colorado department

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Overview of Program 3 A. Performance Management Program - Paradigm Shift 3 B. No Surprises 4 C. The Feedback Cycle and Process 4 D. Gathering Information 4 E. Performance Ratings 5 F. Subjectivity 7 G. Performance Salary Adjustments and Allocation of Funds 8 H. Time Line 9 I. CDPS’s Approach 10 J. Implementation and Transition 10 Chapter 2 Performance Management 11 A. Performance Planning 11 B. Core Competencies and Performance Measures 13 C. Performance Review and Evaluation 14

D. Record-Keeping and Reporting 18 E. Program Review and Modification 19 F. On-Going Program Evaluation 19 G. Training 19 Chapter 3 Performance-Based Pay Performance Salary Adjustments 21 Chapter 4 Dispute Resolution Process 25

A. Overview and Guidelines 25 B. Parameters of this Resolution Process 26 C. Internal Process for Disputes Concerning

Performance Plans 27 D. Internal Process for Disputes Concerning

Performance Evaluations 28 E. External Stage of Dispute Resolution Process 29

Chapter 5 Index 31 Appendices Appendix 1 – Colorado Revised Statutes 24-50-104 36

Appendix 2 – CDPS PMP Forms 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Chapter 1. Overview of Program

CHAPTER 1 Overview of Program The Performance Management Program (PMP) is the Colorado Department of Public Safety’s (CDPS) implementation tool for Colorado’s Performance-Based Pay (PBP) System, a program designed to reward member performance. The program was mandated after legislation passed in 2000, modifying the State’s movement toward performance-based pay that was formerly addressed by Colorado Peak Performance. The State’s Performance Pay System became effective on July 1, 2001. CDPS is a unique agency, and it is imperative that any performance-based pay system be applied with consideration of not only our members, but also our customers. Criminal justice agencies are held to a higher standard of professionalism, integrity, competence, and conduct. PMP must reflect and preserve these standards. The Department will strive to maintain an equitable partnership with its managers and members when setting the Department’s mission, establishing its strategic plan, setting priorities and goals, developing performance plans, and measuring and rewarding performance. The Department’s mission contains the values necessary for implementing performance management within CDPS:

The mission of the Colorado Department of Public Safety is to provide a safe environment in Colorado by maintaining, promoting, and enhancing public safety through law enforcement, criminal investigations, fire and crime prevention, recidivism reduction, and victim advocacy. The CDPS also provides professional support of the criminal justice system, fire safety community, other governmental agencies, and private entities. Throughout, our goal is to serve the public through an organization that emphasizes quality and integrity.

The Performance Management Program Team (“PMP Team”) developed the Department’s plan, and continues to be involved in its revision, evaluation, and maintenance. At least one member from each division, as well as the CDPS point person, the CDPS Human Resource Services (HRS) director, and the CDPS Policy Director, serve on this team. If members are not sure who represents their division on the PMP team, they may contact either the CDPS HRS or CDPS policy directors. The Department’s Performance Management Program follows these guiding principles: A. Performance Management Program - Paradigm Shift Performance-based pay and performance-based management require members of the Colorado Department of Public Safety to undergo a paradigm shift from the traditional reward for longevity system. As a result of this shift, the performance planning and evaluation tool is

of 38


subject to change as the needs of the Department change, and as the state adjusts its system. The state’s performance pay system does not apply to the Senior Executive Service (SES). B. No Surprises 1. No surprises means that members and supervisors will have an on-going dialogue,

both formal and informal, regarding the development and implementation of the member’s performance plan, objectives, and revisions throughout the performance year. This dialogue is in addition to the mandatory, documented mid-year progress and final reviews.

2. Supervisors will provide practical and on-going coaching and feedback regarding

performance. This includes establishing performance planning and evaluation activities that require active participation by both supervisor and staff to ensure that the final evaluation is not a surprise.

C. The Feedback Cycle and Process 1. CDPS recognizes that the feedback process for the Performance Management Program

is a vital part of the program and is critical to its success. 2. Feedback is defined as information about past behavior, delivered in the present,

which may influence future behavior. Continuous feedback, in both directions, between member and supervisor is especially important.

3. Feedback gives the member information about how the member affects others, helps

to keep member behavior on target, and thus helps the member to better achieve his or her goals. In turn, this will help the unit, the branch, the division, and the Department meet their goals.

D. Gathering Information 1. Multiple pieces of information are to be considered during the evaluation and planning

processes: the evaluation tool, customer satisfaction/feedback approaches, competency, capability and other performance-related behaviors.

