As you will recall I copied the discussion on HLF funding which took place
on the list to the HLF for a response. I have just received this reply from
Lesley Baitup for posting to the list.
Martin
--------------------------------------------
Martin Newman
Heritage Information Partnerships Supervisor & SMR Forum List Owner
National Monuments Record
English Heritage
Phone - 01793 414718
Email - [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------
Thank you for your emails of 11 June and 2 July following the meeting of the
SMR User Group in York. It was an interesting day and we felt that the
discussion was comprehensive. We had hoped that discussing the points of
concern would lead to a better understanding of the aims and objectives of
HLF funding for SMRs, so it was a little disappointing to see the messages
from the SMR forum. In view of the fact that there remains confusion about
the funding of SMRs, rather than addressing each individual point, I thought
it might be more useful to return to basics and explain broadly what SMRs
can bid for and what needs to be provided in the application.
In our published guidance for archaeological projects, the enhancement of
Sites and Monuments Record services in order to make information more
accessible to users was identified as a core category for HLF funding. As
is the case in all our projects, access and involvement by the public is a
central aim. Therefore, SMRs must illustrate that the projects will
increase access beyond that provided thorough the core planning role. A
follow-up document, Unlocking Britain's Past, prepared by ALGAO and English
Heritage, outlines the role of HLF and provides the core guidance for SMR
applications. It is disappointing that so few SMRs have taken ownership of
this document.
It is worth pointing out that SMR applications are contained within our
Revenue Grants programme, which has an overarching aim of widening access
and enhancing popular access to the heritage. Potential applicants would
probably find it useful to look at this guidance in our main application
pack, as well as special guidance related to ICT projects.
Most of the comments in the emails were concerned about the level of detail
needed for a bid and the resulting cost of preparing an application. We
would like to reassure SMRs that we would like 'short, sweet and focussed
bids' that contain sufficient information to assess against our criteria,
and to illustrate the benefits of the project. It would be totally against
the sprit of the programme to suggest that an application would cost £40,000
to prepare, and this has not been our experience with our other Revenue
Projects.
At the SMR User Group meeting we talked about key areas such as Market
Research/Consultation, Marketing and Outreach, Project Management and
Evaluating Success. In short in order to make a bid to HLF you have to know
where you are now (what is your current user group etc); know where you want
to go (increasing access basic or advanced), illustrate that you can manage
the project and finally that you will be able to measure your success. This
is no more than we ask of all our Revenue Grants applicants, many of whom
are small heritage and community groups.
In conclusion it is important for all SMRs to look at the positive
opportunities that HLF funding could provide to release the fascinating
material which the records hold and engage with a wider audience. Although
the funding process may appear daunting and a change of thinking may be
required, this is a real opportunity for enhancement of the records. There
have been successful SMR bids to HLF, although not nearly as many as we
would have expected given the specific targeting of the group, and it may be
useful for the group to ask these successful applicants to share their
experience and provide case studies. We hope that more SMRs across the UK
will be encouraged to submit bids to unlock Britain's past for all to access
and enjoy.
|