University of Colorado at Boulder
Department of Geography
108 Guggenheim Hall, Campus Box 260
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0260
(303) 492-8310, Fax: (303) 492-7501
www.colorado.edu/geography
Merit Evaluation Standards, Criteria and Guidelines
Introduction
This document describes the merit evaluation standards and criteria used by the Department
of Geography’s personnel committee to annually evaluate Faculty. The previous system was
based on undocumented criteria that did not match the report received by the College, and
many Faculty did not understand how their numerical scores were obtained. This proposed
new systems seeks to address these two concerns. The advantages over the old system are:





Standardizes the review criteria
More quantitative and less subjective
Makes it clear how the scores are obtained, hence reduce grievances
Streamlines the personnel committee’s merit evaluation with the “Faculty
Performance Rating for AY 20xx-20xx” Report
Simplified scoring system
The Faculty Report of Professional Activities (FRPA), a required annual submission to the
College of Arts and Sciences, forms the basis for the Departments merit evaluation. The
FRPA is used to describe all Professional activity that occurred during the calendar year.
Failure to submit a FRPA by the required deadline (usually February 1) will severely limit
the personnel committee’s ability for evaluation.
Scoring System
The new system matches that currently used in “Faculty Performance Rating for AY 20xx20xx” form. Scores range from 0 to 25 corresponding to five performance categories, based
on the Department’s Standards of Expectation in each area (Research, Teaching, and Service)
as shown in Table 1. The Chair, in conjunction with the Personnel Committee, shall
determined the final overall performance category as reported on the Faculty Performance
Rating form based on a combination of research, teaching, and service evaluation scores.
Table 1. Guidelines for numerical scores assigned to each performance category.
Performance Category
Far Exceeds Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Below Expectations
Unsatisfactory
Numerical Score Range
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
0-5
Page - 2
The total score for the individual is calculated as the sum of the scores in each area, weighted
by the percentage of time spent in each area as stated in individual contracts and reported for
that year in the Faculty Report of Faculty Activities (FRPA), unless a written request for a
differential work load was received and approved by the Chair. The final merit score is then
calculated as the equally weighted average of the scores of each member of the personnel
committee.
For example, a faculty member with the standard 40:40:20 research:teaching:service
split would earn a final score from the personnel committee of 17.5, corresponding to a
recommended “Exceeds Expectations” ranking to be reported on the public document, the
“Faculty Performance Rating for AY 20xx-20xx” form, as outlined in Table 2.
Table 2. Example of how a faculty member earned a ranking of “Exceeds Expectations” on
their Faculty Performance Rating form based on the reviews of the personnel committee
members. Expectations in each area, Research, Teaching, and Service are given a score out
of 25 corresponding to the categories given in Table 1. These are then multiplied by
percentage of time devoted to each area as reported on the FRPA to calculate a score out of
25 for each personnel committee member. The faculty member’s final score is calculated as
the mean of all members of the personnel committee (usually four members).
Personnel Research
Times
Teaching
Times
Service Times
Committee
Score
Research
Score
Teaching Score Service
Member
Weight:
Weight:
Weight:
40%
40%
20%
1
2
3
4
25
25
15
20
10
10
6
8
15
25
10
15
6
10
4
6
10
10
5
25
2
2
1
5
Final
Score
Total
Personnel
Committee
Member
Score
18
22
11
19
17.5
(Exceeds
Expectations)
Review Criteria
This section describes the criteria used to gauge the faculty member’s performance in each of
the three review areas; Research, Teaching, and Service.
Research
All research-active faculty are expected to show evidence of their research productivity.
Research productivity includes the publication record, presentations, and grant activity. The
publication record is the permanent record of professional achievements vetted through a
peer-review process. For research-active faculty, the research expectations for the publication
record are at least the publication of a peer-reviewed journal article, book, book chapter
report, or conference proceedings (first or co-authored). Non-referred products are also
recognized (e.g. journal notes and letters, book reviews, extended abstracts, reports
conference proceedings), but not valued as highly. The quality and significance of the
Page - 3
research (e.g. quality of the Journal), not just quantity, will be considered. Presentations
provide a permanent record of public exposure of one’s research to academic peers. For
presentations, the expectations are at least a presentation (oral or poster; first or co-authored)
at a national/international conference/symposia/meeting, or invited lecture or colloquium
presentation. Grant activity provides a public scrutiny of timeliness and values of one’s
research. The expectations for grant activity are one substantive submission or one
substantive grant in force.
Individuals should contact the personnel committee in writing if he or she feels an
example(s) of their research deserves special consideration if it does not fit within the
standard research media. Given the breadth of scholarly expertise within the Department,
research will be evaluated within the context of the individual’s research discipline whenever
possible.
Unsatisfactory: No any evidence of acceptable research productivity.
Below Expectations: Some evidence of acceptable research productivity, but falls below the
average and expected level of the Department.
Meets Expectations: Demonstrated research productivity at the level expected by the
Department as demonstrated by the average productivity of the faculty.
Exceed Expectations: Exceeded the normal level of research productivity as expected by the
Department as demonstrated by the average productivity of the faculty.