2. Information collected is to be treated as a tool. Supervisors may collect information

regarding member performance from a variety of sources, both internally and externally. This information may be used in the evaluation or planning process. Supervisors must be aware that this information should be used appropriately.

of 38


E. Performance Ratings 1. Performance Rating Levels:

For the 12-month annual evaluation cycle beginning April 1st and ending March 31st, CDPS will use the following labels for the four performance levels required under the State Performance Pay System: Level 1—Does Not Meet Standards Level 2—Meets Standards Level 3—Frequently Exceeds Standards Level 4—Consistently Exceeds Standards NOTE: See CDPS 224 Performance Management Plan Assessment Worksheet for standards for each rating level for each competency. a. Level 1 (Does Not Meet Standards): This rating level encompasses those

members whose performance does not consistently and independently meet expectations set forth in the performance plan, as well as those members whose performance is clearly unsatisfactory and consistently fails to meet requirements and expectations. Marginal performance requires substantial monitoring to achieve consistent completion of work, and requires more constant, close supervision. Though these members do not meet expectations, they may be progressing satisfactorily toward a level 2 rating and need to demonstrate improvement in order to satisfy the core expectations of the position. A final overall rating at Level 1 shall trigger a course of progressive measures designed to enable the member to improve his or her performance. It will result in a corrective action and a performance improvement plan (CDPS 223), or a disciplinary action, pursuant to Chapter 6 of the State Department of Personnel, Personnel Board Rules and Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures (hereinafter referred to as State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures) R-6-4. Level 1 performers are not eligible for a performance salary adjustment.

b. Level 2 (Meets Standards): This rating level encompasses a range of expected

performance. It includes those members who exhibit competency in the work behaviors, skills, and assignments for the job, as well as those employees who are successfully developing in the job. These members are meeting all the expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives on their performance plan and, on occasion, may exceed them. This is the member who reliably performs the job assigned. Level 2 performers are successful and valued members of the Department.

c. Level 3 (Frequently Exceeds Standards): This rating level encompasses the

accomplished performers who consistently exhibit the desired competencies

of 38


effectively and independently, while frequently exceeding expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives of the job assigned. For example, the member may have participated in one or more projects or groups, over and above what would normally be assigned to the position during the evaluation year, or may have been called upon to serve in an “acting” or similar capacity at some point. Their work has a documented impact beyond the regular assignments, and performance objectives that directly support the mission of the organization.

d. Level 4 (Consistently Exceeds Standards): This rating represents consistently

exceptional and documented performance or consistently superior achievement beyond the regular assignment. Members make exceptional contribution(s) that have a significant and positive impact on the performance of the unit or the organization, and may materially advance the mission of the organization. The member provides a model for excellence and helps others to do their jobs better. Peers, immediate supervisors, higher-level management and others can readily recognize such a level of performance. Level 4 is unique and difficult to achieve. This person is a role model. NOTE: A single unique or unusual contribution during a rating period does not provide sufficient justification for an overall Level 4 rating for the year.

e. The Department recognizes that a large majority of its members operate at Level

2, and a smaller percentage will operate at both Level 3 and Level 4. f. Level 2, 3 and 4 performers may be eligible for a performance salary adjustment,

based upon whether the member is below or at the range maximum. 2. Quotas or forced distribution processes for determining the number of ratings in any of

the four performance levels will not be established nor tolerated. Each member must receive a rating based solely on his or her performance for the rating period.

3. One form will be used across the CDPS for planning and evaluation. This form

(CDPS 221) will be available to all members, either on a shared LAN directory or via electronic bulletin board/Internet site. Other forms that may be used in the performance management program will also be available.

4. Completed CDPS 221 forms for final performance ratings will be forwarded to CDPS

Human Resources, and kept in the member’s personnel file. 5. Distinguishing Levels of Performance

When a rater distinguishes levels of performance among members, these distinctions will be based on: • Fact-supported judgments • Use of a preponderance of job-relevant performance information • Information from a variety of sources.

of 38


a. Rating Criteria

Performance rating differences among members are based on differences in job-relevant performance among those members. Elements of job performance that may be taken into consideration include: 1) Performance in each of the relevant competency areas contained on the

member's individual performance plan; 2) Performance on the relevant factors within each relevant competency area; 3) Performance on the relevant job activities within each relevant factor; 4) Performance on the Individual Performance Objectives (IPOs) contained

on the member's individual performance plan; 5) Performance on the job functions contained on the member's Position

Description Questionnaire (PDQ); 6) Performance on standards of professional conduct; and 7) Other job-relevant information.

b. All members are expected to meet basic standards of professional conduct.

c. Final performance evaluation ratings (numerical scores) will be grouped within the established Levels of Performance.

