One year ago, I decided to uproot my life by leaving behind the corporate world and going back to school in search of a more fulfilling career. After my internship at the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), I am pleased to say that I am on the right track.
This summer, I worked under the Preservation Incentives Division in the Keystone Grant Program. My main assignment was to conduct a comparative analysis of the state-funded Keystone Historic Preservation Construction Grants in Pennsylvania to other state-funded capital preservation grants nationwide. Pennsylvania’s Keystone Grant Program recently celebrated its 30th anniversary, and it was time to reevaluate it to see if the program is meeting the needs of constituents.
Evaluating information from other state grant programs provided insights into how other states manage their stakeholder’s needs. To conduct this analysis, I created a table of all relevant information for each comparable grant program, conducted oral interviews with several other state grant managers, and synthesized this information into a report with graphs, tables, and a written explanation.
Forty-seven grant programs across thirty states administer comparable state-funded capital grants, far more than what we had originally anticipated. Several states, like New Jersey, offer multiple applicable grants, which is why the number of grants is higher than the number of state administrators. No two grant programs are alike, which makes direct comparisons difficult.
Even with these differences, the comparative analysis revealed a few common standards: nonprofits and local governments as eligible applicants, properties must be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register, and a 1:1 match is required. Regardless, the annual allocations and revenue streams were often very different.
I attempted to assign a value to each grant in two ways: creating a “unit cost” and “benefit per person,” neither of which are perfect but do provide a numerical amount based on the data for comparison. To create a unit cost, I took all grant programs requiring properties to be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register and divided the amount of allocated funds by the number of National Register listings to see a rough estimate of the unit cost per eligible property listing.
Example of a graph from the comparative analysis report. This graph shows the most common standards for how grant administrators disburse funds. Reimbursements are by far the most common practice.
Another way I attempted to establish a grant value was based off of the Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, which established preservation as a valid government interest that provides a public benefit. To get a numerical value of the benefit per person, I divided the population in each state by the allocated amount. Having two numerical values to compare dissimilar grant programs created better visualizations and data analysis.
In my report, I included information beyond an assigned value. I created standards for a grant based off of the most common grant features nationwide (ex. having a 1:1 match), described recent trends in historic preservation grants like the inclusion of DEI initiatives, and made direct comparisons between Pennsylvania’s grant program to bordering states and states, like Arkansas, that utilize similar funding sources for the grants.
With the upcoming Semiquincentennial (America250) celebration, PHMC was also curious how other state historic preservation offices are utilizing their grant programs to celebrate this anniversary. PHMC’s goal is to expand the Keystone state fiscal year 2024-2025 program to support projects that reflect the themes of the America 250 celebration.
So far, most states do not have plans to add America250 themes to existing grant programs or to create new programs; however, some states, like New Jersey, added in a section to their grant application on how the project benefits America250, which the review panel takes into consideration.
Another interesting facet of my research was tabulating how each state manages their program and allocates staff to support it. Most states have a small staff working on the grants program, consisting of one or two full-time employees. The more robust grant programs with higher allocations, such as New Jersey, New York, and Texas, have a higher staff count.
To coincide with my project, I had the opportunity to visit several Keystone grant-funded projects to see the grant program in action: Thunderbird Lodge (1983RE01392), the Lansdowne Theater (1986RE00809), the Hans Herr House (1995RE32618), James Buchanan’s Wheatland (1961RE00031), and Founder’s Hall at Girard College (1969RE00008).
Founder’s Hall at Girard College, a recipient of Keystone grant funding. July 2024.
This internship also provided opportunities to see historic sites across the state. I attended intern-specific tours of the State Archives, State Museum, the Capitol Building, and a walking tour of Harrisburg architecture.
I went on site visits to Pithole (1972RE00145), Rainbow Rocks, the Franklin Historic District (1980RE00580), Three Mile Island, Bitzer’s Mill Covered Bridge (1980RE00001), the future Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Smith museum in Lancaster (2023RE05894), and several National Register-eligible structures in Philadelphia.
The reasons for visiting the sites varied, but included archaeological investigations, seeing progress made on Keystone grant recipient projects, and evaluating integrity for structures eligible for listing on the National Register.
Metal detecting in Pithole, Pennsylvania. June 2024.
On my own time, I took advantage of the free admission for PHMC employees to state-owned historic sites and visited the Ephrata Cloister (1967RE00004) in Lancaster County. Even though I am a Pennsylvania native, visiting these areas gave me a new perspective of the state. I had never known of Pennsylvania’s history in the oil industry before visiting Pithole, the abolition movement in Lancaster, the indigenous history on Three Mile Island, and so much more.
The impending conclusion of my internship at the Pennsylvania SHPO is bittersweet. I am eternally grateful for my time here, as this has been the most incredible learning opportunity. I have learned so much practical knowledge about the field, gained skills that I can take into my future career, and met an extraordinary team of passionate preservationists.
This summer flew by, and I am disappointed that my time is over so soon; however, I am excited to return to my studies and finish my degree so I can come back to Pennsylvania and make an impact in preserving its history.
____________________________________________________________________
This week’s guest contributor is Ericka Kauffman. Ericka is going into her final year of graduate school at the University of Maryland in pursuit of a Master’s of Historic Preservation. She is local to Dillsburg, Pennsylvania and hopes to return to south-central Pennsylvania after graduation to continue her career in historic preservation.
