Documentary Heritage Program FAQs
Application Content - Narrative
- 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?
- Can Arrangement & Description projects include re-housing of records?
- Can a member of a project advisory committee be from outside New York State?
- Does DHP fund the arrangement & description of business collections?
- Does DHP fund the arrangement & description of "artificial" collections?
- How can I obtain help in writing the Outcomes and Evaluation section of the Project Narrative?
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.
In section #I b (Project Description, Topical Priorities) of the Application Narrative Form, make a case statement which explicitly describes the topic, and how it 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, see pages 10-13 of the Application Guidelines.
Yes. In fact, this is an excellent time to re-house the collections you are processing.
There is no rule prohibiting 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.
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. Moreover, 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. Although an artificial collection would be eligible for funding, it is less compelling as the focus of a DHP grant application.
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.