F. Subjectivity While there will always be an element of subjectivity in the appraisal or evaluation process, CDPS will address this issue through the following actions: 1. A commitment to specific and measurable individual performance objectives 2. Training/Training Manual - providing periodic guidance and updates 3. A required, documented, midyear progress review in addition to the required annual,

year-end review 4. Incorporation of the role of the reviewer (next-level supervisor) 5. Departmental Dispute Resolution Process

of 38


G. Performance Salary Adjustments and Allocation of Funds 1. Prior to the payment of annual performance salary adjustments, the state personnel

director shall specify and publish the percentage ranges for performance levels based on the available statewide performance pay funding. Adjustments for each level of performance will be specified as a percentage of salary, and will become effective on the state-wide common date of July 1st. All adjustments are subject to available funding and no adjustment will be guaranteed. The state’s Performance Pay System allows the payment of base- and non-base-building performance adjustments.

a. A base-building performance salary adjustment is an amount of money that

permanently adds to the member’s base monthly salary; e.g. it does not have to be re-earned the following year. A base building salary adjustment becomes part of the regular base monthly salary starting July 1st and continuing until the member leaves state service.

b. A non-base building performance salary adjustment is an amount of money that

is paid to the member one time only, in addition to the member’s annual salary. It must be re-earned the following year.

1) Non-base building adjustments are paid in one lump sum in July. The full

amount is owed to the member, no matter what change in circumstances occurs after July 1st. This includes discipline, transfer to another position or agency, termination, or death.

2). The statutory salary lid does not apply to non-base building performance

adjustments. 2. Level 2 through Level 4 performers are eligible for base building performance salary

adjustments if their current base salary is below the range maximum. No base building adjustment will be granted that results in a base salary that exceeds the range maximum.

a. Level 4 performers below the range maximum monthly salary may receive a

base-building salary adjustment up to the range maximum. b. If a Level 4 performance salary adjustment results in an amount that exceeds

grade maximum, any portion of the adjustment amount that exceeds the maximum shall be paid as a one-time, lump sum, non-base building amount on the July 31st payroll.

3. For any level of performance, the combination of pay and base-building adjustment

cannot exceed the monthly, statutory salary lid.

of 38


4. Performance pay salary adjustment funding will be appropriated by the General Assembly at the Department level (within the EDO). PMP salary adjustment dollars will be calculated at the Department level by the Department’s budget officer. Division budget officers will provide assistance regarding members’ organizational units and other funding source information.

5. General State Personnel System Pay-Out Rules a. First, the salary survey adjustment (if approved by the Legislature) is added to all

current members’ base pay (except those rated at level 1) on July 1st.

b. After the salary survey adjustment, those members who may still be below the new range minimums must be brought up to the new range minimum with salary survey funds.

c. Any status change effective on July 1st that increases base salary, such as

promotion, is made. d. The resulting salary base is used as the basis for the annual performance salary

adjustment. e. Performance-based salary adjustments must be base-building to the point of the

member’s pay range maximum. Only for members rated as Level 4, any performance salary adjustment amount that exceeds the pay range maximum must be non-base building (paid as a lump sum). Members rated at Levels 2 and 3 are not eligible for non-base building performance adjustments.

H. Time Line 1. The annual performance planning and evaluation cycle will run from April 1st to

March 31st. This cycle applies to all members within the Department. 2. Contingent upon available funding, pay out of base-building salary adjustments will

begin on July 1st of each year. Non-base building performance salary adjustments will be paid in one lump sum on the July 31st payroll.

ACTIVITY DATE Performance planning April 1st – April 30th

Performance Plans must be completed

April 30th (or within 30 days of a status-

changing action or completion of FTO/CTO)

Mid-Year Performance Progress Review (required) September 1st – 30th

of 38


ACTIVITY DATE Preliminary review of the evaluation between supervisor (rater) and member. (No rating communicated to member at this time.)

March 31st – April 15th

Supervisor (rater) completes CDPS 221 and assigns preliminary overall rating. (No rating communicated to member.)

April 1st – April 20th

Supervisor (rater) gives completed CDPS 221 preliminary rating to reviewer. (No rating communicated to members.) April 20th

Reviewer/division conducts Quality Review Process of Levels 1 through 4 ratings, and review process is completed before ratings are finalized and given to members.

