Evaluation Process

Adopted by the Institute Council

February 22, 1985

Annual performance evaluations policy

Each ranked professor and senior fellow shall be evaluated annually as a basis for making salary adjustments based on merit and as a foundation for improvement of performance. This policy establishes the procedure to be used in the evaluation of performance and the guidelines to be used in making evaluations.

The Tenure Committee shall consider annual evaluations in making tenure recommendation, but annual evaluation decisions shall not be dispositive of tenure decisions. This policy does not in any way replace or supercede University policies on promotion and tenure.

Evaluations of faculty under this policy are instrumental to the achievement of the mission of the Institute as stated in the Mission Statement adopted by the Council of the Institute in 1983. Accordingly, evaluations shall be made of the teaching, research, service and administrative activities of each faculty member.

Individual professors and senior fellows have different assignments and have contracted to allocate their time in ways that differ from the average distribution. Consequently, evaluation must be made of each person based on the assigned work. Also, the kind and distribution of work of senior professors will differ from that of junior professors. Service responsibilities of senior professors are likely to be greater than those of their junior colleagues, they may write a disproportionate number of "think pieces" as compared to "research" articles. Senior fellows may devote most of their time to a single function, such as research or service.

The objective of the evaluation and merit award process is to encourage excellence in teaching, research, and service. Consequently, the emphasis in the process is on quality, as recognized by peers within the Institute and in the larger scholarly and professional communities associated with the practice of public affairs. In this context, one activity performed with excellence is to be preferred over many that are mediocre.

One of the objectives of the Institute is to influence the practice of public affairs and the public professions. It, therefore, seeks to reward work that makes a qualitative difference in the understanding of public issues and in professional practice.

Annual performance evaluations procedure

Activity report

In January of each year, each member of the faculty shall prepare an activity report containing information on the activities of the member for the prior calendar year. The introductory section of the report should describe the assignment of the reporter and the allocation of time to major reporting categories during the report year. Where a contract specifies activities or objectives, the provisions of the contract should be summarized or quoted. Reports should also indicate activities associated with fund raising for projects and programs.

The report shall be divided into the following sections:

TEACHING.

This section shall list the courses taught; new courses developed; students currently advised, including Plan B papers, thesis committees, examination committees; participation in courses taught by others or team taught; extension courses; leadership program courses or course sessions. The report should include the number of students enrolled in courses taught and any pertinent commentary on each course, such as its general or special contribution to the curriculum or program within which it is offered.

RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS.

This section shall list all works published and accepted for publication in the last year in the following categories: (a) Books; (b) Chapters of books; (c) Articles in refereed journals; (d) Articles in practice-oriented publications; (e) Articles in major public affairs journals (examples are Public Interest, Commentary, Atlantic, New Republic, National Review); (f) Reviews; (g) Major interim research products or documents; (h) Reports or documents that are part of an official record, e.g., a court or legislative hearing or report; (i) Papers and formal lectures delivered at professional meetings; (j) Op Ed articles; (k) Other.

A single copy of each publication should be attached to the report. In addition, this section should contain a summary of work in progress, with a brief description of its objective and significance.

SERVICE.

This section of the report shall be divided into four parts: (a) Public service; (b) Consulting; (c) Institute administration and service; (d) University administration and service. Each section shall contain a description of the service activities of the member of the faculty.

Public Service activities should be reported that are related to his or her status as faculty, i.e., service to individuals and groups external to the University that have occurred because of the professional or substantive expertise possessed by the member. This includes service, applied policy work, and technical assistance to groups and individuals as part of the member duties and as a citizen. It also includes service on boards and committees of professional associations and on community and public bodies where the work involves use of professional skills or substantive expertise. Legislative testimony (particularly if invited) and expert testimony before a court or administrative agency are examples of service based on expertise. The report of each service activity should contain a brief assessment of its significance with respect to the mission of the Institute and of the contribution that has been made to the group or process served.

Consulting. This section shall contain a description of paid and unpaid consulting activities, noting whether any of them involve a continuing relationship. As used in the report, consulting consists of a professional relationship with a named client. A faculty member may include consulting as an element of service to be evaluated. In any event, consulting activity should be reported.

Institute Administration and Service. This section shall describe activities involving Institute committee work, e.g., chairing and serving on committees, and other special assignments undertaken in the service of the Institute. The section may contain a brief assessment of the contribution made to the activity, and its significance to the mission of the Institute. Deans, directors, and project managers should report on their administrative activities. This section should describe the objectives sought during the year and the progress made toward achieving them. The report may also include discussion of major activities, accomplishments, and problems as an administrator.

University Administration and Service. This section shall contain a description of activities of a University-wide nature, such as service on University committees and task forces, or service as an official representative of the University at external events. It also includes the activities of faculty who are University administrators. The activity report shall be submitted to the program director or dean, as appropriate to the primary assignment of the faculty member.

Evaluation of research and publications

Evaluation of research and publications shall concentrate on the quality of the work contained in an activity report. The evaluation may consider the publications themselves, and any reviews or comments on them by peers or clients of the authors. Work in progress may be evaluated if the author requests it. Otherwise work will be evaluated only after it has been completed and has been published or submitted for publication.

