PROCEDURES FOR COMPLETING THE ANNUAL AFT STAFF EVALUATION
1. Job Description
Following the instructions indicated on the Job Description Format sheet, the employee is to enter the position definition, major duties, qualifications, and salary range corresponding to his/her position. Both the supervisor and the employee are to sign and date the job description, indicating agreement that the duties listed accurately reflect those assigned during the evaluation period. The supervisor should maintain the signed copy in his or her department files.
2. List Objectives for Current Evaluation Period
The employee is to list and describe the major objectives’ assigned for the current evaluation period. At the close of the evaluation period, the employee is to indicate within the brackets whether the assigned objectives were Completed (C), Partially Completed (PC) or Not Completed (NC). It is important to give additional comment in instances where extenuating circumstances prohibited the employee from completing a given objective. In such instances, performance on that specific objective should not be factored into the employee’s overall rating on this criterion. The breadth, degree of difficulty, and level of responsibility associated with each objective should be taken into consideration in evaluating the employee’s performance.
3. Major Objectives for Upcoming Evaluation Period
In consultation with the employee, the supervisor is to list and describe a minimum of three (3) major objectives to be completed in the upcoming evaluation period. The major objectives should be designed to substantively enhance the range or quality of services within the department, improve operational procedures and/or increase staff efficiency. Specific objectives identified in the college’s Institutional Plan which are applicable to the employee’s area of responsibility should be incorporated in his/her individual objectives. Each of the above objectives will serve as a basis for assessing job performance in the next evaluation period.
4. Performance Evaluation Forms
The employee is to complete the self-evaluation form in accordance with the rating standards detailed in #5 below and submit it to his/her immediate supervisor applying the same standards and incorporating input from the secondary supervisor, the immediate supervisor is to complete the supervisor’s evaluation form.
Rating Standards - Both the employee and the supervisor are to include explanatory comments for all 0, 1, and 3 ratings.
The “3” rating indicates that the employee has demonstrated exceptional competence and effectiveness, and has significantly exceeded The College’s expected level of achievement in the item being evaluated.
The “2” rating indicates that the employee has performed competently and effectively, and that he/she has met The College’s expected level of achievement in the item being evaluated.
The “1” rating indicates that the employee’s performance and/or work effectiveness are in need of minor improvement in the item being evaluated.
The “0” rating indicates that the employee’s performance and/or work effectiveness are significantly below the standards established for his/her position and are in need of major improvement in the item being evaluated.
5. Evaluation Review
Supervisors will meet with employees to review final performance. Supervisor’s are to review employee’s final ratings and overall assessment with the employee, indicating areas of strength as well as areas in need of improvement. Particular attention should be given to clarifying major discrepancies between the employee’s and supervisor’s ratings. Following the joint review, the employee is to be given the opportunity to add supplemental comments to the evaluation packet, request a peer/user evaluation or submit a written appeal. It is recommended that both the employee and the supervisor keep backup copies of their evaluations.
6. Peer/User Evaluation
Peer Evaluations may be solicited when the professional staff member does not concur with the final recommendation and/or evaluation.
The supervisor and the professional staff member shall jointly determine those who have a continuing job-related contact with the professional staff member.
Where there is disagreement as to who serves in this role, each may, if desired, identify employees who shall be requested to provide evaluations. These evaluations shall be identified as having been solicited by either the supervisor or the professional staff member. The supervisor shall send the evaluation forms to the peers so identified.
No more than seven employees may be identified as peers for evaluation purposes. The supervisor shall request that those so identified evaluate the professional staff member against agreed upon criteria. The peer may or may not agree to participate in the evaluation process as requested. In the event that a peer declines participation, the supervisor shall notify the professional staff member who may then submit the name of the alternate peer.
User Input may be required by the professional staff member when concurrence with the supervisor’s recommendation and/or evaluation is not reached. Mutual agreement must be reached in identifying users of services provided by the professional staff member. All evaluation materials shall be submitted to the professional staff member’s immediate supervisor. The professional staff member shall receive copies of all evaluation materials.
7. Recommendation Review Form
The overall performance evaluation and recommendation for reappointment (the latter applies only to employees on single year contracts or in the final year of multi-year contracts) must be approved by each successive level supervisor. The top portion of the Recommendation Review Form has been completed by the Office of Human Resources and indicates whether or not the employee is to be evaluated for reappointment during this cycle.
8. Unsatisfactory Work Performance
Employees whose overall work performance is deemed unsatisfactory for any given evaluation period shall be placed on a structured improvement plan and shall be re-evaluated at the mid-point of the next evaluation cycle. Employees who fail to perform satisfactorily during their initial evaluation period, or who evidence a pattern of unsatisfactory evaluations in subsequent years, shall be subject to non-reappointment at the end of their current contract period.