APR Evaluation Criteria for County Faculty - 2012 through 2017

University of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Annual Performance Report Evaluation Criteria for County Faculty

Revised and Approved by Faculty May 23, 2012

PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Objectives are supported by local needs and data with specific, client centered, quantifiable program objectives.

5 ‐ Multiple information sources used including some issue specific data; formal needs assessment, adjusted programs based on assessments, interacts with campus/specialists/working groups and integrated identified needs; developed new programs or otherwise addressed identified needs. Short‐, mid‐, and long‐term outcomes are clearly defined; measurable indicators are identified.

4 ‐ Multiple information sources used to identify needs including some semi‐formal group setting assessments involving clientele/stakeholders; adjusted programs based on assessments, interacts with campus/specialists/working groups and integrated identified needs. Short‐, mid‐, and long‐term outcomes are clearly defined.
3 ‐ Multiple information sources used to identify needs including some semi‐formal group setting assessments involving clientele. Outcomes are clearly defined.
2 ‐ Limited input used to determine program objectives; limited contact with clientele. Desired outcomes are not clear.
1 ‐ Did not conduct needs assessment to identify current and emerging community needs. Did not involve clientele and stakeholders in program planning. Desired outcomes were not stated.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (INPUTS AND OUTPUTS):

5 ‐ The activities, products, and educational methods addressed identified needs and were timely; involved appropriate support personnel. Developed evaluation procedures and methods that documented achievement of program objectives. Employed a variety of educational methods and was creative in seeking solutions to complex educational problems and issues. Evidence of support, resources, contributions, or investments.
4 ‐ The activities, products, and educational methods addressed identified needs; involved appropriate support personnel. Developed evaluation procedures and methods that documented achievement of program objectives. Evidence of support, resources, contributions, or investments.
3 ‐ The activities, products, and educational methods addressed identified needs; involved appropriate support personnel. Evidence of support, resources, contributions, or investments.
2 ‐ The activities, products, and educational methods were insufficient. Limited evidence of support, resources, contributions, or investments.
1‐ The activities, products, and educational methods did not address identified needs. No evidence of support, resources, contributions, or investments.

MEASURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS (OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS):

5 ‐ Achieved and documented measurable programmatic outcomes. Uses evaluations to measure and document changes in awareness, knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors. Significant and sustained outcomes.
4 ‐ Consistently implements programs that produced significant outcomes within individuals and communities.
3 ‐ Outcomes achieved were documented in specific and measurable terms.
2 ‐ Indicators are insufficient to measure outcomes.
1 ‐ No evidence of outcomes achieved.

Outcomes – The changes in knowledge, attitude, skills, awareness, behavior, practice, etc., for individuals, groups, agencies, communities and/or systems. Long‐term outcomes are identified as Impact.
Impact – Impact is the social, economic and/or environmental effects or consequences of the activity. Impacts tend to be long‐term achievements. They may be positive, negative, or neutral .

COOPERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE TEAM EFFORTS:

Goal: Actively involved, variety of leadership roles, higher levels of leadership expected with increasing rank.  Assessed from total packet.

5 ‐ Actively involved on program teams at county and multi‐county and state levels, both intramural and extramural, in a variety of roles.
4 ‐ Actively involved on program teams at county or multi‐county and state levels, both intramural and extramural.
3 ‐ Cooperated and contributed to program team efforts.
2 ‐ Contributions to program team efforts were minimal.
1 ‐ Did not contribute to program team efforts.

SERVICE:

Goal: Actively involved, variety of leadership roles, higher levels of leadership expected with increasing rank.

5 ‐ Served on county and state Extension committees/working groups and college or university level committees; assumed variety of leadership roles including serving as chair. Actively participated and contributed to the strengthening of state and national professional associations and community organizations.
4 ‐ Served on county and state Extension committees and working groups; assumed variety of leadership roles. Actively participated and contributed to the strengthening of state and national professional associations and community organizations.
3 ‐ Served on county and state Extension committees and working groups; actively participated in professional associations and community organizations.
2 ‐ Amount of service was insufficient for position held.
1 ‐ Does not participate in intramural and extramural service.