April 20th – 30th

Final Overall Rating communicated to members. Review and sign the CDPS 221. May 1st – 10th

Final Overall Rating and completed CDPS 221 forms are due to CDPS HRS. May 15th

Dispute Resolution Process May - June State Personnel Director publishes the percentage ranges for performance levels based on available statewide funding May

CDPS executive management determines payout percentages June Notice of Performance Salary Adjustment Letter sent to members from CDPS HRS June 15th – July 15th

Payment of performance salary adjustments July 31st I. CDPS’s Approach The Colorado Department of Public Safety’s approach to performance management begins with the mission, strategic plan, and priorities of the Department. Division and work unit goals will be written in alignment with the Department goals. Individual performance objectives (IPOs) will align with the division and/or work unit goals. J. Implementation and Transition Member input was a key factor in the design of the Department’s implementation of the Performance Management Program. PMP was established by a core group composed of supervisory and non-supervisory members from all divisions of the CDPS, with input from focus groups representing all divisions and areas of the state.

of 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Chapter 2. Performance Management

Chapter 2. Performance Management There are three critical elements of CDPS’s Performance Management Program: planning, coaching and feedback, and evaluation. The basis of the performance management cycle includes these three critical elements, coupled with the performance-based pay component. A. Performance Planning Each member needs to know what is expected in order to be an effective performer and to actively participate in the process. An effective performance plan includes descriptions of desired results and how they are to be measured. 1. Performance plans are to be aligned with the mission, strategic plan and priorities of

the Department, division and work unit. Each member must have access to a copy of the CDPS and the division strategic plan and work unit goals to ensure his/her plan is in alignment with the Department’s goals.

2. Although supervisors are responsible for developing performance plans for each of

their members, they are expected to involve members in the planning process to the greatest extent possible. Also, supervisors and members should discuss professional growth and training opportunities on an annual basis.

3. A member’s performance plan should begin on April 1st of each year and will be

effective for one year (12 calendar months). A performance plan shall not exceed 12 months. A planning session between the supervisor and member for the upcoming 12-month performance cycle must be completed no later than April 30th of each year. From this planning session, a performance plan (CDPS Performance Management Plan & Evaluation Form, CDPS 221) must be completed.

a. For new members, this planning meeting should take place within 30 calendar

days of hire or completion of the Field Training Officer (FTO) or Communication Training Officer (CTO) program.

b. These meetings should be face to face, except in extenuating circumstances, such

as illness, family medical leave or similar situations, c. Occasionally, the Colorado State Patrol hires Patrol Interns (Cadets) several

months prior to the start of an academy class; or, after hire, an intern will be deferred to a future academy class. To comply with state personnel rules, these interns must be evaluated, in writing, at least annually, regardless of their job assignments. A planning meeting between the supervisor and new intern shall be held, and a performance plan developed, within 30 days of the intern’s date of hire or status change (such as deferment from a current academy class). At a minimum, the session should include information that the intern’s performance

of 38


during the period prior to attending or completing the Patrol Academy will be forwarded to the administrator of the Patrol Academy.

4. New performance plans must also be completed within 30 days of a status-changing

personnel action; e.g. transfer, upward movement, downward movement. The new plan should cover that portion of the annual cycle after the status change.

5. If the member disagrees with the plan, a review meeting involving the member, the

immediate supervisor and the reviewer (next-level supervisor) should be completed by May 15th or within 45 days of hire for a new member or status change for a current member. This meeting should be face to face when practical, but can be conducted by tele-conference due to remote office location, illness or similar extenuating circumstances.

6. If a plan is not established within the time frames above, a review meeting involving

the member, the immediate supervisor and the reviewer (next-level supervisor) should be completed by May 15th or within 45 days of hire for a new member, or status change for a current member. This meeting should be face to face when practical, but can be conducted by tele-conference due to remote office location, illness or similar extenuating circumstances. The reviewer shall ensure a plan is completed no later than five (5) calendar days after the meeting.

7. A member who still disagrees with the plan after meeting with the supervisor and the

reviewer (next-level supervisor) can initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. This written process must be initiated within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting or the plan will become final without the member’s signature. Please refer to Chapter 4. Dispute Resolution Process for further information. If the member does not take this step, the disagreement/dispute is considered resolved and the performance plan becomes final, with or without the member’s signature.

8. A member who does not have a plan within seven (7) calendar days after the review

meeting with supervisor and the reviewer (next-level supervisor) can initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. This written process must be initiated within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting. Please refer to Chapter 4. Dispute Resolution Process for further information.

