State Agency - NASACT



TOPIC: Performance Evaluations OFFICE: AuditorSTATE: LADATE: 04/13/2011QUESTION / ISSUE: Our office is currently reviewing our processes for evaluating employees. We are interested in obtaining information on how other states conduct performance evaluations. We would like to know the following questions. Also, if possible, please send us a copy of your performance evaluation instrument as well. When does your agency evaluate employees (once a year, after each audit, etc)? Do you have different instruments for different types of evaluations and for different levels of employees? Do you use narrative comments only or use numeric ratings as well? If you use numeric ratings, what kind of scale do you use (i.e., 3 point, 5 point, etc)? What is the content of your performance evaluation tool based on (i.e., job descriptions) and how was it developed? Is the performance evaluation tied to merit increases? Are your merit increases variable depending on performance?What processes do you use to reduce subjectivity and increase consistency among evaluators? StateCommentsFloridaFormal evaluations are conducted on an annual basis. Project specific evaluations may be performed to support the annual evaluation.We use one uniform evaluation tool for our annual evaluations.We use five ratings for five categories as follows: Performance Category: Productivity, Quality, Teamwork/Relationships, Leadership, and Skills DevelopmentPerformance Rating: Outstanding, Exceptional, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, UnsatisfactoryThe performance evaluation includes a matrix based on the above and the evaluator checks the appropriate rating box for each performance category. We also provide narrative comments relative to each criterion.Our performance categories were developed based on expectations (productivity, quality, teamwork, etc.). The expectations are then applied within the context of the position being evaluated. The performance ratings are affected by the level of consistency in achieving those expectations. It was developed with input of several staff (organized into a task force) based on interviews of other office staff and management, research, and their experience with the successes and failures of previous evaluation methods. When merit increases are available, they are dependent in part on performance evaluations.We have developed guidance, including Performance Categories Definitions and Performance Category Ranking Definitions Guidelines for managers and supervisors to use in completing the evaluations.GeorgiaThe official policy requires all employees to receive an annual evaluation, which is often done in the fall of each year. At a minimum, this standard must be met. However, we do allow divisions to conduct evaluations more frequently if they feel it is appropriate for their work process. For example, our Education Audit Division performs two different types of audits, school board audits and college audits. Because the processes are different for these audits, this division evaluates its staff at the conclusion of these two functions. Another division completes appraisals on its auditors quarterly, using a modified form. Then the official form is used for the annual appraisal in the Fall.The overall concept of the form used as the official appraisal is the same for all employees. There is a section in which the employee is evaluated on the degree to which his/her objectives are met. The objectives are standardized for a particular job in a division. There is also a section in which employees are evaluated on competencies that important within this Department. All employees are evaluated on the same competencies. However, the level of importance for the competencies may vary based on the position of the employee. The level of importance is noted on the evaluations and has also been standardized for a particular job in a division.There are three other sections on the form. These include:Compliance with Office PoliciesAction PlanDevelopmental PlanThe Compliance Section is the same for all employees. The Action Plan Section is used only when an employee receives ratings that are below acceptable standards and is expected to make immediate improvement. The Developmental Plan is specific to an individual and outlines skills that the employee should work on during the year to improve in their current job or to move into higher levels in the Department.In some cases, divisions will use modified forms for the interim appraisals. For example, the division noted above that does quarterly appraisals uses a condensed evaluation for three quarters, then uses the official appraisal form in the Fall. For the section in which employees are evaluated on the degree to which objectives are met, we use a rating system. The system’s ratings are as follows:Exceptionally Surpassed Expected ResultsFully Achieved Expected ResultsPartially Achieved Expected ResultsDid Not Achieve Expected ResultsThere is a section at the end in which evaluators can make overall comments.For the competency section, we use a scale. There are four identifiers on the scale:Always Exceeds ExpectationsFully Meets ExpectationsPartially Meets ExpectationsDoes Not Meet ExpectationsEvaluators can mark the employee’s job performance anywhere on the scale. They are not limited to specifically rating competencies into one of the four categories. By doing this, it gives the evaluator more flexibility when an employee isn’t really at one particular benchmark. Also, it enables the employee to see progress. For example, an employee may be rated