Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation - Stakeholder Survey
In response to the ongoing national discussion of the efficacy of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in their present form and application, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) established a working group in March 2023 to carefully examine issues and perspectives related to the Standards for Rehabilitation and their application, and ultimately to create a summary report that identifies issues, recommendations, and case studies to be broadly shared. 

The Stakeholder Subcommittee is focused on obtaining input from multiple perspectives outside of SHPOs, NPS, and related entities. The Subcommittee is seeking opportunities for thoughtful engagement and input from a wide variety of preservationists, professionals, and other stakeholders who use the Standards, to incorporate a broad range of experiences and perspectives. 

As a first step in support of that goal, the Subcommittee has created this stakeholder survey which poses questions about how each individual interacts with and perceives the Standards for Rehabilitation and their application. Please feel free to share this survey with others who use the Standards for Rehabilitation. We are requesting submission of responses to the survey by December 15, 2023.

Please note that for the purposes of this survey, we are requesting feedback only on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment-standards-rehabilitation.htm), not the Standards for Preservation, Restoration, or Reconstruction. This survey also does not address the National Register of Historic Places or recognition of historic properties, which was the subject of a report issued by NCSHPO earlier this year (https://ncshpo.org/issues/nhdac/).

Thank you so much for your time and assistance!

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
Stakeholder Subcommittee of the NCSHPO Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Working Group

Questions or comments? Please contact Anne Raines, Deputy Director / DSHPO, Maryland Historical Trust, Stakeholder Subcommittee Chair, at anne.raines@maryland.gov.

Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
Email *
1. What is your name? *
2.  NCSHPO has issued this survey broadly to preservation and cultural resource professionals via a range of professional organizations and lists.  How (from which organization/list, if applicable) did you receive this survey?  *
3. Which of the options below best describes the role(s) in which you are involved in historic preservation?

You may select multiple options if desired.  If you select "Other", please describe.
 *
Required
4. What is your current profession?

You may select multiple options if desired.  If you select "Other", please describe.
 *
Required
5. What is your educational background?

You may select multiple options if desired.  If you select "Other", please describe.
 *
Required
6. For how many years have you been involved in historic preservation? *
7. In which state(s) or U.S. territory (territories) are you involved with preservation?

Select all that apply.  Territories/freely associated states are listed at bottom.
 *
Required
8. Through which of the following do you have experience with the Standards for Rehabilitation?

Select all that apply.  If you select "Other", please describe.
 *
Required
9. CONSISTENCY WITHIN PROGRAMS: Over time, how consistent have you found the application of the Standards for Rehabilitation to be for each of the following?

Select one response per row.
 *
Very consistent
Somewhat consistent
Neutral
Somewhat inconsistent
Very inconsistent
Do not know / do not interact with this program
Federal rehabilitation tax credits
State rehabilitation tax credits
Regulatory review (Section 106 reviews or State-level equivalent)
Federal preservation grant programs
State preservation grant programs
Local preservation review
Covenants or easements
10. FLEXIBILITY: Currently, how flexible do you find the application of the Standards for Rehabilitation to be for each of the following?

Select one response per row.
 *
Very flexible
Somewhat flexible
Neutral
Somewhat inflexible
Very inflexible
Do not know / do not interact with this program
Federal rehabilitation tax credits
State rehabilitation tax credits
Regulatory review (Section 106 reviews or State-level equivalent)
Federal preservation grant programs
State preservation grant programs
Local preservation review
Covenants or easements
11. CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION: Over time, in what way has the interpretation/application of the Standards for Rehabilitation changed for each of the following?

Select one response per row.
 *
Become much more flexible
Become somewhat more flexible
Stayed about the same
Become somewhat less flexible
Become much less flexible
Do not know / do not interact with this program
Federal rehabilitation tax credits
State rehabilitation tax credits
Regulatory review (Section 106 reviews or State-level equivalent)
Federal preservation grant programs
State preservation grant programs
Local preservation review
Covenants or easements
12. CONSISTENCY ACROSS PROGRAMS/AGENCIES: Over time, how consistent have you found the application of the Standards for Rehabilitation to be in the following scenarios?

Select one response per row.
 *
Very consistent
Somewhat consistent
Neutral
Somewhat inconsistent
Very inconsistent
Do not know / do not interact
Across different programs at NPS
Across different programs at a SHPO
Between NPS and SHPO in tax credit reviews
Between NPS and SHPO in grant project reviews
Between federal agency and SHPO in Section 106 consultation
Between SHPOs in different states
Between NPS and local government
Between SHPO and local government
Between NPS and other federal agencies
Between SHPO and federal agencies other than NPS
Between SHPO and other state agencies
Between other agencies
13. How often do you encounter challenges in balancing the following project requirements with the Standards for Rehabilitation? 

 *
Very often
Sometimes
Occasionally
Never
Encountered challenges in the past, but now have a workable approach for addressing
Building energy efficiency requirements
Water use reduction requirements
Seismic requirements
Flood protection requirements
Fire protection requirements
Other hazard mitigation requirements
Implementation of alternative energy sources
Local zoning requirements
Other building code requirements
Other project requirements
14. Do you believe there is enough guidance on the application or interpretation of the Standards for Rehabilitation for each of the following groups?

Select one response per row.
 *
Strongly agree there is enough guidance
Somewhat agree there is enough guidance
Neutral
Somewhat disagree there is enough guidance
Strongly disagree there is enough guidance
Do not know
For program applicants / users
For reviewers
For the general public
15. What updates to guidance would benefit you and your work?

Select one response per row.
 *
Works well as is - no updates needed
Needs to be wholesale replaced
Needs major updates
Needs minor updates
Heard of this but never used it
Never heard of this and never used it
NPS Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
NPS Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
NPS Guidelines on Flood Adaptation for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
NPS Preservation Briefs
NPS Tech Notes
NPS Interpreting the Standards Bulletins
NPS workshops, webinars, or training
SHPO guidance
SHPO workshops, webinars, or training
National Trust for Historic Preservation guidance
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) guidance
National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) guidance
16. What guidance do you use most frequently?

Select up to three.
 *
Required
17. What specific topics would you suggest should be updated in existing guidance - OR - what specific guidance documents should be updated (for example, "Preservation Brief #XX") and, briefly, why?  
18. What NEW guidance should be provided - what topics need to be covered, what type of guidance (webinar, in-person training, written guidance, etc.) and who should develop and issue the guidance?
19. How well do you feel the Standards for Rehabilitation can address the following topics?

Check all that apply.
 *
As written, the Standards are flexible enough to address this
The Standards need minor tweaks to address this
The Standards need major revision to address this
The Standards do not currently address this at all
The Standards should not even attempt to address this
The Standards themselves may be flexible enough, but more / better guidance is needed on application / implementation
A new Standard should be added to address this issue
Do not know
Climate resilience and adaptation
Hazard mitigation (flood, fire, seismic, etc.)
Energy efficiency and sustainability
Housing affordability
Equity and social justice outcomes
Economics
Public support
20. On balance, how do you feel the Standards for Rehabilitation are working as a historic preservation mechanism?

Select only one. 
 *
21. In the following list, select all the statements you agree with regarding the Standards for Rehabilitation. *
Required
22. Would you be interested in continuing this discussion by participating in a forum related to the Standards for Rehabilitation? *
23. Please add any other information you think may be helpful, or other questions you think we should ask, as we continue the conversation on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
24. May we contact you with follow up questions? *
                                  Thank you for your time and consideration!
A copy of your responses will be emailed to the address you provided.
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
reCAPTCHA
PrivacyTerms
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Google Forms