9. If a supervisor fails to plan for each subordinate member within the PMP guidelines,

the reviewer (the supervisor’s supervisor, or the member’s next-level supervisor) is responsible for completing the plan. If the reviewer fails to complete the plan within the PMP guidelines, the reviewer’s supervisor is responsible for completing the plan. This continues up the chain of command to the appointing authority, until the plan is completed as required. CRS 24-50-104 (c.5) and State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures require corrective and disciplinary action, as cited in number 10, below, for the person at each level of the chain of command who fails to develop a performance plan(s).

of 38


10. Supervisors will be evaluated on their performance management and evaluation of employees. Absent extraordinary circumstances, classified supervisors who fail to develop a performance plan for each subordinate in accordance with CDPS’s established timelines shall receive a corrective action and will be ineligible for a performance salary adjustment. If the individual performance plan is not completed within 30 days of the corrective action, the designated rater shall be disciplinarily suspended in increments of one workweek following the pre-disciplinary meeting.

11. Performance plans should be retained at the supervisor (rater) and/or division level

and not forwarded to CDPS HRS. B. Core Competencies and Performance Measures Statewide uniform core competencies, which have been defined by the State Personnel Director, will be incorporated into every member’s performance plan and be considered during every member’s evaluation. Each member must be evaluated, at a minimum, on every required competency. These competencies are so important to the basic performance of every state employee and CDPS member that, per the state’s Performance Pay System, performance at Level 1 (Does Not Meet Standards) in any one of these required competencies will prevent a final, overall rating that is higher than Level 2 (Meets Standards). NOTE: See CDPS 224 Performance Management Plan Assessment Worksheet for

standards for each rating level for each competency. Members may also be rated on additional competencies and/or Individual Performance Objectives (IPOs), as agreed upon by the member and supervisor during the planning process. 1. A competency is a measurable pattern of skills, knowledge, abilities, behaviors and

other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully.

2. There are four (five for supervisors/managers) core competencies required for all state

employees:

a. Communication b. Interpersonal Skills c. Customer Service d. Organizational Accountability e. Supervision/Management (Supervisors/managers only) f. There is one additional core competency required by CDPS for all of its

members: Professional Competence

of 38


These core competencies cannot be disregarded in the final overall rating for any member.

3. Individual Performance Objectives (IPOs): a. Every member may have up to 12 personal individual performance objectives in

the annual performance plan. b. Up to two additional (optional) competency areas may be developed for

instances where the member and supervisor feel there are aspects of the individual’s job responsibilities and performance that are not covered by the required, common areas.

4. The supervisor and the member are responsible for determining the appropriate weight

(percentage of overall rating) assigned to each competency factor. Division directors may set weights for job classifications within their span of control. The score a member actually earns in each section will be based on the cumulative total of all competency areas. The weights of all competency areas must total 100%.

5. When completing the performance evaluation, the overall score or rating will be

determined by multiplying the weight of the anchor/IPO times the level of performance (1, 2, 3, or 4) for that anchor/IPO. Half points may be used (e.g., 1.5, 2.5, 3.5) but the rating for each anchor/IPO cannot exceed four (4.0). The total for a competency area or the overall evaluation may result in fractions of points.

The points for each weighted competency area will be totaled, for a final score or

rating between 100 and 400 points. The score will fall within one of the four levels of performance.

6. All supervisors shall have an anchor within the Supervision/Management competency

area in their own performance plans that measures and evaluates their effectiveness in implementing the Performance Management Program for all members within their span of control.

C. Performance Review and Evaluation 1. All members will be evaluated in writing, using the CDPS 221 form, at least annually

based on their job performance during the previous year. A supervisor’s (rater’s) annual recommended overall evaluation of a member’s performance must be reviewed by the rater’s supervisor (reviewer or next-level supervisor) prior to the recommended overall rating being given to the member.

2. At least one mandatory and documented progress review is required during the

planning cycle. This progress review meeting should normally be held no earlier than September 1st and no later than September 30th. Progress reviews provide informal but

of 38


specific feedback, identify areas that need further development early on in the cycle, encourage regular communication, and decrease the potential for unanticipated outcomes at the time of the evaluation.

3. Supervisors are encouraged to hold coaching and feedback meetings more often than

that which is required. Members who are new to the Department or the position, or who are working under performance improvement plans, need more frequent meetings. For new members, the supervisor and member may agree upon a mutual time frame for these meetings to occur.

4. For members working under performance improvement plans, a mandatory review

must be held as defined in the performance improvement plan until the improvement goal is reached or corrective or disciplinary action is initiated.

5. State Personnel Rules and the State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures

stipulate that the supervisor is responsible for rating each subordinate. CDPS’s plan requires that members have the opportunity to provide input into their performance evaluation prior to the rating being given.

6. If a member has more than one supervisor, it is the responsibility of the supervisors to

jointly evaluate the plan for that member, balancing the evaluation to the greatest extent possible.

