Research Paper Example on Granting Activities

Introduction

Community Heritage Grant, CGH is responsible for offering grants to community museums, archives among others. Australia national archives follow particular procedures in choosing archives (Christen, 2011). For that matter, the recommendation for Uniting Church Providence needs to follow the required steps, be granted financial funding and should be studied to outlined the specific deliverables that can make it suitable for visits (McKemmish & Gilliland, 2013). The CHG funding program was started to pave the way for securing all official archives that have not yet been put to light to receive grants for preserving Australian heritage. The program is capable of offering grants of up to $15,000 to recommended community archives, libraries, historical societies, and museums.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A Rationale for The Proposed Funding Opportunity

PUC has a congregation of 107 members who are led by Rev. Vanuvei. As a long-serving organisation, the church is based on an old structure that was built without the knowledge of the post-modern architectural designs. Since the Church has the history of enhancing the amalgamation of Methodist Church of Australia, the Congregational Union of Australia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, it has all the justifiable reasons for seeking for a grant (Flinn & Stevens, 2009). The history of PUC is based on the fact that the church has been the pride of Australians especially those from Providence, there are justifiable reasons for considering PUC as an essential organisation that needs to be preserved as an extraordinary archive.

Uniting Church in Providence has served the community for four decades now. The church was built in 1977 with bricks and has never been renovated despite its vital role in the Providence community. Providence Uniting Church holds the history of being the church that promoted the amalgamation of Providence Circuit Methodist and St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (Australian Government., n. d.). Therefore, Providence Uniting Church provided the banner for of the Uniting Church of Australia proving that it is an icon of glory and positive change to the society. With the fact that Providence Uniting Church of Australia is an amalgam of three Christian denominations, it is the viable organisation to be funded as a mission to enhance spiritual growth of the community that it has offered its continual service since 1977. There is the need for preserving the 1977 Providence Uniting Church (PUC) structure as an archive for enhancing the community's heritage and backbone for the robust Christian culture in Providence and across the world today.

Another reason for the reasons for seeking CHG funding for is the fact that it is connected to the coming together of three churches (Flinn & Stevens, 2009). Additionally, important occasions are featured in the archives of PUC. For instance, the amalgamation of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and Methodist Church is featured in the archives found in the PUC in 2013. The denominations were amalgamated resulting in the enhancement of unity in Australia. PUC was the destinations for holding meetings concerning the amalgamation of the faiths. The fact that other churches have ever been under destruction, PUC has stood the damages thus proving to be an icon for the unity of the society (Flinn & Stevens, 2009). PUC is a viable structure and worship centre that should be granted funding for renovation, maintenance, and enhancement of the relevance of the structure and position concerning the unity ties contributed by the Church. Additionally, the location of the PUC church holds a historical Snowy Mountains Scheme which was an engineering feat. Snowy Mountains Scheme is a national icon thus puts PUC at a fairground for receiving a grant.

Why PUC is the Best for CHG Granting

PUC granting has legitimate grounds since the exploration of treasures and historical material within the structure. According to the National Library of Australia. (2017), Community Heritage Grant abbreviated as CGH granted $2,570 tp Australian National Museum of Education after a funding proposal was submitted. Additionally, the faculty if Arts and Designs of Canberra also received a grant of $4,500 for preservation needs. Concerning 2017 granting by CGH, the discovery that PUC made in 2013 is viable for getting a grant from the CGH. In 2013, PUC was discovered to have a possum problem. The solution to the issue led to the discovery of several boxes with a set of old books. Additionally, Rev. Vanuvei discovered several church registries, previous ministers' files, and photographs. Australia assesses the collection of a recommended archive to validate the grand with the proper assessment of its groups and their relevance to training, Australian History and conservation activities (Flinn, Stevens, & Shepherd, 2009). The 2013 document proves that PUC is a viable structure to be preserved as an archive for the origin of the current religious achievements that were brought up by the initial construction (Farrelly, 2005). The fact that the church contacted a heritage advisor who made an official report that outlined that the structure has historically essential materials enhances the reasons why PUC qualifies for a grant.

