Grant Writing for Museums and Historic Sites: A Few Do’s and Don’ts

The Second Bank of the United States at Independence Hall in Philadelphia (National Park Service)

In the world of public history, grant funding matters a great deal. While tax dollars, admission fees, and donations may generate enough revenue to maintain baseline operations at a museum or historic site, these sources are often not enough to supplant major projects that are central to the site’s mission. Whether it’s replacing a decaying roof, designing new exhibits, conducting oral histories, creating a collections management plan, or hosting a cultural festival, grants can offer crucial funding opportunities when project costs reach the tens and hundreds of thousands. As such, it is very important for these sites to be adept at using grant applications to communicate why their work matters. Being able to communicate your purpose to an entity for which you are asking for money is quite literally a valuable skill to posses.

I have been a practicing public historian in one form or another for nearly fifteen years, but over the past couple years I’ve been a lot more involved in the world of grant funding. I’ve been fortunate to have authored or co-authored a few projects that won funding. I’ve also had multiple opportunities to be on the other side of the table as a grant application reviewer. What follows below are a few recommendations based on those experiences that I would offer to any public history sites seeking grant funding, especially small sites with shoestring budgets.

Many applicants focus too much on the WHAT instead of the HOW and WHY

Any site applying for grant funding must explain who they are and what their mission is, but it should not take up 80% of their project description. Many years ago I read Chip and Dan Heath’s book Made to Stick. The Heaths argue that organizations are good at telling potential stakeholders WHAT they do, but they struggle to explain WHY their work matters. I have seen the same struggles in many grant applications. Applicants often provide too much detail about the history of their site, including important events and people associated with the place, at the expense of providing a sufficient overview of the project at hand and why it is crucial to fund this project now.

This point reinforces the importance of well-designed website. Let your homepage do the explaining of who you are and what you do. As a reviewer, I will gladly take the time to review websites, social media, and other online information to learn about the site’s operation. With grant applications, I want a description of the specific project being funded and an explanation of HOW and WHY the work matters.

The WHY is covered with fluff rather than substance

I once reviewed a grant application that offered an extended commentary on the value of history and museums in local communities. It discussed the ways history provided insight into the present and how museums could bring communities together by creating meaningful experiences through programming. It used often-stated but poorly defined words like “impact” and “engagement” multiple times to describe the value of history museums for students.

This commentary attempted to explain why the applicant’s work matters, but it did not inspire me to offer a favorable review of the project.

The problem is that most grant application reviewers already understand and believe in the value of history and museums as places where meaningful experiences occur. In fact, the reviewers were probably selected specifically because they work in the field and are passionate about our mission!

I don’t need to be convinced about the value of public history. What I need to be convinced of is WHY your specific project is valuable.

The Target Audience is poorly defined

Who is this project for? Who does the public history site want to connect with on this project? Who stands to benefit from this project?

Applicants often run the risk of using too broad a definition that renders their target audience meaningless. The “General Public” does not exist and the term should be removed from your vocabulary. What constitutes a member of the general public? Who is excluded from the general public? With all due respect, “The Nation” is not a definable target audience for a small site in rural Mississippi. While that site might get a few out of town tourists as visitors or a few clicks to their website from people out of the state, your application to repair the front door or create a children’s program should not have “The Nation” as its target audience. And there is never one “local community” but always local communities that can and should be reached with your project. Wherever you live, there are all sorts of different groups that could be targeted for your programming.

What are some examples of clearly defined target audiences?

“Fourth graders at two local school districts within 25 miles of the museum”

“Vietnam veterans and their families within the region”

“Members of the local Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs”

“All Tribal Nations with historical connections to this state”

“Local farmers who are willing to share their stories for an oral history project about agricultural practices in the region.”

The Project’s Tangible Outcomes are Exaggerated

Will the installation of six interpretive panels spread throughout a historic main street boost tourism to a small town of less than 1,000 people? Will a new exhibit not only increase revenue for a museum, but also spark new economic spending at local businesses in the long term? Will the applicant’s project boost tax revenue and facilitate population growth to the local area?

I recently reviewed a grant application that proposed to create two new interpretive signs and to do some work on a historic structure in a very small town of a few thousand people. Both are worthy initiatives that should be considered for funding. When explaining the benefits of the project, however, the applicant focused mostly on the benefits it would provide to tourists. This initiative will boost tourism to the area, increase tax revenue, promote job growth, and encourage more people to move to the town, they said.

My response when reading that was, “how do you know that?”

All of these outcomes are possible. And . . . it’s possible that none of these outcomes will be met. Applicants should really consider what tangible outcomes are possible for a project and be realistic about what can be achieved. If the outcomes sound unrealistic, I am more likely to not support funding of the project.

Which gets me to my final point:

Applicants struggle to define what will count as success for their project and have no method for measuring succcess through data

What does success look like for this project? It’s a question many grant fund applicants struggle to answer. For example, I once reviewed an application for new interpretive signage at a historic structure. In explaining intended outcomes for the project, the applicant said the project would “promote education” and anecdotally remarked that they had once spoken to a student who had no clue what the history was behind this historic structure., which they found troubling.

We can see here that “education” is used so broadly that it’s essentially a meaningless term. How many people live in this community? Who will be educated by the signage? What learning standards will be met with the signage? What is the intended educational outcome? What will local community members, once they have been “educated,” do with this newly acquired knowledge?

A better approach takes data into account to measure for success. For example, this applicant could have proposed, say, getting at least 80% of the community’s elementary students to the site to see the signage and then complete a project back at school about the importance of historic preservation in their community. If 10,000 residents and tourists currently see the historic structure on an annual basis, “success” will be measured by getting 15,000 to 20,000 residents and tourists to the structure annually within the next five years. 75% of residents in the poorest areas within the region will see this structure within the next two years. You get the idea.

Using data to measure success also demands a more extensive evaluation process. How will numbers be captured for this project? To this end, applicants should also consider how professional museum evaluators might be able to help them capture useful numbers to better determine the success of a project.

These are just a few suggestions I have to offer about successful grant writing. Good luck!

Cheers