7. A member’s final evaluation for the annual performance cycle should be completed

after March 31st and no later than April 30th. If a member’s evaluation is in dispute on April 30th, the supervisor must notify CDPS HRS. Completed final evaluations are due to CDPS Human Resource Services no later than May 15th each year.

a. Final evaluations are also required within 30 days of a status-changing personnel

action; e.g. transfer, upward movement, downward movement. The evaluation should cover that portion of the annual cycle prior to the status change, and must be received by CDPS HRS no later than 45 days after the date of the personnel action. A copy of this evaluation must be forwarded to the new appointing authority or agency.

b. For a member hired between January 1st and March 31st, a performance

evaluation must be completed but a supervisor is not required to assign an annual performance rating for that period. A default rating of Level 2 will be assumed unless the supervisor assigns a different rating.

c. For a member who is still participating in or who has successfully completed the

Patrol’s FTO/CTO program between January 1st and March 31st, the member’s rating will be received from the Academy or FTO/CTO Program. A default rating of Level 2 will be assumed unless the Academy training supervisor, or FTO/CTO supervisor, assigns an interim rating.

of 38


9. The first step in the evaluation process is for the member and the supervisor to meet and discuss the evaluation. Except in extenuating circumstances, such as illness or similar situations, these meetings should be face to face.

10. Immediate supervisors should meet with their subordinate members for a preliminary

review of the evaluation, to ensure that the member has an opportunity for input. Both the member and the supervisor should prepare for this meeting.

11. After meeting to review the initial evaluation with the member, the supervisor will

prepare the final evaluation and recommended overall rating. The reviewer (next-level supervisor) should review the final evaluation before it is given to the member by the supervisor.

12. A description of the internal dispute resolution process, including time lines and name

of the appointing authority (or PMP decision-maker) is contained in the CDPS 221 Performance Plan and Evaluation form. The member will be provided a completed copy of the CDPS 221 form at the time the final evaluation is given.

13. A member who disagrees with the final evaluation may request a meeting with the

supervisor. This request must be made in writing within five (5) work days of being given the final evaluation. The requested meeting must be held within five (5) calendar days of the supervisor’s (rater’s) receipt of the written request. This meeting should be approached as a problem-solving action, not as a legal or adversarial meeting. The rater (supervisor), and the member may agree to make changes to the final evaluation, if a consensus can be reached. This is the first step in the resolution of a disagreement (or dispute) related to the member’s performance evaluation.

14. A member who still disagrees with the final evaluation after meeting with the

supervisor can initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. This written process must be initiated within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting or the plan will become final without the member’s signature. Please refer to Chapter 4. Dispute Resolution Process for further information.

15. Supervisors will be evaluated on their performance management and evaluation of

employees. Absent extraordinary circumstances, classified supervisors who fail to complete a final evaluation for each subordinate in accordance with the CDPS’s established timelines shall receive a corrective action and will be ineligible for a performance salary adjustment. If the performance evaluation is not completed within 30 days of the corrective action, the designated rater shall be disciplinarily suspended in increments of one workweek following the pre-disciplinary meeting.

16. If a supervisor fails to evaluate each subordinate member within the PMP guidelines,

the reviewer (the supervisor’s supervisor, or the member’s next-level supervisor) is responsible for completing the evaluation. If the reviewer fails to complete the evaluation within the PMP guidelines, the reviewer’s supervisor is responsible for completing the evaluation. This continues up the chain of command to the appointing

of 38


authority, until the evaluation is completed as required. If a rating is not given, the overall evaluation shall be Level 2 until a final rating is completed. CRS 24-50-104 (c.5) and State Personnel Rules And Administrative Procedures require corrective and disciplinary action, as cited in Number 15, above, for the person at each level of the chain of command who fails to complete a performance evaluation(s).

17. If a supervisor is not available to provide a performance rating to the member, the

next-level supervisor (the reviewer) is responsible for completing the rating. If the reviewer is not available to provide a rating, the responsibility continues up the member’s chain of command. If a rating is not given, the overall evaluation shall be Level 2 until a final rating is completed.

18. It is the responsibility of the reviewer (next-level supervisor) to ensure that individual

performance evaluations are reviewed, as required by State guidelines. 19. Reviewers will gather and review evaluations for all members within their span of

control to monitor the quality and consistency of those performance ratings, and to determine if individual member and work unit performance resulted in achievement of the division’s goals. Reviewers are also encouraged to meet with other designated reviewers to ensure that performance is evaluated consistently within the Department.

