Historical Resource Development Program - Historic Preservation Rubric
Significance
| Resource/Project Significance | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly identifies the historical resource and presents a strong evidence-based argument why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides clear evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has no questions about the significance of this historical resource. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant identifies the historical resource and presents an adequate argument why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides some evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has questions about the significance of this historical resource. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently identifies the historical resource and/or presents an inadequate argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant fails to identify the historical resource and/or fails to present an argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance. |
| Historical Significance | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has national or international significance. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has state or local significance. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently explains the historical resource’s international, national, state, or local significance. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant fails to identify the historical resource’s level of significance. |
Implementation
| Project Overview | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly describes the proposed scope of work. Applicant references appropriate historic preservation standards and how they will be applied to this project. Reviewer has confidence that the project has been well-planned, will be done according to appropriate historic preservation standards, and will be successfully implemented. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant describes the proposed scope of work, but leaves the reviewer with questions about some of the following: the project specifics, whether it is the right thing to do, how much planning has been done, or whether the applicant understands how to apply the appropriate historic preservation standards. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant provides insufficient information about the proposed scope of work. There is limited evidence of planning, and/or limited explanation about how historic preservation standards will be applied. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant provides no explanation about what they will do or how it will be done, and/or the work proposed does not meet appropriate historic preservation standards. Reviewer does not have confidence that historic preservation standards will be followed, or that the project will be successfully implemented. |
| Project Timeline | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The proposed consultant/contractor has demonstrated skills and experience. The timeline is appropriate and realistic for all proposed work elements. The reviewer has no question that the project will be completed in the grant contract time period. |
Adequate - 2 The timeline is appropriate for some proposed work elements, but reviewer questions if certain work elements can be completed in the proposed time frame. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant provides insufficient information about the consultant/contractor’s qualifications. The timeline is not appropriate for most of the work elements or reviewer questions if the entire project can be completed in the grant contract period. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 There is no information about the qualifications of proposed consultant/contractor The timeline is either not provided, not appropriate for all of the work elements, or the reviewer does not believe the project can be completed in the grant contract period. |
| Supporting Documents and Photos | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The relevant supporting material, such as photographs of the resource, drawings, mortar analysis, rehabilitation studies, or letters of support provided*, clearly help the reviewer understand the need for all work items in the proposed scope of work. *Applicant does not need to provide all listed items, only those relevant to the project. |
Adequate - 2 The applicant provides adequate supporting material to help the reviewer understand the need for most work items in the proposed scope of work. |
Needs Improvement - 1 The applicant provides some helpful supporting material but the body of material is incomplete for the reviewer to understand the need for the proposed scope of work. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 The supporting material provided is unclear and does not help the reviewer understand the need for the proposed scope of work, or the supporting material is not provided. |
Community Impact
| Importance to Local Community | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly identifies the local community or audience and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant clearly describes how they will measure the project’s impact. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant adequately identifies the local community or audience and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant adequately describes how they will measure the project’s impact. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant insufficiently identifies the local community or audience and/or makes an unconvincing argument for how this project will impact the local community or audience. Reviewer has questions about the potential for impact or how the project’s impact will be measured. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant does not identify the local community or audience and does not make an argument for this project’s impact. Alternatively, this project has no impact on the local community or audience. |
| Project Accessibility and Promotion | |||
| Exemplary - 3 The historical resource and relevant work products of this grant are or will be regularly accessible to the public. The applicant identifies a strong plan for how the resource and work products will be shared on site and across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media. |
Adequate - 2 The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public, but the reviewer has questions about the applicant’s plan for facilitating access and communication. Alternatively, the applicant identifies a strong plan for facilitating access and communication, but public access to the historical resource will be on a limited basis. |
Needs Improvement - 1 The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public on a limited basis. The applicant describes a weak plan for facilitating access and communication. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 The historical resource and relevant work products are not accessible to the public. The applicant does not identify a plan for how the resource will be shared on site or across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media. |
| Sustainability | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Applicant clearly explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a compelling case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Adequate - 2 Applicant adequately explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes an adequate case that there is a critical need for the project. The reviewer has some questions about either sustainability or critical need. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Applicant provides a weak explanation for how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a weak case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Applicant does not explain how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant does not make a case that there is a critical need for the project. |
Budget
| Budget Clarity and Breadth of Matching Support | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Project budget and intended use of requested funds are clear. Applicant identifies match beyond staff salaries and in-kind match. |
Adequate - 2 Project budget and intended use of funds are adequately explained, but the applicant does not identify potential sources of match or they only include staff salaries and in-kind match. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Project budget or intended use of requested funds is unclear or applicant does not identify potential sources of match. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Project budget in incomplete or inaccurate, or does not meet HRDP grant program standards. |
| Budget Propriety | |||
| Exemplary - 3 Budget is appropriate for the type of work proposed and there is a clear connection between the scope of work and the budget items. Applicant provides strong evidence that budget numbers are reliable. |
Adequate - 2 Budget is appropriate for most work items and budget is adequately itemized according to the scope of proposed work. Applicant provides adequate evidence that budget numbers are reliable for most work items. |
Needs Improvement - 1 Budget is not appropriate for most work items and/or there is a weak connection between the scope of work and budget items. Applicant provides insufficient evidence that budget numbers are reliable for most or all of the work items. |
Deficient/Missing - 0 Budget is not appropriate for work items and/or there is no connection between the scope of work and budget items. |