1 / 31

Library Professional Development Travel Program Review Committee

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

josie
Download Presentation

Library Professional Development Travel Program Review Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Library Professional Development Travel Program Review Committee Interim Report and options LFA 5/16/11

  2. What we’ve learned • Options for FY12

  3. Fun facts from ARL libraries

  4. Among 62 responding ARL libraries: • 30 (48%) allocate a lump sum • 14 (23%) give boost for activity • 10 (16%) give boost for rank

  5. Among 36ARL 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

  6. Smathers Libraries average per trip: • FY09 - $480 • FY10 - $406 • FY11 - $415

  7. Fun facts from on-campus units

  8. 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

  9. On-campus units

  10. 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

  11. Recent Smathers Libraries allocations

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Staff surveys

  15. 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

  16. Staff survey: key findings • Official Business is mysterious • 52% think early Fall distribution equitable • 34% think post-Fall equitable

  17. Staff survey: key findings • Equitable distribution criteria – base on: • responsibilities, costs, lump sum for all, rank

  18. 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.

  19. To be resolved

  20. Issues to be resolved • Define “professional development” • including administrators • Define “official business” • including process for applying • Establish expected outcomes from professional development activities

  21. 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

  22. Options to pilot in FY12

  23. Acceptable options must be: • Equitable • Manageable • Predictable

  24. 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

  25. All options require: • Permission/approval from dept chair • Reimbursement for allowable expenses only

  26. 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)

  27. 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)

  28. 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)

  29. Any other Plan D or Plan E or …? • Plans must be: • Equitable • Manageable • Predictable

  30. 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 …

  31. Next steps • Cost out the acceptable plans • Formally report recommendations

More Related