20. Reviewers (next-level supervisors) will ensure that members receive a performance

evaluation from their supervisor by April 30th of each year. 21. Per statute, the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, and the division

directors shall determine annually on May 1st whether each supervisor in the Department has completed the mandatory performance evaluation required for each CDPS member during the preceding 12 months. The CDPS Human Resource Services Section will track all member evaluations and notify appointing authorities when a supervisor has failed to conduct an evaluation of a member’s performance for the previous year. Absent extraordinary circumstances, for each evaluation outstanding on May 1st, the reviewer shall immediately issue a corrective action to the supervisor, giving him or her 30 calendar days to complete the evaluation, have it reviewed, and provide it to the member.

22. If, at the end of the 30-day period, the evaluation process is not completed as directed,

the reviewer shall suspend the immediate supervisor, pursuant to State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures, Chapter 6. The reviewer will then complete the evaluation(s), which must be received at CDPS HRS no later than June 10th. Due to the time lines of the Performance Management Program and the salary adjustment allocation process, coordination between the reviewer and CDPS HRS in this situation is crucial.

23. If the next-level supervisor does not provide a member with an evaluation by June 8th,

the next level(s) up the member’s chain of command will evaluate the member. The evaluation must be received at CDPS HRS by close of business on June 10th.

of 38


24. If any evaluations have still not been completed by July 1st, the supervisor may be

subject to demotion. If a supervisor has not timely completed annual performance evaluations for two (2) years, the supervisor shall be demoted to a non supervisory position. The CDPS Human Resource Services Section will be responsible for tracking all member evaluations and notifying appointing authorities when a supervisor has failed to conduct an evaluation of a member’s performance for the previous year.

D. Record-Keeping and Reporting 1. It is the Department’s plan to maintain all performance management records in a

confidential, secured file. 2. All relevant PMP records will be included in the Department’s personnel file for each

member and relevant information will be uploaded into EMPL (the state’s employee information database).

PMP-related documents to be included in the personnel file are completed (by an

interim or final evaluation), disputes, grievances, and resolutions. Records will be maintained in both written and electronic form, according to State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures. CDPS Human Resource Services will report information required by the State Personnel Director by specified deadlines.

3. Performance plans should be retained at the supervisor (rater) and/or division level

and not forwarded to CDPS HRS. 4. Payroll records are not part of the personnel file and will be maintained separately by

an authorized Department custodian. 5. Requests for release of performance rating and/or performance salary adjustment

information will be directed to the CDPS Human Resource Services Section. CDPS HRS will follow established guidelines in response to the request.

6. The Department will develop tools required to track and report performance and salary

adjustment information, including appropriations and adjustments to CDPS members. This report will include the total dollars appropriated for performance salary adjustments in prior fiscal years, the amount of those dollars paid to members for performance, and the total amount of dollars paid for each performance category.

of 38


E. Program Review and Modification The PMP Team anticipates that changes will need to be made to CDPS’s program as the Department discovers what works and what does not work. Changes in the State’s guidelines and legislative decisions may require changes to the program. The program will be reviewed annually. If any major adjustments are needed, a revised program will be submitted to State Personnel for review. F. On-Going Program Evaluation 1. The CDPS Executive Team will review and revise these policies and procedures, as

necessary, for the purpose of continually improving the implementation of the State’s Performance Pay System and CDPS’s Performance Management Program. The result should be more accurate and consistent ratings across supervisors and raters.

2. The PMP Team will continue to play an active role in PMP. In order to assure a fair

Performance Management Program, periodic meetings will be called by the CDPS PMP point person, HRS director, or policy director:

a. To continue to offer guidance concerning PMP issues, and to identify and make

recommendations to address problems and concerns as they arise; b. To provide ongoing evaluation of PMP within the Department to see if the

established goals are being met; i.e., to compare theory to practice and to refine its plan as necessary;

c. To evaluate the adequacy of training provided, and to assess the need for further

training; and d. To provide a continuum of communication and a feedback loop for members

regarding PMP within the Department. 3. The Team will also consider the use of surveys. Areas to evaluate include, but are not

limited to, improved performance, improved member satisfaction, improved manager satisfaction, improved customer services, cost analysis, member retention, equity issues, budget accountability, and the PMP annual report.

G. Training Updates and training materials/classes will be provided periodically to all members regarding the performance management plan and performance-based pay system. 1. Performance management training is mandatory for all raters.

of 38


2. Supervisor training will include guidance in establishing work unit plans, writing

plans driven by the Department and division strategic plans, and additional training regarding writing and measuring IPOs.

