Documentary Heritage Program FAQs
Project Content
- Does the project have to address one of DHP's specific Topical Priorities?
- How should I go about making the best case for my Priority Level III topic? My
project is about an under-documented New York State topic yet it does not fall within
either of the first two priorities.
- Can an Arrangement & Description grant be for work on more than one collection?
- Can Arrangement & Description projects include re-housing of records?
- Do I need to have people chosen for staffing the project before applying for the grant?
- Can I move one of my regular employees over to the grant project?
- Can I count my project advisory committee's time as part of my institutional match?
- Can a member of a project advisory committee be from outside New York State?
- Can a donation to our institution that was not designated for any specific function but
subsequently used for something related to the proposed project be considered part of
our Cost Sharing requirement?
- Can my organization's trustees work on the project, with their time allocated as part
of our Cost Sharing?
- Can we apply the time we spend writing our DHP grant application to Cost Sharing?
- Does DHP fund the arrangement and description of business collections?
- Does DHP fund the arrangement and description of “artificial” collections?
- I am confused by the requirements for writing the Outcomes and Evaluation section of the Project Narrative. Where can I find additional information?
Project Content
The records described in the grant application should be of significance to the history of New York, either statewide or local, and should directly relate to an under-documented topic. Keep in mind though, that if the application addresses one of the Topical Priorities (population groups in the 20th and 21st Centuries, economic change in the 20th and 21st Centuries, World Trade Center disaster/September 11, 2001, education policy, environmental affairs or mental health) it may receive more points during grant review.
- How should I go about making the best case for my Priority Level III topic? My
project is about an under-documented New York State topic yet it does not fall
within either of the first two priorities.
In section #I b (Project Description, Topical Priorities) of the Application Narrative Form, make a case statement which explicitly describes what the topic is, and explains how the topic fits into a bigger story (i.e. the history of New York State in the 20th century) and why it is under-documented. For examples of case statements, review how the topics in Priority Levels I and II have been contextualized.
Yes, Arrangement & Description projects can focus on one collection or on multiple collections.
Yes. In fact, this is an excellent time to re-house the collections you are processing.
The project director and members of advisory committees should be chosen, and named in the application. Other staff may be found after receiving the grant. However, if additional staff has been chosen at the time of application, name them and attach their resumes.
The answer to this question depends on whether the employee is paid with grant funds or whether the salary will be part of an institutional match.
- Grant funds may be used to increase work hours of existing staff to carry out grant project-related work (e.g., Jeremy works fifteen hours at the historical society, adds ten hours to his work week to do grant project-related work, and is paid for those extra ten hours with grant funds).
- If an existing staff person is paid with grant funds and is not increasing his/her work hours, it is important to demonstrate that this person will be replaced in their former assignment, and that the replacement will be paid with non-grant funds. (e.g., Lucinda is a full-time employee at the historical society. Fifteen hours of her time will be spent working on the grant project and she will be paid for those fifteen hours with grant funds. Subsequently, the historical society will hire Hazel, a temporary worker, for fifteen hours to relieve Lucinda from her regular duties. Hazel will be paid for those fifteen hours with non-grant funds.)
- Regular staff salary and benefits can be counted towards Cost Sharing for the portion of work that relates directly to the grant project (e.g., Eloise, the receptionist answers calls about the project. A portion of her salary and benefits - paid by the institution - counts as part of the cost sharing). Remember to include all employee contributions on the Cost Sharing Form, even if a very small amount of time is devoted to the project.
Yes, as long as it is time directly contributed to the project. Be prepared to document their contribution on the Cost Sharing form. For example, if there will be four, four-hour advisory meetings, then each committee member is contributing two days of time. Using a standard consultant rate of $250/day, each member is contributing $500 in matching costs. Advisory committee members' mileage to attend meetings may also be used as part of the institutional contribution.
There is no prohibition to having an advisory committee member from outside New York State, but since DHP grant projects must have a New York State focus, applicants should explain what this particular advisory committee member can contribute to the overall project that someone more locally-based cannot.
- Can a donation to our institution that was not designated for any specific function, but subsequently used for something related to the proposed project, be considered part of our Cost Sharing requirement?
Yes.
- Can my organization's trustees work on the project, with their time allocated as part of our Cost Sharing?
Yes. The time that anyone donates to the project can be considered part of the Cost Sharing requirement.
No.
It will, but since DHP only funds organizations with not-for-profit status, the collection would have to be in the possession of a not-for-profit repository. And that repository would have to provide public access to the collection.
An important characteristic of an archival collection is its provenance. Artificial collections do not have provenance. A collection with provenance has a direct line back to the entity (person, organization, business, etc) which created, used and ultimately discarded the records. This connection allows the archivist and the researcher to understand the richness and complexity of the organization (or person) as it has been captured in the course of doing business (or living a life in the case of a personal collection), by those most closely involved. Provenance can never be created after-the- fact, which explains why an artificial collection is a less valuable historical record. Although an artificial collection would be eligible for funding, it is less compelling as the focus of a DHP grant application.
- I am confused by the requirements for writing the Outcomes and Evaluation section of the Project Narrative. Where can I find additional information?
To better evaluate the DHP grants we went back to our founding documents and established fundamental (and measurable) outcomes critical to the success of the program. Applicants are required to create four outcome statements based on these fundamental outcomes. Applicants must also show how progress toward achieving these outcomes will be measured and monitored. For more information, please refer to the Outcomes and Evaluation document in the Resource Section of the guidelines.
