Reimagining WMF grants
|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.|
- 提供會議與旅遊補助，取代廣泛的「活動」補助。 我們將會繼續提供現在的旅行和參與支持計畫以及維基年會的獎助金，並且增加會議支持來提供會議組織者相關資源。計畫補助將會持續給離線活動提供資金，離線活動可以包含會議以外的活動。
- 低風險、低成本的快速補助（Rapid Grants）將會符合快速、簡便、以及彈性的需求。 我們正在開發微型基金的概念到快速補助之中，這將可以提供快速的資金決策以因應不需要徵求廣泛社群意見的請求或實驗。快速補助將會可以整年提供申請，以允許更多的彈性。
- 正在測試組織年度補助計畫的簡易版申請流程，更有彈性的支援。 我們將會測試組織年度補助計畫（Annual Plan Grants）的簡易版，移除了雇用工作人員的限制，並且將要求增加補助額度的流程改為隨時皆可申請。��
- 專注於支持角色。 在我們實施改革之時，我們將會聚焦在加強給申請者的支持。我們將會聚焦在加強在改善建議者給我們的優先事項：與他人的聯繫、整體線上資源的取得、以及預算設定的指導綱領。我們計畫將目標放在支持受補助者的特定需求和主題。
- 優先順序。 來自社群諮詢的回饋，整體上來看建議者希望能夠改善申請流程中「達成影響力」以及「簡單與快速」，上述兩者甚至比社群參與還要重要。回饋意見中認為是優先事項，也呼應了原本諮詢社群前，基金會就已經很清楚的流程、影響、以及簡單性的原始提案。 （詳見關於申請流程的相關事項）
- 支持。 回饋意見中也發現，金錢以外的支持很重要，同時也希望得到適當的支持。「聯繫、預算規劃的指引綱領、以及線上資源」則被視作最重要的，另外還有需要「對特定目標的支持」也有被強調。回饋的意見中也描述對於「在申請流程中有更好的支持」以及「更好用的工具以及更多從（做決定）的委員會來的支援」的需求。最後「收集全域量表」被視為是流程中很困難的部分也需要更多支持。 （詳見「資源與資訊」以及「關於申請流程的想法」）
- 回饋意見的支持與認同。 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)
- 考量與建議。 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 / implementation
- Rapid Grants. To provide quick support for opportunities throughout the year. Up to $2000 for low-risk experiments and standard needs (meetups, etc) that don't need broad review to get started.
- Project Grants. To promote experiments and sustain ideas that work. Up to $100,000 for 12 months. There will be different guidelines and support systems for experiments and established projects, but one application process.
- 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.
Annual Plan Grants
Conference and Travel Support
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||開放並導入簡易年度計畫申請（2015年11月1日開放申請，2016年1月1日開始補助）*|
|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.|
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.
Responses and demographics
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.
|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.
|Summary of suggestions we received|
Support applicants better
The most frequently offered suggestions focus on improving applicant support, with about 13 suggestions in this area.
We also received many suggestions that focused specifically on committees, with about 13 suggestions in this area. This may also be because we reached out to committees specifically to get feedback.
We found about 11 suggestions that focused on non-monetary support (beyond applicant support). We need more non-monetary support for,
We read more than 60 other suggestions, and we've summarized some of the main ideas here. Respondents offer many specific ideas about ways we could improve grants and make the new structure better.
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.
|Summary of needs described during the consultation|
Needs for the grants process
We summarized some of the needs specific to the grants process here.
Needs of contributors
We summarized some of the more general needs of contributors here.
A number of respondents identify alternative structures to the idea originally proposed. We received about 14 suggestions for alternative structures, which are summarized here.
|Ideas for alternative grant structures|
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.
- 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
|Feedback on grant resources and receiving information on grants|
Participants ranked (1) Connections to others, (2) Budget or financial guidelines, (3) Online Program Resources; as the most important non-monetary resources, while they were most satisfied with (1) Specific Feedback or Coaching, (2) Mentorship from WMF Staff, (3) Logistical support for projects. The chart below highlights the top three resources ranked as most important in orange, while the top three resources that respondents are most satisfied with are shown in green. You can see that these two groups do not overlap, which indicates that the resources ranked as most important by respondents are not the resources they are most satisfied with.
Participants want to get information through Pages in the grants namespace, Emails from staff, and Public mailing lists. Participants highlight in the qualitative feedback that high priority information is particularly useful in the form of Emails from staff, while other methods (e.g. private mailing lists) are less effective. This chart shows how different ways of sharing information are ranked by survey participants.
Importance of general support funding
|Feedback on general support funding|
100% of respondents who participated in the Annual Plan Grants find general support at least somewhat important. Most find general support funding was very important: 20% find it somewhat important, while 80% find it very important or extremely important. In general, respondents report that receiving general support funding has allowed them to better strategize over a longer period of time, respond flexibly to opportunities and needs, and improve the effectiveness of their programs as they learn. Another benefit is more flexibility to build organizational capacity through grants.
Got more feedback?