right at “Fully Meets Expectation” one year. However, the following year, the rating is moved over on to the scale a little closer to “Exceeds Expectation.” The objectives section of the performance evaluation is based on the job specifications and descriptions that have been developed for each type and level of job in the Department. The competency section was based on a determination of the competencies that were required to be successful at the Department of Audits and Accounts. The competencies selected were based on decisions of a core group of managers when the appraisal tool was developed. The appraisal tool was developed by a consultant firm. During the development process, this firm worked directly with Department management and staff to refine our class specifications and then to develop an appraisal system that could be used as a consistent tool Department wide.Appraisals are generally done in the Fall because raises (when authorized by the General Assembly) are given in January. When merit increases have been authorized, the amount of the raise would be variable among staff and dependent upon the employee’s job performance.Some of the divisions have a training forum for their evaluators each year to discuss the appraisal form, what management is looking for, and to cover some of the obstacles the managers need to avoid when rating employees. During this forum, they will also discuss any issues that were noted from the prior year’s appraisal process.All appraisals are read by management prior to being approved and before the results of the appraisal are communicated to the employee. Often, this is the director/deputy director who reads the appraisals. The director/deputy director will look for inconsistencies and address them with the evaluator as necessary before the appraisal is approved and formally communicated to the employee. GuamEmployees are evaluated once a year.?Yes. We have two performance evaluation forms:?One?evaluation form is?used to?evaluate our?audit staff and another evaluation form is used?to evaluate our administrative staff.We use?narrative comments and a rating key as shown below: CE – Consistently exceeds expectationsEE – Exceeds expectationsME – Meets expectationsNI – Needs improvementDE – Does not meet expectationsThe content of our?performance evaluation is?based on performance standards and/or job tasks.Employee performance evaluations are tied to pay increments.?The merit bonus is automatic upon receiving a superior rating evaluation and is in addition to the salary increment. The merit bonus?is limited to the fiscal year in which superior performance was performed and based on an amount equivalent to 3.5% of the employee’s based salary.We try to reduce subjectivity by?requiring each employee to evaluate themselves for the year and incorporate all feedback from others who have worked with the employee during the rating period to identify the employee's strengths and weaknesses. Employees are also rated on the?number of reports/special assignments?they have completed for the year.MarylandAuditors are evaluated after each audit assignment. Management and office staff are evaluated annually.We have separate evaluation forms for support staff, staff auditors, senior auditors, audit managers, upper management, information systems staff auditors, information systems senior auditors, and various other specialized positions.We use a combination of narrative comments and ratings. Our ratings are not numeric but instead compare the employee’s performance to set standards (i.e., consistently exceeds standards, consistently meets and occasionally exceeds standards, meet standards, below standards, unsatisfactory).Our current evaluation form is based on the related job description and is job task oriented.All promotions and salary increases in our office are based on job performance. Performance evaluations are one factor that is considered by management when making salary decisions. We also consider the complexity of assignments, feedback from management, and other factors in our decisions.To minimize subjectivity, we do not base our decisions on a single evaluation. Instead, we look for trends among an employee’s evaluations and base our decisions on their cumulative performance for a year.Please Note: We are currently re-evaluating our performance appraisal system and are moving to an evaluation system based on a competency model. The purpose of a competency model is to describe the combination of knowledge, skills and (personal) characteristics needed to effectively perform as an auditor. We have identified the core competencies (that is, the fundamental requirements for auditors at all levels) and are currently in the process of developing performance evaluations based on these competencies. We started this process for succession planning purposes to ensure that, collectively, our staff has what it takes to successfully lead this organization in the future. Minnesota (OLA)We are currently redesigning and enhancing our performance evaluation process, but I have attached the forms we?currently use. We have a Performance Evaluation?Committee charged with?redesigning our evaluation form and function in about the June/July timeframe. We will have some other ancillary processes we will need to enhance a little later, so we have that in mind as we make changes to our criteria and format.We complete evaluation forms after each audit. We had a very robust and integrated time?management and human resource (evaluation), called HRMS, a few years ago, but it wasn't further integrated with electronic workpapers. We