Far Exceeds Expectations: Far exceeded the normal level of research productivity as
expected by the Department as demonstrated by the average productivity of the faculty.
Teaching Criteria
Teaching provides a record for meeting the educational mission of the Department. All
research-active faculty are expected to teach at either the standard three-course load per
academic year (excluding Maymester and Summer Sessions), or at the teaching load
specified in their individual contracts. A course with an enrollment exceeding 400 will be
counted as two separate courses, but will be counted as two, not four courses, if taught in two
sections. Courses may not be counted twice i.e. a course with a lab section does not count as
two courses. The standard course for non-research active faculty is four courses per academic
year (excluding Maymester and Summer Sessions). The distinction between active and nonactive faculty should be reported as a reduction in research weighting and compensatory
increase in the teaching weighting as defined in the individual’s contract (i.e. weightings
cannot be changed year-to-year). Mentoring at both undergraduate and graduate levels is
considered and recognized as part of teaching activities, as are additional teaching activities
such as, for example, new course development or curriculum development. Stellar or poor
teaching performance will also be considered.
Unsatisfactory: Has not performed any teaching or educational activities.
Below Expectations: Performed teaching activities, but not at the Department’s standard
course load.
Meets Expectations: Has fulfilled the Department’s minimum teaching requirements by
teaching the standard course load.
Page - 4
Exceeds Expectations: Has fulfilled the Department’s minimum teaching requirements by
teaching the standard course load, and has taught additional courses or performed additional
teaching and educational activities.
Far Exceeds Expectations: Has fulfilled the Department’s minimum teaching requirements
by teaching the standard course load, and has performed exceptional, additional teaching and
educational activities.
Service Criteria
Service provides a record of commitment to the Department, College, or University at the
nation or international level. All faculty are expected to perform service activities
commensurate with their rank, and in the proportion of time defined in their contract and
reported on their FRPA for the current year. The minimum expectation is be active in one
substantial departmental committee.
Unsatisfactory: No service activities to the extent required.
Below Expectations: Participated in service activities, but below the minimal level expected
by the Department.
Meets Expectations: Participated in service activities as expected by the Department.
Exceeds Expectations: Participated in service activities as expected by the Department, and
has participated in additional service activities within or outside of the Department while not
compromising service to the Department.
Far Exceeds Expectations: Participated in service as expected by the Department, and has
participated in an exceptional level of additional service activities within or outside of the
Department such as Chair or Director (may be acting Chair or Director) of the Department of
major research institute or program, President of an international organization/group, or
served in other substantive leadership roles .
Special Considerations
Grievances
The personnel committee will submit to the faculty their ranking in each of the three areas
based on the information reported in their FRPA, as well as how they ranked relative to the
faculty as a whole, anonymously. Each faculty member has one week to respond in writing to
the personnel committee if he or she disagrees with committee’s ranking in any or all of the
three areas. The personnel committee will meet to discuss the grievance, and then request a
meeting with the individual to discuss their dispute. Each member of the personnel
committee may or may not revise their ranking. If the decision of the personnel committee is
not acceptable to the individual, he or she may appeal their grievance, in writing, to the entire
faculty, along with enclosing a copy of their FRPA. Each faculty member will then perform
their own ranking of the grieved faculty member in all three areas within one week, and a
new ranking for the individual will be calculated based on the equally weighted averages of
all faculty.
Differential Workloads
Deviations of an individual’s time partitioning between research, teaching, and service from
that specified in their contract must be requested and approved in writing by the Chair. The
Page - 5
differential workload, if approved for the current year, would then be reported on their
FRPA. The Chair must also make the personnel committee aware of the differential workload
before the FPRA is reviewed. His or her weighting fractions would then be adjusted
accordingly and therefore still follow the merit criteria and procedures as outlined here. The
Department’s Differential Workload Policy document should be consulted for more
information on this topic.
Split Appointments
A discussion between Chairs or Directors of individuals with split appointments between
academic units must be held before merit review to discuss the allocation of time and
expectations of the individual to both units.
Course Banking
Under the current Departmental bylaws, course but not service banking is allowed if
approved in writing by both the personnel committee and the College (see Banking
Procedures document). If an additional course above the standard Departmental course load
is taught and reported in the FRPA, then this will be considered as “taught addition courses”
and may earn a ranking of “Exceeds Expectations” in the teaching category. The year the
banked course is used to be relieved of teaching service will then likely earn a ranking of
“Below Expectations”. This will average out in the three-year moving average system, and is
in place to avoid double rewarding.
Sabbaticals, Approved Leave of Absences, Buy-outs, Illness and Parental
Leaves
During a sabbatical, teaching activity will decrease from the expected course load to either
one or two courses, depending on whether the sabbatical fell during the Fall or Spring
semester. Note that the merit review period (the calendar year) does not coincide with the
academic year, therefore even when on sabbatical, teaching activity should be reported (one
or two classes). As sabbaticals are earned, directly reported on the FRPA, and are expected to
be taken by all faculty, the faculty member on approved sabbatical leave shall have his or her
teaching expectations adjusted accordingly. That is, one or two classes taught shall be judged
as “meets expectations” during the sabbatical year.
