****apologies for cross-posting****

Dear colleagues,

Following the messages that appeared on lis-pub-libs regarding the NOF 
training applications that had been submitted on time, but then were 
reported from NOF to be received late, I e-mailed Chris Anderson at NOF 
regarding this matter.  He forwarded this comprehensive reply which I hope 
will provide clarification on this matter.

Best Wishes

Sally

NOF training plan assessment process for England

Thank you for drawing my attention to these messages.  So far we have been
contacted by only four LAs with queries on the timing of the receipt of
their plans .  Of these, two provided evidence that they had met the 7th
February deadline and have been advanced to the first panel, a third agreed 
to wait
until the second panel, the forth agreed they had not met the deadline (if 
only by one day).

As I'm sure you will appreciate, estimating the number of training plans we
were likely to receive for first round panel assessment, and therefore, the
time needed to undertake the work, was not an easy task.  Perhaps it might
be helpful to give you some background on this: we based out thinking on a
mix of information provided by services themselves, information available
on the level and provision of ICT and on ongoing dialogue during the
preparation period.  All this appeared to indicate that a reasonable
expectation would be that 70 - 80 English library authorities would submit
plans for the first approval round.  Supporting information made it clear
that later submission of plans would not affect the level of funding.

The number of plans for England actually received by NOF is 118 i.e. nearly
50% more than our informed estimate.  I agreed, as Head of Programme, to
accept a significant number of plans after the 7th as many services, 
sensibly,
contacted us for advice when they found they were facing difficulties
completing their plans due to staff sickness, vacant posts, other pressures 
etc.  This
arrangement was, however, on the clear understanding that late submission 
might mean a
modest delay in assessment, depending on the scale of the eventual task
(but would NOT affect the drawdown of funds in September).  This has, in
fact, proved to be the case as our records show that 50 of the 118 plans
for England were received after 7 Feb.

Faced with such a large number of plans to assess, there was no option but
to convene two first round panels a few weeks apart. If we had kept to the
absolute deadline then these 50 would have had to wait until September to
receive approval and the number of plans to be considered by the England 
Expert Panel convened by the LIC in March would have been manageable. 
 Waiting until September for
approval would, of course, have meant a six-month delay for those
concerned, rather than a few weeks.

A delay of one month in a three year programme, whilst irritating, does not
incur any financial penalties whatsoever from NOF and is unlikely to create
insurmountable problems - particularly as many authorities have not yet
drawn up detailed timetables for years two and three or, in many cases,
appointed external training providers. Only four complaints out of the 52 
English
Library Services notified that their plans would have to be submitted to 
the second panel for the
reasons explained, seems to indicate that the remaining 88% appreciate our 
wish to
be flexible and the scale of the task, and are happy to accept the
situation.

If you are in a position of having your plan deferred to the April panel 
and
are unhappy about this or it will create a significant problem then do,
please, contact NOF direct via the [log in to unmask] email address 
immediately.
Wherewe have been notified that NOF have made a mistake in this matter we 
have
made every effort to put the plans to the earlier panel.


Sally Chambers
EARL Liaison Officer
4th Floor, Gun Court
70 Wapping Lane
London E1W 2RS
Tel: 020 7702 2020
Fax: 020 7702 2019
[log in to unmask]
http://www.earl.org.uk 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%