have implemented a tool for electronic?workpapers but we didn't establish similar requirements in the?workpaper tool as we had before in our?HRMS. Some day the tool promises to do a better job, but we have to have a process in the interim. A primary?reason to reevaluate our process is we felt we lost the?timeliness of the reviews, decreasing their effectiveness. We are establishing some expectations and automated ways of tracking and reminding people to complete the evaluations?to ensure timely feedback. Annually the results of the evaluations are tabulated and we present our staff with awards (plaques) based individuals with the highest scores in our categories, based on level. Annually our Deputy Legislative Auditor meets with all staff members to generally discuss the results of their evaluations and where their scores put them relative to others at their level.?Ancillary processes under consideration"counseling process": This was the process I had in public accounting: you get a review after each audit and then you met semi-annually with an assigned manager (since our "supervisor" changes on each audit, and we do not have direct reporting relationships) to go over the evaluations you had so far, discuss possible training to mitigate deficiencies or expand interests, talk about career goals, talk about interests in future audits. In meeting with a manager it is less intimidating for some when there are large level ranks between them and the Deputy and it is generally more focused on audit type needs, but is at a level higher than the staffs' everyday supervisor. No plans for implementation at this time. Internal Assignments: We are also considering creating some type of evaluation to be used when a staff person completes an internal project or?assignment because we feel that an individual can contribute significantly to the effectiveness and efficiency of the department but that is not being recognized right now. As a result, some people are reluctant to volunteer for projects because it is additional work and it?isn't really rewarded. No plans for implementation at this time. 360 reviews: We have had significant interest in our?Performance Evaluation Committee?regarding 360 evaluations of managers and supervisors. We feel that it important feedback from staff that we don't currently capture. We anticipate it being conducted semi-annually – once after our?annual financial statement work and once after our interim work, so it wouldn't happen on each individual audit. We don't have plans to implement it at this time, but we have had discussions about it. Manager Forms: the process for manager performance review is more informal than with staff, since the pool of individuals is much smaller. No plans for?implementation at this time.If I understand correctly, I would say yes. We use a form, some of the criteria?are the same among levels and some of the criteria?are specific to the level being evaluated. This will continue to be the case in our new format.We use comments and numeric ratings. We rate on a 5 point scale. Our auditors and?senior auditors are rated in 3 categories: Fieldwork, Time Management and Communication. Our Lead Auditors and Audit In Charges are rated in 4 categories: Time Management, Fieldwork, Communication, and Planning and Supervision. Each of those categories as a weighting based on the category and the level of the evaluatee. Generally, anything that is NOT a 3 should have some type of a comment.?This may change somewhat in our new format. We suggest?going to a?9 point scale 1-5 in increments of .5. This sounds like a lot, but really we need it specifically for a 2.5 and a 3.5 rating, to a lesser degree 4.5, and hopefully we will never need the 1.5! We found that the mode in our evaluations was a 4 and mathematically supervisors would play around with responses to specific criteria to arrive at an appropriate overall score. We felt this made the feedback less valuable to the evaluate – they were over scored in some areas and under scored in other areas just to adjust the outcome. See the example:ScenarioCriteria#1#2#3#4A43.53.53.5B33.53.53.5C4443.5D443.53.5E(y/n)(y/n)(y/n)(y/n)3.753.753.6253.5?The Scenario 1 and 2 have the same mathematical result, but different messages to the evaluatee. The other two scenarios illustrate how the .5 gives some statistical variance when applied across all evaluations, so hopefully we will see a little less clustering and awards won't be so frequently?determined on rounded hundredths of a point.?Also, we discovered in our new approach that not all criteria fit into a 1-5 scale. Some are more (yes or no answers) or at least only a 1-3 ranking. You either did it, or you didn't (the 1 and 2 ranking differentiates the magnitude of non compliance) and no one could ever exceed a yes which is the expectation. For example: you either entered your time in a timely manner or you didn't. A rating of 3 meant you did. A rating of 2 meant you did but you might go days to a week of not entering it. A rating of 1 meant you entered your time on timesheet due date. Also we have standard deadlines, reports due 9 weeks after fieldwork or evaluations 2 weeks after the staff roles off the project (new). You either meet the deadline or you don't. We again saw supervisors manipulating scores in these criteria that shouldn't really be over a 3 to achieve an overall score: it is our desire that our approach be specific enough to alleviate some of the manipulation and simply let the results stand as they occur.The criteria in our evaluation?form is symbiotic with our job description/position