Scores and Comments

21.c.ps.170.346

Halifax Historical Society, Inc.

Application Details
Proposal Type	General Program Support - Discipline-Based
Request Amount	$15,893
Total Score	619.000
Average Score	88.429

Panelist Scores

Panelist	Excellence	Impact	Management	Accessibility	Total
Baker Holly	37	27	17	10	91
Falwell Kerry	37	24	18	8	87
Hipschman Dorrie	35	28	20	10	93
Horowitz Sharon	37	28	19	9	93
McLane Preston	34	24	16	9	83
Overton Robert	35	25	17	9	86
Tomor Michael	32	27	18	9	86

Comments
Baker Holly - Score: 91.000
I appreciate that you have had exhibits that focus on important people in black history, such as Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune and Jackie Robinson. I also love that you have free admission days on Thursdays and children under 12 can visit for free on Saturdays. I appreciate your focus on military history in "The War Zone", and the fact that you have a range of displays on different topics.
Falwell Kerry - Score: 87.000
Nice tourist draw. No direct economic impact data provided.
Hipschman Dorrie - Score: 93.000
The objectives and timelines should refer to the same goals outlined and be supported by grant request.
Horowitz Sharon - Score: 93.000
{No comments provided.}
McLane Preston - Score: 83.000
Excellence section omits key program-related information. The absence of exhibition and program details makes it difficult to evaluate the excellence and impact of this grant proposal.
Overton Robert - Score: 86.000
{No comments provided.}
Tomor Michael - Score: 86.000
Excellence: Although I understood the proposal description, the grant writer should have had an editor or second reviewer of the text, as there are many grammatical errors through the grant. Expanding the use of and membership to the HHSM's research facility and promoting school tours is the proposal of the grant. The timeline of this proposal should have addressed the carrying out of the expansion of membership and visitorship as well as action steps to engage with schools. It only discusses when exhibits, educational programs and social events are planned. I am not clear on whether the goals and objectives to increase membership and visitorship can be carried out with the information they provided. Their partnerships are not related to their proposal goals, with the exception of perhaps the CVB for promotion. Impact: Of the 3500 visitors, 1400 are national or international visitors. Does this mean 2100 are from the county and the others are not? With the goal being to increase membership and visitorship, why are we not seeing higher impact numbers. They are only projecting to see the same visitorship in the upcoming grant year - 3,415. The section dedicated to programming seems to list existing not new or additional programs to reach new audiences. If any are new, it wasn't shared in that way. That being said, their impact seems varied and diverse and efforts are made to offer free hours and events. No economic impact shared. Their marketing seems to completely lack social media. Is that possible in today's world? Management: Would be nice to know how the evaluations have impacted management and programming, if at all. For evaluation of exhibits, research, and special events, the only criteria of success or failure is high or low attendance. With so many tools in place, affordable and accessible, it would seem they could surmise some qualitative evaluations. I'm unclear how the proposal expenses are posted in the operational budget. Are the exhibits and educational events funded by the grant falling to the operational budget of "Remaining Operational Expenses" and Administration expenses? My questions keep going back to the goals and objectives. I would like to have known now, how the printing of historical journals and newsletters, LED lighting directly contribute to the goals. I understand the production of 10 educational events. Accessibility: Doing the best they can with what they have.