library professional development travel program review committee
DESCRIPTION
Library Professional Development Travel Program Review Committee . Interim Report and options LFA 5/16/11. What we’ve learned Options for FY12. Fun facts from ARL libraries. Among 62 responding ARL libraries:. 30 (48%) allocate a lump sum 14 (23%) give boost for activity - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Library Professional Development Travel Program Review Committee
Interim Report and optionsLFA 5/16/11
•What we’ve learned
•Options for FY12
Fun facts from ARL libraries
Among 62 responding ARL libraries:
• 30 (48%) allocate a lump sum• 14 (23%) give boost for activity• 10 (16%) give boost for rank
Among 36 ARL libraries that reported $:
• 24 give lump sum, ave. $1122/year• 7 reimburse %, ave. 75.5% of costs • 4 allocate per-trip sums• 1 allocates per-day sums
Smathers Libraries average per trip:
• FY09 - $480• FY10 - $406• FY11 - $415
Fun facts from on-campus units
Among 13 on-campus units:
• 11 support PD for both faculty and staff• None have a committee– half rely on administration– half rely on departments
• Most give weight to activity or rank– only 3 allocate equally
On-campus units
Among 13 on-campus units:
• 5 allocate per-trip; 2 allocate lump sum• 3 allow repurposing; 4 require forfeiting– when a traveler cancels a trip
• Average allocations range widely:– $500-$15,000/faculty– $200-$3,000/staff
Recent Smathers Libraries
allocations
Smathers FY09-FY11 averages
• 23 people funded for 1 trip• 43 people funded for 2 trips• 10 non-faculty funded for 14 trips
• 87 requests unfunded in FY10• 24 requests unfunded in FY11
• FY06-07 funded 200 trips with $70,000 • FY09-11 funded 100 trips with $45,000
Smathers FY09-FY11
• Half the trips are to ALA Midwinter and Annual– Midwinter stable, 19-20/year– Annual varies, 28-34-39/year• location matters?
• Half the activities are events other than ALA Midwinter or Annual
Staff surveys
Staff survey: key findings• More $ needed; costs not covered; must travel• Confusion about 3rd trips, requests after Fall• Options and activity levels often not known til
late in FY
Staff survey: key findings• Official Business is mysterious• 52% think early Fall distribution equitable– 34% think post-Fall equitable
Staff survey: key findings• Equitable distribution criteria – base on:– responsibilities, costs, lump sum for all, rank
Dept chairs - observations• Faculty must travel to support T&P
requirements. • Specialized training is needed by faculty and
non-faculty. • Staff feel limited by their interpretation of
current policies.• Increased support needed for continuing
education & activities leading to publications.• Not all grants include travel allocations.
To be resolved
Issues to be resolved
• Define “professional development”– including administrators
• Define “official business”– including process for applying
• Establish expected outcomes from professional development activities
Beyond the basic fund
• Professional Development funding for new hires should be included in offer
• Funding to support activities in sabbaticals or FEOs should be included in proposals
• Dept chairs could have more authority for authorizing activity bumps & vital training
Options to pilot in FY12
Acceptable options must be:
• Equitable•Manageable•Predictable
We will ask if each option seems:
• Good• Acceptable (you can live with it)• Bad
• We won’t pursue an option if majority think it’s bad
All options require:
• Permission/approval from dept chair
• Reimbursement for allowable expenses only
Plan A: Status Quo Plus
• Apply to committee at set intervals– likely Aug 1 and Feb 1
• Increase $ from $415 ave. to ARL $550 ave./trip
• Extra pot for:– activity bumps – extreme expenses • (int’l travel, high registration)
Plan B: Lump Sum (flat allowance)
• Allocate $1100 for all faculty & exempt staff who apply
• Extra pot for:– non-exempt staff– activity bumps – extreme expenses (int’l travel, high registration)
Plan C: Average $ per activity
• Allocate $500 / $1000 / $1500 for 1/2/3 activities by faculty & exempt staff– precise $ can be adjusted among events
• Extra pot for:– non-exempt staff– activity bumps – extreme expenses (int’l travel, high registration)
Any other Plan D or Plan E or …?
•Plans must be:– Equitable– Manageable– Predictable
Opinion time
• For each plan:– like it– could live with it– hate it
• Plan A: Status Quo Plus• Plan B: Lump Sum (flat allowance)• Plan C: Average $ per activity• Plan D or E or …
Next steps
• Cost out the acceptable plans• Formally report recommendations