description. Sometimes we determine that our position descriptions needs enhancement?based?on criteria and vice versa. A change?in either prompts a review of the other in order to keep them aligned.If we had money to provide merit increases, yes. Practically for the last few years the answer is no. Evaluations are a large and important component in assigning merit increases but they are not the only criteria. Even the best tools have some limitations. Yes, we have some flexibility and merit increases can be variable.This is the 6 million dollar question!!!! :) If you find the answer, please share it.?Here is our approach to attempt to answer that: isolate your variables.a. Criteria: We tried to create our criteria tied to professional standards and job descriptions. These are independent of the supervisor and we try to review?them?to ensure?they stay relevant. Start with good criteria. We found that generalized criteria was lumped together so people played games with their scoring. Plus it required a lot of narrative in the comment section to really describe what aspects of the criteria were good and what wasn't to justify the score. Sometimes the narrative didn't fit score (Why did you give me a 3 (meeting expectations) when you said I did good work (4 – exceeding expectations)?) because supervisors were looking at the overall score for the evaluation and the?evaluatee was looking at the result of specific criteria for strengths and weaknesses.b. Expectations: Between professional standards/job descriptions/policies and the real world performance there are expectations. They can change by audit, by supervisor, and by manager: so you have an?infinite variation of audits objectives, staff abilities, supervisor styles, and manager styles. Sometimes they are communicated, often they are assumed. We are going to focus on creating more standard approaches in how we do work (how we use our electronic?workpaper tool) so staff have a better way of clearly knowing what is expected of them. Even if there are variances in the style and expectations of supervisors and managers, if staff are aware of them they can adapt. The more you can document and get your expectations standardized the more the scores should be consistent.c. Variance: the mathematical result of different expectations and interpretations applied to the criteria. This can't be eliminated but we are trying to minimize it in these ways:Our current approach is rather low tech: Adobe forms. Our future?approach will likely be based in Microsoft Access (HRMS was internally developed in Java/oracle and was?unwieldy to maintain when those individuals left). It doesn't give supervisors feedback as to how evaluations they prepare compared to evaluations that other supervisors: said another way- a supervisor doesn't generally know if they are harsher or more lenient than their counterparts. We will develop some Access Reports that will provide some summarized insight to the supervisors and managers without providing access to the actual performance evaluations. Once people can see how their peers rate, there might be some normalization in the scores of individual?evaluatees on certain criteria. I think staff probably see?a lot of difference in their scores and that is difficult to adapt to. Also, other reports can show a?evaluatee's average score in relation to others of their level. Currently people see that only annually. In order to provide better reporting and more information, we hope that some natural?consistency will emerge.Accepting the fact that not all criteria is created equal! Some criteria is primarily a yes?or no response and not a 5 point scale- but some score needs to be assigned, therefore the score assigned to some yes/no criteria?might be a 1 and a 3, or a 2 and a 3 or something else entirely. We haven't gotten that far, but we will go through lots of testing and this will evolve over time.Accepting the fact that not all audits are created equal! While we want to use the same form for ALL audits (Single Audit, Financial Statement, Internal Control and Legal Compliance, Information Technology) some criteria are just more important based on the audit type. So they will be slightly weighted based on the type of audit (For example the planning required for an annual financial statement is more performed by a manager, but on other audits our In Charges have a much bigger role- same criteria, different weight). Also some audits are more complex and have more hours than others. We haven't exactly decided how we will address this quite yet, but we intend to try.Training: We don't really train evaluators how to complete the reviews. Other than annually composite scores aren't communicated to staff. Everyone will need to be trained on our new approach and that provides a great opportunity to set (or reset) expectations for all levels of staff.Monitoring: Analyzing aggregate data in a more timely manner will give us much more information. Conducting surveys of staff will help to determine if they believe this new approach is better than the prior approach. These are the ways we can demonstrate we are improving and moving in the right direction or require some corrective action.?In closing, we know how?subjective and sensitive this issue is. It seems like our proposed process is pretty complex- in some cases we are?simplifying and streamlining. In other areas we are adding complexity- however most of the complexity is programmatic... it is the back-end logic so the actual process of conducting an evaluation, overall, is unchanged. We felt it is necessary to consider this