Description of The Proposed Project

Funding guidelines necessitate that archives seeking funding should portray completeness, integrity, and reliability (Flinn & Stevens, 2009). Since PUC has reliable valuables, the proposed project will enhance grounds for turning PUC to be a historical archive which can be used for analysing the historical Christian values, marriage vows, baptism requirements, burial arrangements, a list of buried people and their historical relevance to the society. Additionally, the project is viable for analysing the records of the old Providence cemetery which are now under lake Bagong. The works of the late reverends can be a platform for studying historical changes in the church. Photographic pieces of evidence will provide grounds for the study of former people's lives which could be lost (Forsyth, 2014). The project needs to clean and catalogue the data discovered and be presented to an expert for studying the period that the documents have been kept in the archive. Since the had papers from both Circuit Methodist Church, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church documents dated from 1875 and several plans for Providence cemetery.

Budget

The 2017 funding of the Australian National Museum of Education was a total of $2500. On the other hand, the Faculty of Arts and Designs of Canberra portrayed more relevance. Hence it attracted a grant of $4,500. Additionally, the funding of the Australian University was also after recommendations that started with a grant that was within the $15,000 (Forsyth, 2014). Consequently, PUC portrays that it has relevant historical documents and data that requires proper furnishing. The budget needed for the PUC should incorporate a refurbishing of the PUC structure which can be equated to 10,000 dollars which is inclusive of the cost of furnishing the tarnished documents. According to Garnett, Crowley and Balmford 2003), the $10,000 will be distributed proportionately to rewriting the damaged books, the data of previous ministries and framing of the photographs found to be included in the archives.

The Time Frame Required for The Grant Application Process

The grant application process should be long enough to ensure that all the guidelines stipulated are met. Grant application process and approval need to be done within three months. PUC has lots of data that needs to be analysed for the efficacy of the originality and copyright labels (Huntley, George, Sutton & Taon, 2018). The process of speculating whether materials presented comply with Australian copyright law is lengthy hence it will require assessment of the sight and materials (Marsh, Jayasinghe & Bond, 2008). Analysis of the photographic collections validity takes time concerning the need for analysing whether PUC has a Copyright.

The Recommendations for The Organisation

PUC should arrange all the discovered documents and keep them safe for assessment which should yield justifiable reasons for acquiring a grant. The photographs of the PUC structure should be well taken with all types of views (Aerial, Front, Sides and back) of the building. The data found and anticipated to form the basis of the archive should be appropriately arranged with several photographs to be taken to the CGH headquarters (Bohnet & Kinjun, 2009). The heritage advisor should also advocate for the piloting of the archive to ensure that the relevance of the facility is evident for winning the grant. The historical processes that PUC had officiated should also be made available during the presentation of the historical data to the CGH.

References

Australian Government. (n. d.). Developing guidelines for Granting Activities. Department of Finance. Retrieved from https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/grants/developing-grant-guidelines/

Bohnet, I. C., & Kinjun, C. (2009). Community uses and values of water informing water quality improvement planning: a study from the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60(11), 1176-1182.

Christen, K. (2011). Opening archives: Respectful repatriation. The American Archivist, 74(1), 185-210.

Farrelly, M. (2005). Regionalisation of environmental management: a case study of the Natural Heritage Trust, South Australia. Geographical Research, 43(4), 393-405.

Flinn, A., & Stevens, M. (2009). 'It Is Nohmistri, Wimekin History.'Telling Our Own Story: Independent and Community Archives in the UK, Challenging and Subverting the Mainstream. Community archives: The shaping of memory, 3-27.

Flinn, A., Stevens, M., & Shepherd, E. (2009). Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Archival science, 9(1-2), 71.

Forsyth, H. (2014). A history of the modern Australian university. NewSouth.

Garnett, S., Crowley, G., & Balmford, A. (2003). The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. AIBS Bulletin, 53(7), 658-665.

Huntley, J., George, S., Sutton, M. J., & Taon, P. (2018). Second-hand? Insights into the age and 'authenticity'of colonial period rock art on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 17, 163-172.

Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American psychologist, 63(3), 160.

McKemmish, S., & Gilliland, A. (2013). Archival and recordkeeping research: Past, present and future. Research methods: information systems, and contexts, 79-112.

National Archives of Australia. (n. d.). Selecting National Archives: Principles for selecting the Australian Government's national archives. Retried from http://www.naa.gov.au/information-management/selecting-national-archives/

National Library of Australia. (2017). Community Heritage Grant Recipients of 2017. Retrieved from https://www.nla.gov.au/chg/community-heritage-grants-recipients-2017