TOPIC: Performance Evaluations
OFFICE: Auditor
STATE: LA
DATE: 04/13/2011
QUESTION / 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.
1. When does your agency evaluate employees (once a year, after each audit, etc)?
2. Do you have different instruments for different types of evaluations and for different levels of
employees?
3. 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)?
4. What is the content of your performance evaluation tool based on (i.e., job descriptions) and how
was it developed?
5. Is the performance evaluation tied to merit increases? Are your merit increases variable depending
on performance?
6. What processes do you use to reduce subjectivity and increase consistency among evaluators?
State
Florida
Georgia
Comments
1. Formal evaluations are conducted on an annual basis. Project specific
evaluations may be performed to support the annual evaluation.
2. We use one uniform evaluation tool for our annual evaluations.
3. We use five ratings for five categories as follows:
Performance Category: Productivity, Quality, Teamwork/Relationships,
Leadership, and Skills Development
Performance Rating: Outstanding, Exceptional, Satisfactory, Needs
Improvement, Unsatisfactory
The 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.
4. 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.
5. When merit increases are available, they are dependent in part on performance
evaluations.
6. We have developed guidance, including Performance Categories Definitions
and Performance Category Ranking Definitions Guidelines for managers and
supervisors to use in completing the evaluations.
1. The 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.
2. 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
Performance Evaluations 1
State
Comments
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 Policies
 Action Plan
 Developmental Plan
The 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.
3. 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 Results
 Fully Achieved Expected Results
 Partially Achieved Expected Results
 Did Not Achieve Expected Results
There 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 Expectations
 Fully Meets Expectations
 Partially Meets Expectations
 Does Not Meet Expectations
Evaluators 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.”
4. 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
Performance Evaluations 2
State
Comments
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Guam
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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.
Employees 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 expectations
EE – Exceeds expectations
ME – Meets expectations
NI – Needs improvement
DE – Does not meet expectations
The 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.
Performance
Evaluation.pdf
Maryland
1. Auditors are evaluated after each audit assignment. Management and office
staff are evaluated annually.
2. We have separate evaluation forms for support staff, staff auditors, senior
auditors, audit managers, upper management, information systems staff
Performance Evaluations 3
State
Minnesota (OLA)
Comments
auditors, information systems senior auditors, and various other specialized
positions.
3. 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).
4. Our current evaluation form is based on the related job description and is job
task oriented.
5. 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.
6. 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.
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.
AIC Employee
AppraisalR.pdf
Lead Employee
AppraisalR.pdf
Senior Employee
Appraisal.pdf
Staff Employee
AppraisalR.pdf
1. 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
Performance Evaluations 4
State
Comments
 "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.
2. 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.
3. 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:
Scenario
Criteria
#1
#2
#3
#4
A
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
B
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
Performance Evaluations 5
State
Comments
C
4
4
4
3.5
D
4
4
3.5
3.5
E
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
(y/n)
3.75
3.75
3.625
3.5
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Performance Evaluations 6
State
Comments
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
Performance Evaluations 7
State
Minnesota
(OSA)
Mississippi
Missouri
Comments
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.
1. 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.
2. Yes.
3. Narrative only.
4. 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.
5. Yes. It can impact step increases and promotions.
6. The detailed 15 pages of background questions helps with consistency.
1. Field 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.
2. 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.
3. Numeric ratings are assigned to the pre-agreed duty standards in a range of 13 with (1 - failed to meet expectations, 2 - met expectations and 3 - exceeded
expectations).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
1. An 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.
2. 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).
3. The ratings are descriptive rather than numeric: E - Exceptional, A - Advanced,
C- Competent, I - Improvement needed, M - Major improvement needed, and
NA - Not applicable.
4. The appraisal form for auditors includes six performance categories considered
Performance Evaluations 8
State
Montana
Comments
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.
5. 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.)
6. 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.
1. Internal 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Performance Evaluations 9
State
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Comments
** 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.
1. Audit 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.
2. 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).