complexity because we don't make anything... we don't make widgets, we create audit reports. The only asset we have is the competency of our staff and we feel that giving serious consideration to how and when we complete evaluations is the most important thing we can do for our staff. The pendulum swings from overly complex to overly simplified and we hope to strike that excellent balance of both.Minnesota (OSA)Annually. New auditors are evaluated at 3 months and 6 months. When auditors are promoted from one level to the next, they are evaluated after 6 months into the promotion.Yes.Narrative only.It is based on job descriptions. We have an LGA series of evaluations. The evaluation is 3 pages, with 15 pages of background questions to use to help fill out the evaluation. There is also a self assessment.Yes. It can impact step increases and promotions.The detailed 15 pages of background questions helps with consistency.MississippiField staff employees (In-charge and subordinate staff) are evaluated when an audit assignment is completed if the employee has accumulated at least 120 billable hours to the audit engagement. For assignments for which the employee has less than 120 billable hours, no evaluation grade is given. Supervising seniors and managers are evaluated annually for all engagements. There are different standards for the levels of employees assigned to an engagement. These are generally broken down between manager, supervisor, in-charge, and subordinate staff levels.Numeric ratings are assigned to the pre-agreed duty standards in a range of 1-3 with (1 - failed to meet expectations, 2 - met expectations and 3 - exceeded expectations).The content of the performance evaluation tool is based upon job duty standards developed for the different levels of job performance expectations and include a certain number of allowable errors based upon a sliding scale and in relation to the number of hours performed on the job assignment. The duty standards were developed internally. Performance is not tied to merit increases because we do not have “merit pay” increases. All pay increases must be approved by the Legislature. However, the job performance evaluation would be considered when promotion considerations are being made. To reduce inconsistencies and subjectivity, evaluation point sheets are reviewed by supervisory personnel prior to an evaluation being presented to the employee so that types of errors are addressed consistently among the staff.MissouriAn auditor who works on an audit for more than 160 hours (including travel) should receive a formal written appraisal from the supervisor. The auditor should receive an appraisal at least every 6 months.Yes, we have different appraisals for the following groups of employees: (1) field auditors (with one form being used for both staff auditors and their supervising auditors), (2) interns (short-term audit positions for students earning accounting or business degrees), (3) audit managers, and (4) administrative staff. An upward appraisal form also exists (completed by each professional audit staff member to rate the performance of his/her immediate supervisor).The ratings are descriptive rather than numeric: E - Exceptional, A - Advanced, C- Competent, I - Improvement needed, M - Major improvement needed, and NA - Not applicable. The appraisal form for auditors includes six performance categories considered essential to the job: (1) Auditing Skills, Data Gathering, Data Analysis; (2) Written Communication; (3) Oral Communication; (4) Teamwork, Working Relationships, Equal Opportunity; (5) Planning; and (6) Supervision, Appraisal, Coaching. For each applicable category, the supervisor is to provide comments to support the rating and to communicate strengths as well as suggestions for improvement. The appraisal form was developed in-house based on (1) suggestions or other comments from employees preparing and/or receiving appraisals and (2) review of appraisal systems used by a few other state audit organizations.Yes, performance appraisals are used for decisions regarding promotions and/or raises (when funding for raises is available). Raise amounts may vary. (The employees of this office are not part of the state merit system.)An appraisal manual exists to educate supervisors on the preparation of appraisals, including the importance of being objective. Appraisals have been the subject of several staff training sessions over the years. Also, each appraisal is reviewed by the immediate supervisor of the employee preparing the appraisal either before that employee discusses the form with the person being appraised or before the appraisal is sent to the director of administration. MontanaInternal policy requires that when a staff person has worked on an engagement more than 80hours, they are provided a “skill review” based on the critical elements within the position description. These skill reviews are completed by the persons supervising the audit (supervisors also are evaluated by each team member). Annually, the skill reviews are compiled and the Deputy prepares an “evaluation” of the auditor’s demonstrated abilities throughout the year, recommending a merit, promotion, or on occasion a demotion salary adjustment. The Legislative Auditor makes the final determination and meets with the auditor on their performance.We have evaluation forms for performance audit, financial and compliance audit and information systems audits. There is a different form, addressing the critical elements in the position descriptions of Auditors, Senior Auditors, and Audit Managers.The forms generally