THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EDITED FOR USE WITHIN STUDENT AFFAIRS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, CROOKSTON BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

 

Recommended Procedures for

Comprehensive Reviews for System and Campus Officers

 

The original document is available online at http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/ohrpolicy/Performance/Reviews/ .

 

 

The following pages of information has been “selectively (and arbitrarily!) edited from the source document “Comprehensive Reviews for System and Campus Officers” as referenced.

Bob Nelson      2/04/02

 

REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS

 

Periodic Comprehensive Reviews, covered in this procedural guide, are broad in scope and dimension and build on the results of the annual reviews that have occurred since the last periodic comprehensive review. Assessment information is solicited from a wide spectrum of people who are affected by the individual's performance. Done well, the reviews provide an opportunity to see a picture or performance the administration might not or does not see.  They also provide a reliable and valid overall view of performance including accomplishments, expertise, professional growth, and both a general and specific assessment of effectiveness in carrying out responsibilities. The majority of what is learned from the review is intended for developmental use. This review is a major piece of information along with several other factors, such as the Vice Chancellor for Student Affair’s (VCSA) personal observations of working with the Student Affairs (SA) Director and information from past annual reviews, that will be used by the VCSA in making re-appointment decisions.

 

Periodic Comprehensive Reviews are conducted for the purposes of:

·        recognizing professional growth and achievements;

·        focusing individual professional development plans for future growth in the position;

·        providing a formal systematic and reliable means of accomplishing periodic performance appraisals;

·        improving individual performance to benefit personal, unit and institutional effectiveness;

·        providing information to the VCSA who is charged with making personnel decisions including those of compensation and re-appointment;

·        providing one mechanism for review and improvement of processes used to achieve individual, unit and institutional goals;

·        fostering responsible leadership and management of all resources;

·        providing one measure, positive or negative, of administrative accountability to both internal and external constituents.

 

 Official Review Committee File

 

An official Review Committee File must be established and should contain the following information:

 

·        Review Committee minutes;

·        Sample survey instrument, letter requesting evaluation, and/or interview questions;

·        Raw data collected, including surveys, letters of evaluation, notes from oral interviews;

·        Selected lists of participants (Refer to "Participant Identification Requirements Chart");

·        Summary of review data collected;

·        Committee report;

 

The entire official Review Committee File will be available to the SA Director for inspection at the conclusion of the Review Committee's work. The SA Director may submit information for the file to supplement or refute materials contained in this file.

 

At the conclusion of the committee's work, the official Review Committee File is to be turned over to the VCSA who requested the review.

 

Review Process

·        The Review Committee, in consultation with the VCSA, needs to determine who should be requested to participate, what information should be collected, how it should be collected, and how the results will be compiled.

 

·        The SA Director should be involved at appropriate points during the review in order to lend greater credibility and meaning to the activity. It is recommended the SA Director be involved in the following ways:

a)      provide input into the determination of the Review Committee

b)      discuss specific circumstances that might be important to know and take into account from the beginning of the review process

c)      provide Background Statement and meet with the Review Committee at its request to answer questions and provide greater clarity

d)      assist in identifying people from whom assessment information is requested

e)      review and provide reaction to a draft of the assessment instrument(s)

f)        review official Review File as desired

g)      submit written information to the official Review File to supplement or refute materials contained therein if the option to review the File is exercised

h)      review and discuss with the VCSA the preliminary performance statement and provide written reaction as desired

i)        receive final performance review statement

j)        utilize information from the review in planning for professional development and in focusing decisions on future activities

 

·        The Review Committee cannot open their meetings except with the consent of the person being evaluated and provided no personal information regarding others is disclosed without their consent.

 

Participants in Review

·        In cooperation with the VCSA and the SA Director, identify the major internal and external constituents (e.g., administrators, faculty, students, staff, alumni) with whom the SA Director generally interacts in conducting the unit's business.

 

·        Individuals who are no longer at the University (i.e., students) but were present during some portion of the period of time the review covers, may be contacted for their input.  The limited period which their assessment covers should be acknowledged in the summary report.

 

·        Individuals who are not asked to be participants in the review may “petition” the Review Committee to allow them opportunity to be heard.  According to the guidelines, a decision by the Review Committee is to be made as to whether the information from the individual(s) is to be attributed or protected.  The feedback provided should not carry any more weight than is appropriate.

 

·        For purposes of this review, the Review Committee members in consultation with the VCSA need to determine which individuals under Faculty and Staff should be considered direct or indirect reports, and which should not. Requests for assessment information should state if identification of the participant is required. When identification is required and is not provided, the information will not be considered.

 

·        The evaluation process and criteria should be carefully tailored to the specific position/SA Director.

 

·        Suggested report format:

 

I. Executive Summary

The executive summary should include a bulleted list of the highlights of the review including overall strengths and areas for improvement.

 

II. Assessment of Core Performance Criteria

Report should include a written or bulleted assessment of each of the key performance criteria. Results should reflect a balance of both strengths and key areas for improvement.

 

III. Appendices

The Appendices should include the members of the review committee, a summary of the process used, and a summary of any available numerical information.

 

Methodology

 

There is no single mandated methodology for collecting information.  A review committee may choose to use letters of evaluation, written surveys, individual interviews, small focus groups (e.g., chairs of collegiate committees, administrators in unit), or any combination of the above methods.  Critical constituency groups and individuals should have opportunity for participation, but the Review Committee in consultation with the VCSA chooses its methodology. 

 

·        Written or oral evaluations should be solicited from the identified samples.  Information is to be gathered by one or a combination of the following means:

·        Letters of evaluation

·        Surveys

·        Interviews – one on one or focus groups

 

·        Whichever methodology or combination of methodologies is employed, information should be provided regarding accessibility of alternative formats.  Printed materials should use the following statement: “This publication is available in alternative formats upon request.  Please contact (name, department, address, phone number).”

 

Confidentiality of Assessment Information

 

All persons from whom evaluations are solicited should be informed that in conformance with the state's Data Practices Act, all evaluations may be accessible for review by the SA Director.

 

Identification of the source of assessment information increases the validity and credibility of the performance review. In general, review participants are encouraged to identify themselves relative to their comments to enable better use of this information. On the other hand, it is recognized that occasionally there are concerns with identification by people who are under the control and authority of the SA Director. For these categories of participants, identification is not required. The "Participant Identification Requirements" chart states identification requirements by category of participants. Participants in the review should be informed as to whether or not their assessment information is required to carry identification and identification in what manner.

 

Using a focus group method of collecting assessment information, referred to as partial anonymity, is a strategy which can be used to address the concern that accurate information would not be received if the responses were completely anonymous. The reviewers are informed that their responses would be integrated with other like reviewers and reported only in an aggregated form. Reviewers would be identified as participants in the group, but their specific comments would not be attributed.

 

In instances where identification is required and none is given, assessment information from those individuals should not be considered. However, if any information is received relative to allegations of serious misconduct or illegal action, whether the source is identified or not, it should be forwarded immediately to the VCSA. The VCSA is charged with determining what, if any, investigation is appropriate.

 

Administrators being reviewed shall be held to the strictest standards of professional and ethical behavior and are not to retaliate against any person who has participated in the review process. Retaliation may include any form of intimidation or harassment. VCSAs should bring this expectation to the attention of the SA Director.

 

 

Participant Identification Requirements Chart

 

 

 

Letters or Memos of Evaluation

SURVEYS

Written

INTERVIEWS Written or taped notes

Forced Response

Open ended

One on One

Focus groups

Peer Administrators