3. 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 selfassessment 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.
4. See above for content. Don't know the history.
5. 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.
6. 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.
1. Staff auditors are evaluated after each audit. All others are evaluated at least
annually.
2. Yes, every different level of auditor has a unique evaluation form.
3. We use narrative and numeric ratings. We use a scale of 10 point.
4. Based on job description and duties. Developed in-house.
5. Yes & yes.
6. We have no specific process that we use to reduce subjectivity and increase
consistency among evaluators.
1. Once 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.
2. It is one instrument but there are sections that only apply to supervisors and
managers.
3. We use a rating scale of Unacceptable, Needs Improvement, Meet Expectation
or Exceed Expectation. We also add narrative comments.
4. Based on job description. We developed it by obtaining several different types
of evaluations.
5. We are unclassified employees, but a good evaluation will normally result in a
salary increase if the budget allows.
Performance Evaluations 10
State
Comments
6. Discussion with managers and supervisors about how the forms work and
review and approval by the Director.
Attached is our evaluation tool.
employee
evaluation.doc
Oregon
1. We 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.).
2. Our evaluations have the same general format, but the rating categories are
different for different levels of employees.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The intent is for good performance to be rewarded with merit. However, we
have not received merits for the last 2 years.
6. 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.
SA3SA4_Trial Service SA3SA4_Annual
Eval July2010.docx Evaluation July2010.docx
Pennsylvania
(OSC)
1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. HR developed the language for the standard five point EPR scale. This is used
Performance Evaluations 11
State
South Carolina
Comments
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.
5. We currently offer no merit increases.
6. 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.
1. The 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.
2. The same interim evaluation (attached) is used for staff and in-charges. There
is a separate annual evaluation for each staff level (attached).
3. The annual evaluation assigns a numeric value, but it must be supported by a
narrative justification.
4. The annual performance evaluation is aligned with the employee’s job
description. The evaluations were developed internally.
5. When funding is available performance increases are tied to the annual
evaluation rating.
6. All evaluations are reviewed by the Deputy Director before they are presented
to staff members. This provides some consistency within the process.
AUDIT MANAGER
EPMS 1-10.doc
AUDIT SUPERVISOR SENIOR AUDITOR STAFF EVALUATION
EPMS 1-10.doc
EPMS 1-10.doc
2-10.doc
AUDITOR EPMS
1-10.doc
Vermont
1. Under 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.
2. 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).
3. We use narrative comments and provide an overall rating of outstanding,
excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
4. Our form can be found in appendix 3.3 in our Professional Standards Manual
(http://auditor.vermont.gov/sites/auditor/files/PSM_3-31-11.pdf). 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:
http://humanresources.vermont.gov/sites/dhr/files/pdf/labor_relations/DHRPerformance_Evaluation_Form.pdf
Washington
5. No.
6. Review 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).
1. Once a year, on their anniversary date.
Performance Evaluations 12
State
Comments
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. No, performance evaluation is not tied to merit increases – not available here.
6. 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.
PDP Form Pt1
4-20-10.docx
West Virginia
PA_Performance_Au PA_Sr_Performance_
ditorI_PDP_Part2.docx
Auditor_PDP_Part1.docx
1. Employees 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 = 0
The six month evaluations are in narrative comments only.
4. The content was based on the job descriptions and expectations at the specific
job level.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Auditor 1.docx
Fire Dept. Tech
I.docx
Auditor 2.docx
AUDITOR 111
VFD Auditor 2.docx
EVALUATION.docx
AUDIT MANAGER I
DIRECTOR
CLERICAL
yearly 2008.docx EVALUATION FORM.docx
EVALUATION FORM.docx
Performance Evaluations 13
State
Comments
Six month EVAL.docx
Wisconsin
1. For 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.
2. 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.
3. See response to #2.
4. 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.
5. See response to #4.
6. 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
Performance Evaluations 14
State
Comments
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.
Attachments to
response to NSAA inquiry.doc
Performance Evaluations 15