include a sliding scale marking from exceeds or meets expectations to needs improvement. There is also a comments area justifying marks and describing how the audit skills can be improved.We have had a merit-based pay plan for decades. The appraisal system was originally implemented with the help of NCSL. NCSL provided a Discussion Paper – Designing a Performance Appraisal System for the Montana Legislative Branch, refined our position descriptions and trained us on how to evaluate skills. Really, it is commitment and perseverance to develop good auditors.As discussed above, yes performance is the basis for salary increases. The current pay plan provides for merit in the range of 0-4% and promotion to a salary no lower than entry (depending on available funds.) We have on occasion also demoted audit staff who continually were not meeting the expectations of their current position. Salary adjustments vary depending on the skill set evaluated, and in an effort to continue to distinguish performance among staff. ** see below.As discussed in #1, when Deputies prepare an evaluation, they also discuss performance with management for additional feedback. Subjectivity is definitely a part of the process. The Legislative Auditor sees all skill reviews, evaluations and have my own direct observations and working relationships to make the final decision. We continually train staff on how to evaluate. Typically the evaluator is consistent in his/her considerations, but among evaluators subjectivity plays a role and where I see significant differences, I call a meeting to discuss how to interpret different evaluator feedback. ** Our pay adjustments under a merit-based pay plan are not anticipated in the budget preparation. We fund salary adjustments through vacancy savings – investing in experience and growing who we have. When a vacancy is filled we hire at entry and promote from within.New HampshireAudit managers?are given?written Annual Performance Evaluations. All other staff receive written Job Performance Evaluations at the conclusion of every audit, as well as an Annual Performance Evaluation. Administrative staff receive an Annual only.The Annual Performance Evaluation instrument is the same for all audit?team members?regardless of level. Likewise, the Job Performance Evaluation instrument is the same for all audit staff below the level of manager (it is not applicable to managers and levels above).Job Performance Evaluations contain a summary of hours worked by audit area, and sections on Professional Conduct, Technical Skills, Analytical Skills, Communication Skills, and In-Charge Skills. Each section has specific skills that are rated based on the following categories: "Does not meet expectations," "Partially meets expectations," "Meets expectations," and Exceeds expectations." The instrument also includes a narrative section for the evaluator to explain certain of the ratings in detail. The Annual Performance Evaluation is in narrative form only. Auditors are asked to provide a narrative self-assessment to the evaluator prior to the evaluator's preparation of the Annual. In addition, employees are provided an opportunity?with both instruments to?provide for a written response to the evaluation of their performance, but it is not required.See above for content. Don't know the history.Salary increments are tied to performance, with both Job Performance Evaluations and Annual Performance Evaluations taken into consideration. The office has salary labor grades for?Staff, Managers, Senior Managers, Supervisors, and the Director. Salary increments are based on steps within those grades. Variability is confined to a full step increase, or?2 step increases in exceptional circumstances.The office does not have a formal process to reduce variability. However, coaching of evaluators, combined with experience?observing the grading of individual evaluators, results?in a process that is remarkably consistent and fair to those who performance is being evaluated. North DakotaStaff auditors are evaluated after each audit. All others are evaluated at least annually.Yes, every different level of auditor has a unique evaluation form.We use narrative and numeric ratings. We use a scale of 10 point.Based on job description and duties. Developed in-house.Yes & yes.We have no specific process that we use to reduce subjectivity and increase consistency among evaluators.OklahomaOnce a year, however if an employee is struggling we evaluate more often. Throughout the year managers and supervisors also provide feedback during the review process.It is one instrument but there are sections that only apply to supervisors and managers.We use a rating scale of Unacceptable, Needs Improvement, Meet Expectation or Exceed Expectation. We also add narrative comments.Based on job description. We developed it by obtaining several different types of evaluations.We are unclassified employees, but a good evaluation will normally result in a salary increase if the budget allows.Discussion with managers and supervisors about how the forms work and review and approval by the Director.Attached is our evaluation tool.