category according to the following scale, which is not necessarily linear:

  • Major strength
  • Strength
  • Neither a strength nor a concern
  • Concern
  • Major concern
Criterion Assessment Description
Program design and strategic alignment
P1. Strategy and alignment Strength Programs objectives are strongly aligned with the Wikimedia strategic priorities of improving quality. The organization has a strategic plan in place.
P2. Targets and logic models Neither While some programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, other programs are lacking important information (e.g. Academic Wikipedia). Global metrics are not consistently incorporated in this plan.
P3. Needs assessments Concern There is not evidence that program objectives are based on clearly articulated needs from stakeholders (i.e. partners, community members, etc).
P4. Potential for impact at scale Concern Given current targets and past performance, programs are not likely to lead to significant impact on the Wikimedia strategic priorities at scale and corresponding with the funding requested.
P5. Evaluation methods Neither While Wikimedia Norge may have some capacity to effectively measure results, we derived more information about current performance from the proposal form than from the reports (which lack meaningful metrics).
P6. New ideas and approaches, or thoughtful adaptations Neither Most programs are considered in Wikimedia Norge's context and there are some thoughtful adaptations (e.g. The Wikipedia Library).
P7. Diversity Neither Programs are not likely to expand the participation in and reach of the Wikimedia movement at a level corresponding with impact. Gender work may not lead to significant outcomes, although the organization is targeting 40% female participation in all events and has content targets for articles created on topics related to women.
Organizational capacity and effectiveness
O1. Past results Concern Wikimedia Norge has had difficulty reporting past results and has not provided consistent targets against which we can evaluate past performance. While some progress has been made in the area of content, it is not commensurate with funding received.
O2. Stability and leadership Strength Stable, effective leadership and good governance will enable this plan to succeed. Wikimedia Norge can strengthen its financial systems (e.g. financial systems rely on a single point of failure).
O3. Learning Neither Despite past input from the FDC and FDC staff, Wikimedia Norge has not shown sufficient reflection on risks and challenges in its reports. At the same time, Wikimedia Norge is actively strategizing around applying learning about its external environment to its programs (including plans to assess core content gaps).
O4. Improving movement practices Neither Wikimedia Norge does not yet produce annual or monthly activity reports at a standard comparable with similarly funded organizations, and is mostly active regionally rather than an international movement leader.
O5. Community engagement Concern Many activities seem staff-led rather than volunteer led, which presents concerns around Wikimedia Norge's ability to effectively engage key communities and volunteers in the planning and implementation of its work. Concern around staff performing roles volunteers would normally do (e.g. hiring a Technical Manager who will oversee and carry out uploads for partner institutions).
O6. Capacity Strength Wikimedia Norge has the resources and ability to do the plan proposed. This plan is focused and feasible given Wikimedia Norge's resources and experience.
Budget
1. Past budgeting and spending Concern Wikimedia Norge has a history of revising its budgets, which makes it difficult to assess how effectively it is spending over time. There are some concerns around this organization's financial systems, and past spending does not appear to lead to impact.
B2. Proposed budget is realistic Concern This budget does not include sufficient detail for an organization of Wikimedia Norge's size and many amounts in the budget do not appear to be based on realistic estimates.
B3. Budget is focused on programmatic impact Concern Based on past performance and current plans, there are serious concerns that funds are not well-aligned with the highest impact areas. Results achieved to date, while an improvement from the previous year, are not sufficient in the context of previous grants.


This staff proposal assessment is the work of FDC staff and is submitted by: Winifred Olliff (WMF Program Officer) talk 22:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Staff proposal assessment rubric descriptionEdit

This rubric assesses annual plan grant proposals across the three dimensions of (1) Program design and strategic alignment, (2) Organizational capacity and effectiveness, and (3) Budgeting by identifying strengths and concerns in each of these areas.

