Reimagining WMF grants
- 1 Summary
- 2 Next steps / implementation
- 3 Methods
- 4 Feedback about the idea
- 5 Feedback about the grants experience
- 5.1 Satisfaction
- 5.2 Aspects of the grants process
- 5.3 Resources and information
- 5.4 Importance of general support funding
- 6 Got more feedback?
- Priorities. Respondents overall prioritize achieving impact and simplicity and speed in the application process as even more important than community participation. Respondents' priorities also align well with the design principles outlined in the original idea of clear pathways, impact, and simplicity. (see Aspects of the grants process)
- Support. Non-monetary support is important to respondents, and so is receiving the right kind of support. Connections, budget guidelines, and online resources are seen as most important, and the need for more targeted support is also emphasized. Respondents also described the need for better support during the application process and better tools and support for committees who are making decisions. Finally, collecting global metrics is a difficult part of the process that needs more support. (see Resources and information and Aspects of the grants process)
- Endorsements and strengths. Overall, many respondents endorse the idea, and like the new funding types and the ways funding could be used. For example, participants already like the way travel support works, like the idea of a simple process for annual plan grants, and liked the idea of a pipeline for experimenting and growing projects. Many respondents find the distinctions among grant types easy to understand and some think the process could reduce the time and work required. (see Strengths and concerns)
- Concerns and suggestions. Despite many overall endorsements, most respondents express both big and small concerns about the new structure, or have suggestions about how the idea could be improved. For some respondents, distinctions among grant types are not yet clear enough (e.g. seed vs. growth, projects vs. events, microfunds, research). Some are concerned that volunteers might spend too much time learning about the new structure. Some worry that rigid application cycles may not give volunteers enough flexibility to pursue opportunities throughout the year or when limited planning is required, and that limits on staff or funding could make some grant types less effective. (see Strengths and concerns and Suggestions)
Next steps / implementationEdit
Emphasis on supportEdit
To implement changes, we will first focus on the following priorities:
- Applicant support: Supporting applicants with easier forms, instructions, interfaces, and human interactions during the application process.
- Grantee support: Non-monetary support, including improving online resources targeted to specific topics and activities, and budget guidelines.
- Global metrics support, simplifying reporting, and better tools and support for committees to make decisions will also be key focuses in implementation.
We know that it is important to minimize disruption to communities and grantees as we implement changes, so we'll start by piloting new approaches in some areas while maintaining existing systems in the other areas. Eventually, we will move all grants over to the new structure. Most changes won't be noticeable until later in 2016.
|1 October 2015||Open applications for Simple Process Annual Plan Grants pilot (applications due 1 November for grants starting 1 January)*|
|March 2016||Preliminary evaluation of Simple Process Annual Plan Grants based on first application phase|
|March - June 2016||Finalize changes to Full Process Annual Plan Grants based on simple process pilot and consultation feedback.|
|July 2016||Implement changes to Full Process Annual Plan Grants for round 1 2016/2017 applicants|
|July-September 2016||Transition Individual Engagement Grants + Project and Event Grants to Project Grants and Rapid Grants|
|March 2017||Evaluate Simple Process Annual Plan Grants pilot with data from first round of grant reports.|
We gathered feedback from respondents through three channels:
- IdeaLab. 34 people shared their thoughts on the Idea discussion page, and through endorsements on the idea page.
- Survey. 198 people shared their thoughts in a survey that included multiple choice questions as well as open ended questions about the Idea.
- Conversations. 13 people sent us thoughts by email or voice.
Having multiple channels for this consultation, including alternatives to a public discussion page, was very useful. The survey allowed us to gather qualitative feedback from a diverse range of contributors, including participants from emerging communities. The survey also allowed us to collect specific information about how respondents prioritize or experience different aspects of the grants process, and may allow us to compare responses over time. We also performed a historical analysis to understand how a new program structure would have affected grants awarded in WMF fiscal year 2013-14. This new structure was applied to all grants programs, except the Annual Plan Grants program (i.e. Project and Event Grants, Individual Engagement Grants, Travel and Participation Support, and Wikimania Scholarships). The final results from this historical analysis are summarized as part of the Non-APG Grants Impact Analysis for Fiscal Year 2013-14.
Feedback about the ideaEdit
Strengths and concernsEdit
It is important to us to look at what specific strengths and concerns about the idea were identified. We identified some of the most frequently mentioned strengths and concerns, which are summarized in this table below.
|The distinctions between grant types and options make things more clear. We found this strength about 41 times.|
||The distinctions between grant types and options are not clear. We found this concern identified about 30 times.
|The process will be simpler. This will make things easier for applicants and grantees. We found this strength about 39 times. |
||Too much time and work required will be required from volunteers to learn this idea. We found this concern identified about 31 times.
|We like the types of funding offered and the ways funding can be used. We found this strength about 29 times.|
|| We are not satisfied with the types of funding offered and the ways funding can be used. We found this concern identified about 20 times.
We also identified some strengths and concerns that were less frequent, but still came up quite often. Concerns include complexity, inflexibility, concerns that the idea would not appropriately address risk. Some other strengths include around how the idea emphasizes impact, and how the idea would save volunteers time and work.
We received almost 100 specific suggestions about how to improve this idea or the grants experience in general! We've tried to group and summarize them here.
We tracked what respondents are saying about what they need, both to make grants better and to do their work on the Wikimedia projects. This is an important area to track as we move forward with implementing changes. We read about 21 comments about specific needs.
A number of respondents identify alternative structures to the idea originally proposed. We received about 14 suggestions for alternative structures, which are summarized here.
Feedback about the grants experienceEdit
- Across all programs, 55% of respondents describe their experience as above average or excellent, while 21% described their experience as below average or very poor. It is important to note that survey respondents included people whose grant applications did not receive funding.
- Travel and Participation Support is working well. In line with our qualitative findings about the idea, survey respondents rank their satisfaction with the Travel and Participation Support program as above average (31.5%) or excellent (31.5%). Travel and Participation Support received the highest satisfaction ratings overall, with about 63% of respondents describing their overall experience as above average or excellent.
- People with experience with Annual Plan Grants are less satisfied, with only about 38% describing their experience as above average or excellent. 36% described their experience as average, and 26% described their experience as below average or very poor.
Aspects of the grants processEdit
Resources and informationEdit
Importance of general support fundingEdit
Got more feedback?Edit
Let's keep the conversation going! Please share your thoughts about either this report or next steps & implementation on the discussion page.