\sOregonWe evaluate permanent staff once a year. We have up to 71 staff. Over the last few years we have had around 58-65 professional staff. Our trial service is one year. We generally perform 3 evaluations (4 mo., 8 mo., 12 mo.).Our evaluations have the same general format, but the rating categories are different for different levels of employees.Over the last 20 years, we have changed our evaluation format several times. Several years ago we used numeric ratings. Currently, we use narrative comments and use a Satisfactory/Nonsatisfactory rating.The content was developed based on what we thought were important skills for employees to have. We ensured the content agreed to our position descriptions. The intent is for good performance to be rewarded with merit. However, we have not received merits for the last 2 years.We tend to reevaluate the performance management process and reevaluate our forms every 5 years. We have changed from check boxes to check boxes and narratives. We have also used several ratings (exceeds, outstanding, satisfactory, needs improvement, unacceptable) where we rated several areas. To try to provide an honest and fair appraisal and reduce subjectivity, we now only have 2 rating categories (satisfactory and unsatisfactory), we rotate staff among audit managers, we have 2 managers who read all evaluations, and we have an HR person who reads all evaluations. We have the following auditor classifications: State Auditor 2 (underfill = state auditor 1), State Auditor 3, State Auditor 4, Audit Manager, Deputy, and Director. We have an SA1/SA2 evaluation form, SA3/SA4 evaluation form, and a management evaluation form that is used to evaluate audit managers and above. Although the evaluation forms used are the same for different levels of staff (e.g., SA3 and SA4), the expectations for each are a little different and are based on their position descriptions. Attached are SA3/SA4 trial service and permanent staff evaluation forms.\s\sPennsylvania (OSC)Currently, employee performance reviews (EPR) are done once a year. We are debating the idea of providing supplemental evaluations after longer engagements (i.e. 500 hours). We have one evaluation form for Audit Managers and another that is inclusive for Auditor I through Audit Supervisor. These evaluation forms are then used to crosswalk to the standard EPR rating scale. Our EPR uses a five point rating scale. Narratives must be provided for any rating below a three or above a four. However, narratives can be provided at any time at the evaluator’s discretion. HR developed the language for the standard five point EPR scale. This is used in every agency for every position in the Commonwealth. However, we have developed supplemental evaluation forms that cross walk between these standard EPRs and the employee’s job description. We currently offer no merit increases. The level above the evaluator looks at the EPRs for all of their subordinates to ensure consistency and subjectivity. For example, the division chiefs review the evaluations that each of their managers conduct to ensure that each manager is treating their staff consistently with the same expectations. South CarolinaThe South Carolina State Auditor’s Office prepares interim evaluations on staff and in-charge auditors at the end of each engagement. The interim evaluations are used to support the annual evaluation. Audit managers only receive an annual evaluation. The same interim evaluation (attached) is used for staff and in-charges. There is a separate annual evaluation for each staff level (attached).The annual evaluation assigns a numeric value, but it must be supported by a narrative justification. The annual performance evaluation is aligned with the employee’s job description. The evaluations were developed internally.When funding is available performance increases are tied to the annual evaluation rating.All evaluations are reviewed by the Deputy Director before they are presented to staff members. This provides some consistency within the process.\s\s\s\s\sVermontUnder the State’s union contract, annual evaluations are conducted within 45 days of the anniversary date of the staff member's completion of original 6 month probation. In addition, we provide performance appraisals at the end of each audit to staff members assigned to an audit for greater than 200 hours. The annual evaluation is produced on a specific form designated by the State’s Department of Human Resources. The audit-based appraisal is produced on a different, but similar form (the Project Evaluation Form). We use narrative comments and provide an overall rating of outstanding, excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.Our form can be found in appendix 3.3 in our Professional Standards Manual (). The competency model that we use to guide this completion of this evaluation can be found in appendix 3.2 of the same document. The State’s evaluation form that we use for the annual evaluation of staff can be found at: and sign-off on all appraisals by the State Auditor and Deputy State Auditor (we only have 10 auditor positions subject to our competency model).WashingtonOnce a year, on their anniversary date.Same evaluation instrument, but each level has a different standard form (template which can be modified) because the key results and competencies are different at each level. See examples attached.Narrative comments and a rating scale. Scale is not based on points but rather it’s a continuum from “Did not achieve” to “Far beyond expectations”. See attached examples of a PDP Part 2 (feedback) for a Performance Auditor I and a Senior Performance Auditor.Based on Position Description forms (job descriptions) and each employee’s PDP Part 1 (plan) – example attached. The key competencies are based on the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to do the job, and the key results expected are based on the roles they will play on the audit and what outcomes they are to achieve. No, performance evaluation is not tied to merit increases – not available here.We had a supervisor meeting where we set expectations and will periodically repeat that message. One person receives all evaluations and can make comments about the content (before it’s discussed with the employee) such as whether the rating matches the comments, whether examples are specific and clear, etc.