In each assessment, an organization’s context is taken into account and so criteria may be applied differently in different contexts. For example, a smaller organization with less experience will not be expected to have a formal learning and evaluation program that a larger more experienced organization might have, and so what may constitute a major strength for a smaller organization in the same category may not constitute a major strength for a larger organization. With this approach, the criteria listed here are not weighted equally, and so an “overall assessment” cannot be determined simply by adding up the numbers of strengths and concerns identified for each dimension. Also note that the scale here is not linear and so we will not assign any numerical values to the assessments given for each criterion. More information about each criterion is shared in the assessment. We still believe a rubric like this is helpful, as it ensures that staff analysis of each proposal is based on the same criteria, even as they are applied in a nuanced way.

The dimension “Program design and strategic alignment” addresses many high-level elements, focusing on how likely programs are to achieve progress toward some of the Wikimedia movement's strategic priorities. Programs need to show clear links between strategic priorities and program objectives, program objectives and targets, and targets and program activities. In addition, programs should focus on areas that will impact participation, reach, and quality on the Wikimedia projects, with an emphasis on approaches and programs that increase diversity.

Meanwhile, the dimension “Organizational capacity and effectiveness” looks at the ability of an organization to achieve its plan based on both past experience (as an indicator of future success) and current practice. An effective organization both learns from past experience and contributes to movement learning in the process. This dimension also includes effective and stable leadership that models good practices, and a rational approach to growth that is supported by the organization’s strategy and context.

Finally, we analyze the organization’s past experience with and current plan for budgeting. Here, we look at how the organization has performed against its plans and budgets in the past.

To complete the assessment, we assess each of the criterion in each category according to the following scale, which is not necessarily linear:

  • Major strength
  • Strength
  • Neither a strength nor a concern
  • Concern
  • Major concern

Criterion

Description

Program design and strategic alignment

P1. Strategy and alignment

Programs objectives are strongly aligned with the Wikimedia strategic priorities of increasing reach, improving quality, or increasing participation. The organization has a strategic plan in place.

P2. Targets and logic models

Programs have specific, measurable, time-bound objectives with clear targets, and programs present clear links between planned activities and desired results.

P3. Needs assessments

Program objectives are based on needs assessed in consultation with stakeholders, including the communities and volunteers that are working together with this organization to achieve its program objectives.

P4. Potential for impact at scale

Programs could lead to significant impact on the Wikimedia strategic priorities of increasing reach, improving quality, or increasing participation, at scale and corresponding to the amount of funds requested.

P5. Evaluation methods

Programs include a plan for measuring results and ensuring learning, and employ effective evaluation tools and systems.

P6. New ideas and approaches, or thoughtful adaptations

Programs will test new ideas and approaches or will thoughtfully adapt ideas and approaches that may work in this organization’s context.

P7. Diversity

Programs will expand the participation in and reach of the Wikimedia movement, especially in parts of the world or among groups that are not currently well-served.

Organizational capacity and effectiveness

O1. Past results

This organization has had success with similar programs or approaches in the past, and has effectively measured and documented the results of its past work.

O2. Stability and leadership

Stable, effective leadership and good governance will enable this plan to succeed. Any leadership transitions are managed effectively.

O3. Learning from the past

This organization is addressing risks and challenges effectively, is learning from and documenting past experiences, and is applying learning to improve its current and planned programs.

O4. Improving movement practices

This organization effectively shares learning about its work with the broader movement and beyond.

O5. Community engagement

This organization effectively engages key communities and volunteers in the planning and implementation of its work.

O6. Capacity

This organization has the resources and ability (for example, expertise, staff, experience managing funds) to do the plan proposed.

Budget

B1. Past budgeting and spending

This organization has a history of budgeting realistically and managing funds effectively in the past.

B2. Proposed budget is realistic

This proposal includes a budget that is comprehensive and clear, and that corresponds to the activities proposed.

B3. Budget is focused on programmatic impact

Based on past performance and current plans, funds are allocated to programs and activities with corresponding potential for programmatic impact.