Approved leaves of absences and course buy-outs require case-by-case discussions
initiated by the faculty member with the personnel committee. A differential workload plan
needs to be formed on an individual basis before merit review begins, usually will clear plans
on how any missing teaching obligations will be covered.
Absences due to illness or parental leaves for a semester or longer will be considered as
“missing data” and the scores adjusted accordingly.
New Faculty
New faculty members shall receive a merit score following the procedures and criteria as
outlined in this document, but will receive the average score for the entire Department for
salary allocation calculation purposes for their first year only.
Page - 6
Performance Plans
Any faculty member may elect to develop a performance plan in consultation with the the
chair and personnel committee. Any plan that is developed must be finalized and signed the
faculty member and chair by the end of January each year. Performance plans should specify
for the individual faculty member exactly what level of research, teaching, and service
activity must be achieved for rankings of "far exceeds expectations," "exceeds expectations,"
"meets expections," "below expectations," and "unsatisfactory." The performance plan will
be compared with the FRPA and other supporting documentation during the annual review to
assign a merit rating. Performance plans may be useful for early career faculty who may
have many works and projects in progress, but few complete. It may also be useful to faculty
at other career stages who may be engaged in long-term or large-scale projects that may be
difficult to categorize using standard merit criteria.
Salary Allocation
Department bylaws specify that the Personnel Committee decides the salary allocations.
Allocations are always based on a five-year rolling average of annual merit scores. Faculty
with less than five year’s service will receive an average over their period of service. In
deciding how to allocate the increase, the committee may choose to:
1) Allocate a portion of the total salary increase for Special Merit to be used in exceptional
circumstances to reward individuals by up to two times the average salary increase for the
entire faculty. This is sometimes referred to as the "2x" merit pool. All cases must be
documented and justified by quantifying in writing why such special consideration is
deserved.
2) Allocate a portion of the total increase to Redress salary disparities by rank or seniority
that may arise from salary compression or external budgetary factors within the college or
university. Cases must be documented and justified by quantifying in writing why such
special consideration is deserved.
3) Allocate a portion of the increase as a Cost of Living adjustment to give the faculty a
straight percentage increase in their salary, with the size of the increase determined by the
College. This method of allocation is used only infrequently.
4) Allocate a portion of the increase as specified by College or University Mandate. This
occurs infrequently.
ALLOCATIONS MADE TO ITEMS 1 (Special Merit), 2 (Redress), 3 (Cost of Living), 4
(College or University Mandate) ARE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL MERIT POOL.
THE BALANCE OF THE POOL IS ALLOCATED IN ONE OF THREE WAYS.
A) DOLLARS PER MERIT POINT. The amount remaining in the merit pool is divided
by the sum of the merit points earned by the faculty, thus giving a dollar-per-point value. A
lump-sum increase to each faculty is given based on the number of merit points her or she
has multiplied by the dollar-per-point amount.
Page - 7
For example, if the remaining merit pool were $30,000 and the total number of merit points
for the faculty was 300, then $30,000/300 points = $100/point. The faculty member in the
example given in Table 2 would earn a merit increase of 17.5 points x $100 = $1,750.
(In the past, this calculation was performed by calculating each persons' percentage of the
department's total merit score, then using this percentage to allocate funds from the merit
pool. In the case given above, the faculty member will have earned (17.5 / 300) * 100 = 5.83
% of the merit scores. Thus, 5.83 % * $30,000 = $1,749).
B) MERIT POINTS WEIGHTED BY SALARY LEVEL. In this option merit scores are
weighted by faculty salary levels measured as a percentage of the total salary pool in the
department. This method requires calculating both a person's percentage of the salary pool
and a person's percentage of the merit score as follows:
i) Percentage of Department Salary Pool. For hypothetical professor earning $60,000
and the sum of all department salaries being $1, 200, 000.
Percentage of Salary Pool = (60,000 / 1,200,000) * 100 = 5.0 %
ii) Percentage of Merit Pool. For hypothetical professor from Table 2 with 17.5 merit
points and total department score of 300.
Percentage of Merit Pool = (17.5 / 300) * 100 = 5.83 %
These two percentages are summed and divided by 2 to generate the weighted value used to
allocate the merit pool.
Salary Weighted Merit Score = (5.0% + 5.83%) / 2 = 5.42 %
If this weighted score were applied to a $30,000 merit pool, the allocation would be:
Merit Allocation = 5.42% * $30,000 = $1,626
C) A COMBINATION OF A and B. In recent years, a combination of methods A and B
have been used in allocating the balance of the merit pool. For 2002 allocations, 2/3 of the
pool was allocated as A (Dollars per Merit Point) and 1/3 was distributed according to B
(Weighted by Salary Level). In other years the ration between A and B has been 50/50.
Each spring, usually at the May faculty meeting, the Personnel Committee presents its
recommendation about the ratio to use in that year's allocations. The faculty vote on the
recommendation.
Prepared by Peter Blanken.
Approved by faculty vote on 22 January 2004.