보조금:아이디어랩/WMF 보조금 재 구상/성과

WMF 보조금 재 구상

성과

토론 자료:

• Implementation and next steps
• 이 상담에 대해
• 보조금 재 구상 FAQ
• 공동체 자료

Summary

“

Great idea to help make it much clearer for those that have great ideas or ambitions to have the opportunity to more easily apply for funding to fulfill those ambitions.

”

“

Use of time and resource - how much time and resource would a user have to commit to get a grant filed and approved? As low as possible, ideally.

”

2015년 8월 17일부터 9월 7일까지 커뮤니티 리소스는 WMF 보조금을 재 구상하기 위한 아이디어에 대한 상담을 개최했습니다. 이번 협의를 통해 200명 이상의 사람들로부터 들은 내용을 바탕으로 WMF는 다음과 같은 수정을 통해 보조금 구조 조정을 진행할 계획입니다:

1. 광범위한 "행사" 개념 대신 컨퍼런스 지원 및 여행 지원을 제공합니다. 우리는 위키마니아 장학금과 함께 현재의 여행 및 참여 지원 프로그램을 계속 제공하고 컨퍼런스 주최자를 위한 대상 자원을 제공하기 위해 컨퍼런스 지원을 추가 할 것입니다. 프로젝트 보조금은 컨퍼런스 이외의 행사를 포함 할 수 있는 다른 오프라인 활동에 계속 자금을 지원할 것입니다.
2. 저위험 저비용 신속 보조금으로 속도와 단순성 및 유연성에 대한 요구를 충족하세요. 소액 펀드 개념을 신속 보조금으로 발전시켜 광범위한 커뮤니티 심의가 필요하지 않은 요청이나 실험에 대한 빠른 자금 지원 결정을 제공 할 것입니다. 신속 보조금은 더 많은 유연성을 제공하기 위해 연중 제공됩니다.
3. 프로젝트 보조금을 단순하게 유지하세요. 프로젝트 보조금은 실험을 프로그램으로 확장하기위한 파이프 라인 아이디어를 유지하지만 지원자가 프로젝트 단계를 스스로 구분할 필요가 없도록합니다. 신청은 분기별로 접수되지만 다른 프로그램 요구 사항을 유연하게 유지하고 갱신을 위한 간단한 절차를 만들 것입니다.
4. 보다 유연한 지원과 함께 간단한 절차 연간 계획 보조금 파일럿. 우리는 직원 제한없이 연간 계획 보조금에 대한 간단한 절차를 시범 운영하고, 연중 자금 한도까지 증가를 요청하는 절차를 만들 것입니다.
5. 지원에 집중하세요. 변경 사항을 구현함에 따라 특히 지원자를 위한 지원을 늘리는 데 집중할 것입니다. 응답자가 최우선 순위로 식별 한 리소스 (다른 사람과의 연결, 일반적인 온라인 리소스, 예산 지침)를 개선하는 데 초점을 맞출 것입니다. 우리는 특정 요구와 주제에 대해 보조금 수급자를 지원할 계획입니다.

Key findings

• 우선 순위. 응답자들은 전체적으로 신청 과정에서 "효과 달성"과 "단순성과 속도"를 커뮤니티 참여보다 훨씬 더 중요하게 우선시합니다. 응답자의 우선 순위는 명확한 경로, 영향 및 단순성에 대한 원래 아이디어에 설명 된 설계 원칙과도 잘 일치합니다. ("보조금 프로세스의 측면" 참조)
• 지원. 비 금전적 지원은 응답자에게 중요하므로 올바른 종류의 지원을 받고 있습니다. "연결과 예산 지침 및 온라인 리소스"가 가장 중요한 것으로 간주되며 보다 "구체적인 지원"에 대한 필요성도 강조됩니다. 응답자들은 또한 "신청 과정에서 더 나은 지원"이 필요하고 의사 결정을 내리는 "위원회를 위한 더 나은 도구와 지원"이 필요하다고 설명했습니다. 마지막으로, "국제적인 기준 수집"은 더 많은 지원이 필요한 절차의 어려운 부분입니다. ("자원 및 정보" 및 "보조금 절차의 측면" 참조)
• 보증 및 강점. 전반적으로 많은 응답자들이 아이디어를 지지하고 새로운 자금 유형과 자금 사용 방법을 좋아합니다. 예를 들어, 참가자들은 연간 계획 보조금에 대한 간단한 절차 아이디어와 같은 여행 지원 작동 방식을 이미 좋아했으며 프로젝트 실험 및 성장을위한 파이프 라인 아이디어를 좋아했습니다. 많은 응답자들은 보조금 유형 간의 차이점을 이해하기 쉬우며 일부는 절차가 필요한 시간과 작업을 줄일 수 있다고 생각합니다.("강점 및 우려 사항" 참조)
• 우려 사항 및 제안. 전반적으로 많은 지지를 받았음에도 불구하고 대부분의 응답자는 새로운 구조에 대해 크고 작은 우려를 표명하거나 아이디어를 개선 할 수있는 방법에 대한 제안을 했습니다. 일부 응답자의 경우 보조금 유형 간의 차이가 아직 명확하지 않습니다 (예를 들어, 씨앗 대 성장, 프로젝트 대 행사, 소규모 펀드, 연구). 일부는 자원 봉사자들이 새로운 구조에 대해 배우는 데 너무 많은 시간을 할애 할 수 있다고 우려합니다. 일부는 엄격한 신청주기가 자원 봉사자에게 일년 내내 또는 제한된 계획이 필요할 때 기회를 추구 할 충분한 유연성을 제공하지 않을 수 있으며 직원 또는 자금의 제한으로 인해 일부 보조금 유형이 덜 효과적 일 수 있다고 우려합니다. ("강점과 우려" 및 "제안" 참조)