The following criteria should be used in evaluating research and publications:

1. The Institute places high value on interdisciplinary work, both by individuals and members of research teams.
2. The Institute places high value on work that offers original or fresh insight into a policy or professional problem and consequently helps frame the matter for more effective consideration.
3. The Institute places high value on empirical work that is relevant to policy and work that is useful to practitioners and that contributes to public, professional, and scholarly understanding of public affairs and the public-oriented professions.
4. The Institute places high value on work that provides new or more fully elaborated theoretical understanding of policy or disciplinary questions.
5. Research and writing should demonstrate a high quality of intellectual rigor in analysis and organization that marks it as an unique and valuable contribution by a scholar of public affairs.
6. The Institute does not necessarily weigh the value of a publication by the "prestige" of the publisher. Each publication must be judged on its own merit independent of the reputation of the journal in which it appears.
7. Some "publications" may more effectively use media other than print. A high quality TV, movie, or radio public affairs program or series produced by a faculty member is a valid form of publication.

Evaluation of consulting

Consulting shall be evaluated in terms of the quality of the consultation. This may be determined by evaluating the quality of any reports or written advice, by the response of the client, and on the basis of the knowledge of peers of the consultant's work.

Faculty members are not discouraged from consulting, so long as it does not interfere with their institutional responsibilities. The Institute favors consulting that develops a faculty member's professional skills and reputation and contributes to or grows from research and teaching responsibilities. It disfavors consulting practice that interferes with the high quality performance of Institute duties.

Evaluation of administration and service

Public service should be evaluated in terms of the significance of the service. While faculty are expected to devote a substantial amount of time to public service, the ultimate test is not time spent but the contribution made. The Institute places a high value on service that has its roots in teaching and research, that has, in turn, an impact on teaching and research, and that makes a difference in public affairs.

Similarly, service to the Institute and the University should be evaluated in terms of the qualitative contribution made. All faculty are expected to serve on committees and act as good citizens of the academy. Contributions that advance the mission of the University and the Institute are highly valued.

Administration should be evaluated in terms of the contribution of the administrator to the mission of the Institute or other unit and objectives established for the position. Administrators may also be evaluated in terms of the skill with which they fulfill their responsibilities.

Overall evaluation

After evaluating the performance of each member of the faculty in teaching, research, and service and administration, an overall evaluation shall be made, taking into account the assignments and responsibilities of the member and the relative importance of each category of evaluated activities.

Each member of the faculty shall be given an overall rating of Superior, Good, or Needs Improvement. A written summary of the reasons for the ranking shall be made.

Guidelines for rating levels are as follows:

1. Superior. A faculty member may receive an overall rating of superior only when most of the work being evaluated, including the principal activities in which the member is engaged, have been judged to have made a substantial contribution to the field in which they were done or to have set a standard of quality for the profession or for the Institute. A faculty member who consistently receives annual evaluations of superior would be eligible for nomination as a Regents professor.
2. Good. A faculty member may receive an overall rating of good when the work, taken as a whole, is fully acceptable to the Institute and comparable with the level of performance normally accepted in other well-regarded units of the University or other high quality public affairs programs in other universities.
3. Needs Improvement. An overall rating of needs improvement means that the performance has not met the requirements for a rating of good and is not within acceptable Institute standards for all activities.

Merit awards shall be made only for overall ratings of superior and good. Merit increments will normally be calculated as a percentage of base pay, after adjustments for equity, changes in responsibility or assignment, cost of living, or comparability with other schools. Persons receiving an evaluation of superior shall receive a greater merit award than those receiving a rating of good.

Special recognition awards

On the recommendation of the Faculty Evaluation Committee and approval by the Dean, up to three special recognition awards may be made each year to the members of the faculty who have made the most important contributions to the respective teaching, research, and service missions of the Institute during the preceding year.

Faculty evaluation committee

Appointment

In January of each year, the Dean, after consultation with the executive committee, shall appoint a Faculty Evaluation Committee. The committee shall consist of three members, of whom one shall be a non-tenured ranked professor or senior fellow.

Duties of the Committee

The Faculty Evaluation Committee shall review the activity reports and collect such other information as may be necessary for them to prepare an overall evaluation of each member of the faculty.

After completing its evaluation of each member, the committee shall prepare a final report, which shall be submitted to the Dean. This report shall contain the evaluations of each member of the faculty and any recommendations with regard to merit awards and special recognition awards that the committee may choose to make.

Members of the committee shall not participate in discussion of their own work, nor in the report on it.

In arriving at its recommendations, the committee may consult other members of the faculty, students, peers in other departments and universities, and clients or recipients of services.

The Role of the Dean

The Dean has responsibility for allocating funds available for salary adjustment, consistent with any instructions from the central administration of the University, for merit award, cost of living increases, equity, and comparability with other university public affairs programs.

Upon receiving the report of the committee, the Dean shall discuss the evaluations with regard to merit and his recommendations with respect to salary with each member of the faculty.

The member shall have an opportunity to dispute any evaluation or comment in the evaluation, and in the event of a disagreement between the Dean's final evaluation and the member, the member may enter a comment on the evaluation into the permanent file.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Institute, the Dean shall then make recommendations on salary adjustments to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

[retyped verbatim 05/13/02]