CREATIVE AND SCHOLARLY WORKS/GRANTS, GIFTS AND CONTRACTS:

Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. A critical element is demonstrating a linkage between the scholarly output or creative activity and the faculty's Extension program. Behavioral and significant beneficial changes to clientele, and the adoption by peers are the ultimate goals of Extension scholarship.

5 ‐ Developed numerous creative and scholarly works of various types; demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of areas of program responsibility; actively sought internal or outside funding and/or in‐kind contributions to help support programs.
4 ‐ Completed creative and scholarly works of various types in assigned subject area; communicated results to diverse audiences; communicated innovative program strategies to colleagues; actively sought internal or outside funding and/or in‐kind contributions to help support programs.
3 ‐ Documented scholarly contributions; completed creative and scholarly works of various types in assigned subject area; actively sought internal or outside funding and/or in‐kind contributions to help support programs.
2 ‐ Amount of creative and scholarly work was insufficient for position held.
1 ‐ No documentation of scholarly contributions.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

For professional improvement activities put number of hours in the description box.

5 ‐ Participated in 50 “seat” hours of appropriate development training per year, which may include annual faculty conference, subject matter updates, regional meetings, professional association conferences, industry sponsored training, seminars provided by private providers, and personal reading on position related topics.
4 ‐ Participated in 40 “seat” hours of appropriate development training per year, which may include annual faculty conference, subject matter updates, regional meetings, professional association conferences, industry sponsored training, seminars provided by private providers, and personal reading on position related topics.
3 ‐ Participated in 30 “seat” hours of appropriate development training per year, which may include annual faculty conference, subject matter updates, regional meetings, professional association conferences, industry sponsored training, seminars provided by private providers, and personal reading on position related topics.
2 ‐ Participated in less than 30 hours of appropriate development training per year.
1 ‐ Does not participate in professional improvement.

AWARDS AND RECOGNITION:

No criteria. Only comments provided.

MAJOR COMMITMENTS AND PLANS

This section is not rated by the peer review committee. It is to be discussed by the individual faculty member and their County Extension Director and factored into their final rating.

Report maximum suggested limit is 26,000 characters (not including spaces)

How to determine character count:

1. Go to My Datatab in UA Vitae
   2. Click on Access Vitas /Biosketches
   3. Under Details, select CALS Annual Review Summaryand then change dates to Begin and End, then hit Refresh Report
   4. Your APR will come up and you can check your formatting, etc.
   5. In the upper right hand corner, look for the icons for Print, Word or PDF. Pick the Word icon and it will download a copy of your APR in Word where you can determine the number of characters.

Recommendation on approximate weight of categories

– 60% Extension Programs
– 10% Service
– 20% Creative/Scholarly Works
– 10% Professional Improvement
– Awards/Recognition (Comments Only)

The overall evaluation score provided by peers is an evaluative rating based upon the total package and is not necessarily a summative rating based upon the above weights. The overall rating provided by unit heads will take into account the individuals self review, the peer and unit head review, input from clientele and/ or colleagues, input from other unit heads as appropriate, and collegiality within the system.

UHAP 4.08 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS (http://uhap.web.arizona.edu/chap4.html)

Professional personnel are evaluated with respect to all personnel matters on the basis of excellence in performance. The annual performance review is intended to support professional personnel in achieving excellence in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. Annual performance
reviews are intended:

1. To involve professional personnel in the formulation of objectives and goals related to their program areas and their own personal and professional growth;
   2. To assess actual performance and accomplishments in the areas of their responsibilities;
   3. To promote the effectiveness of professional personnel through an articulation of the types of contributions they might make to the University community that will lead to greater personal and professional growth, recognition and rewards;
   4. To provide a written record of professional personnel performance to support personnel decisions;
   5. To recognize special talents, capabilities, and achievements of professional personnel; and
   6. To identify weaknesses that should be addressed during the next evaluation period.