Next steps / implementation

Grants structure

아래 요약 된 피드백을 바탕으로 다음과 같은 보조금에 대한 새로운 구조로 나아갈 것입니다:

1. 신속 보조금. 일년 내내 기회에 대한 빠른 지원을 제공합니다. 시작하기 위해 광범위한 검토가 필요하지 않은 저위험 실험 및 표준 요구 사항(모임 등)에 대해 최대 $2000.
2. 프로젝트 보조금. 실험을 장려하고 효과적인 아이디어를 유지합니다. 12개월 동안 최대 $100,000. 실험 및 기존 프로젝트에 대한 지침과 지원 시스템이 다르지만 적용 절차는 하나입니다.
3. 연간 계획 보조금. 효과적인 프로그램을 개발하고 유지하는 조직을 지원합니다. 간단한 절차를 통해 12 개월 동안 최대 $ 100,000, 대규모 또는 무제한 보조금에 대한 전체 절차.
4. Conference and Travel Support. To support organizers and travelers attending conferences. Travel, kits and guidance, funds and merchandise, to foster community connections and learning.

Emphasis on support

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.

Timeline

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.

Timeline for changes to WMF grants

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.

* Applications can be made on a rolling basis throughout the 2016 pilot.

Methods

We gathered feedback from respondents through three channels:

1. IdeaLab. 34 people shared their thoughts on the Idea discussion page, and through endorsements on the idea page.
2. Survey. 198 people shared their thoughts in a survey that included multiple choice questions as well as open ended questions about the Idea.
3. 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 idea

Overall, the idea received many more overall endorsements than overall rejections. We found about 40 general endorsements and 6 general rejections, but many people who endorsed the idea overall also had concerns about the idea and suggestions to offer.

• Respondents identify about an equal number of specific strengths and concerns about the idea, and often disagree on key issues. We identified about 142 specific strengths, and about 139 specific concerns.
• Respondents offer more than 100 suggestions about how to improve grants or improve the idea.
• See our description of our methods to better understand the numbers in this section.

Strengths and concerns

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.

Strengths	Concerns
The distinctions between grant types and options make things more clear. We found this strength about 41 times. In general I find that the three groups of grants have names which correspond to the kind of supports the community/affiliates are seeking. ||The distinctions between grant types and options are not clear. We found this concern identified about 30 times. Branding in this proposal is "three types of grants", but the kinds of projects including in those three categories do not naturally go together, and the kinds of funding offers in each of these categories are not intuitive.
The process will be simpler. This will make things easier for applicants and grantees. We found this strength about 39 times. The new process separates out the more complex grants seeking restricted annual grants from the less complicated project and event type grants. ||Too much time and work required will be required from volunteers to learn this idea. We found this concern identified about 31 times. While I like the grant types and differentiation, I think that it is an inefficient use of community volunteer time to learn about these different grants.
We like the types of funding offered and the ways funding can be used. We found this strength about 29 times. Now has an option for small level grants for low-cost events and projects, rather than having to go through the full process for very small amounts of money. || 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. The new structure doesn't address, or worse, might make things tough for an organization in transition [such as from] 1 FTE to more employees.

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.

Suggestions

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.

Needs

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.

Alternative structures

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 experience

Overall survey findings show...

• 55% rank the grants experience as above average or excellent.
  • Travel and Participation Support receives 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 least satisfied, with only about 38% describing their experience as above average or excellent.
• 51% of respondents find the grants process to be easy, while 23% found it difficult.
  • Easiest aspect of the process: Doing the paperwork to get funds once the grant is approved.
  • Most difficult aspect of the process: Making an application and collecting global metrics for a grant report.
• Achieving impact, and speed and simplicity in the application process, are ranked as the highest priorities. These priorities are ranked more highly than community participation.
• Connections to others, financial guidelines, and online program resources are ranked as the most important forms of non-monetary support, and satisfaction ratings indicate there's room to improve in meeting these needs.

Satisfaction

• 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.

Respondents are able to get the information they need about grants, but need more timely and useful feedback about grant proposals and reports.

Aspects of the grants process

Resources and information

Importance of general support funding

Got more feedback?

Let's keep the conversation going! Please share your thoughts about either this report or next steps & implementation on the discussion page.