\s\s\sWest VirginiaEmployees are evaluated once a year, normally in July. However, if they have recently been promoted or are a new employee we do a six month evaluation.?Yes, we use a different instrument for the yearly evaluation than we do for the six month evaluation. For the yearly evaluations, we have different forms for each level of employee. The six month evaluations are simply in memo format.On the yearly evaluations we use narrative comments as well as check marks which are numeric ratings. The scale is: Excellent = 4, Very Good = 3, Good = 2, Marginally Satisfactory = 1, Unsatisfactory = 0The six month evaluations are in narrative comments only.The content was based on the job descriptions and expectations at the specific job level.The performance evaluation plays a part in merit increases but is not 100% the sole factor of a merit increase. Merit increases are variable depending on performance.Each manager completes the evaluations for each member of their audit team. The managers and Director then meet to discuss each evaluation and determine if everyone is using the same criteria to keep it consistent. Additionally, each manager provides input for the evaluations of the auditors they worked with during the review period.Attached are the different types of yearly evaluation forms we use, as well as an example of the six month evaluation memo.\s\s\s\s\s\s\s\s\sWisconsinFor the financial audit division, performance is evaluated throughout the probationary period (usually one year). An evaluation is typically completed at the end of each three-month period during the employee’s probationary period. After the probationary period, evaluations will usually be made at the end of each audit. Performance for more experienced employees may be evaluated after an audit but, at a minimum, is evaluated on an annual basis.Annual evaluations are completed for all employees. These evaluations are intended to provide a more comprehensive view of past performances and future plans will be completed.We use narrative evaluations, not numeric ratings (see Attachment 1 for evaluation form). The first section of the evaluation form describes duties assigned and employee expectations. These will vary depending on the classification of the employee and the nature of the assignment. Expectations for the project or period being evaluated may include a description of the audit assignments, the level of performance expected, and any specific weaknesses or developmental areas to address. Employee performance is typically evaluated in the following areas: planning, documentation, analysis, written communication, oral communication, follow-through, and supervision. In each area of performance, many factors could be considered in evaluating performance, including progress since the last evaluation. The importance of each factor varies, depending on the assignment and classification of the employee. A guidance document (Attachment 2) has been developed to assist the evaluator as to what items should be considered in each category. In some situations, such as for experienced staff who have been on a project for a brief time period or long-term employees whose responsibilities and expectations are consistent from year to year, a short-form personnel evaluation form may be used (Attachment 3). The form is designed to highlight accomplishments. The “other comments” section is reserved for suggestions for improved performance, training needs, and miscellaneous comments.See response to #2.The Legislative Audit Bureau is part of the unclassified service of Wisconsin state government and therefore, pay increases are based on merit, not seniority. Pay increases are not necessarily directly tied to the timing of an evaluation, but the results of the evaluation are part of the decision in determining whether an employee is making sufficient progress to be given a promotion or an interim salary increase.See response to #4.For ongoing end-of-project evaluations, managers review evaluations prepared by audit supervisors and may confer with another manager if there is a more sensitive issue included in the evaluation. In addition, during regular managers meetings, staff performance is discussed. For annual evaluations, which are prepared by the managers, there is a formal collaborative process to ensure consistency in evaluating performance. The annual evaluation process begins with an identification of the manager responsible for writing each evaluation. The process includes a pre-annual meeting in which the employee and the manager discuss the employee’s assignments, goals and achievements during the year. Employees are provided a list of questions in advance of the meeting to use as a guideline to lead the discussion (Attachment 4). The manager will draft the annual evaluation. All managers within the financial audit division review all of the evaluations and a meeting is held so that the managers can discuss each employee’s performance and the evaluation. This helps to ensure that all of the managers agree with the assessment of the employee’s performance and the message that is being given in the evaluation. Finally, the State Auditor reviews all evaluations and meets with the managers to discuss them.\s ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download