3. The Department’s diversity coordinator will continue to be involved in all aspects of

the implementation and continuation of PMP. 4. The Team will provide ongoing information concerning PMP to members through the

HRS web site, the CDPS electronic bulletin board, and e-mail.

of 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Chapter 3. Performance Based Pay— Performance Salary Adjustments

CHAPTER 3. Performance-Based Pay—Performance Salary Adjustments Funding for performance-based pay is appropriated each year by the Legislature. The funding of (and the amount of) performance pay is subject to annual budget appropriations. Funding may not be available or appropriated each year. If funding is not available or appropriated, performance pay salary adjustments will not be available. In order to fulfill its mission, CDPS has set a goal to recruit, hire, and sustain employment of the highest quality employees. One way to meet that goal is to develop and competitively compensate its members. 1. Permanent members are eligible for a performance salary adjustment each year except

as provided below. Temporary members are not eligible for performance salary adjustments.

a. Any member below the pay range maximum who is eligible for a performance

salary adjustment (a final overall rating of Level 2, 3, or 4) may receive a base-building adjustment, up to the pay range maximum. A member who is not at pay range maximum and receives a Level 4 rating, may receive a combination of a base-building and a non-base building adjustment. Any portion of the adjustment amount that exceeds grade maximum shall be paid as a one-time lump sum on the July 31st payroll. The statutory salary lid does not apply to any non-base building salary adjustments.

b. A member at the pay range maximum who receives a rating of Level 2 or 3 is

not eligible for an annual performance salary adjustment. c. A member in saved pay status above the maximum who receives a final overall

rating of Level 4 may receive a non-base building salary adjustment. d. Members with a final, overall rating of Level 1 are not eligible for a performance

salary adjustment. 2. A member who is eligible for an annual performance salary adjustment shall not be

denied the adjustment because of a corrective or disciplinary action issued for an incident that occurred after the close of the previous performance rating cycle. If the incident occurred prior to the close of the previous performance cycle (March 31st), the supervisor/reviewer may consider adjusting the performance rating based upon the disciplinary action issued, so long as the adjustment is made prior to June 10th.

3. The Department and its divisions may not use excess personal services money to pay

additional PMP salary adjustments. 4. Per the state’s System, performance salary adjustment dollars may not be used for any

purpose except performance pay.

of 38


5. The CDPS Executive Team has final approval authority of all performance salary

adjustment decisions within their respective divisions/organizations, based on the evaluations completed by raters and reviewers, and upon the CDPS PMP boundaries.

6. The director of the Department of Personnel & Administration shall specify and

publish the percentage ranges for performance levels based on the available state-wide performance pay funding. Within those ranges, CDPS will specify the salary adjustment percentages for Levels 2, 3, and 4 based on the Department’s budget, member demographics, and distribution of ratings. Decision-making on the amount of performance salary adjustments to be paid within CDPS will be negotiated by the CDPS Executive Team, with input from the Department’s human resources and budget staff.

7. The Department will use a budget allocation tool to track performance management

and pay, and to allow the Executive Team and budget officers to model and then allocate available funding.

8. Determining Performance Salary Adjustment Amounts: a. Level 1 performers are not eligible for a performance salary adjustment. b. Level 2 and Level 3 performers may receive base-building performance salary

adjustments representing a percentage of base salary, not to exceed range maximum.

c. Level 4 performers may receive base-building or non-base building performance

salary adjustments, or a combination. 9. The performance salary adjustment amount for a new CDPS member hired between

April 1st and December 31st will be one-twelfth (1/12) of the full adjustment for each month of employment during the performance cycle. There will be no adjustment if the member is hired on or after January 1st. Appointing authorities are encouraged to make this information part of the hiring process so that new members are fully informed of this provision when hired.

10. The performance salary adjustment for a member on leave without pay (LWOP) will

not be affected, unless the member’s date of service is adjusted as a result of the leave. For each month that CDPS HRS adjusts the member’s service date, one month (one-twelfth or 1/12) of the adjustment will be deducted.

11. A member who is reemployed, reappointed, or reinstated within the rating cycle shall

be treated as a new member for purposes of determining any performance salary adjustment.

of 38


12. The performance salary adjustment for a member who transfers laterally to a new position within the Department, or is promoted within the Department, is determined by the new appointing authority, based upon the combined interim ratings from both positions/supervisors. The entire performance adjustment, if any, comes from the new organizational unit’s funding sources.

13. The performance salary adjustment for members who transfer into CDPS from another

state Department will be determined based upon the status of that member’s rating in their former Department at the time of transfer. Appointing authorities should contact CDPS HRS prior to negotiating a transfer, in order to assess the impact on the transferring employee’s performance salary adjustment.

a. For new members transferring with a final performance evaluation (final

rating) at their former Department, but before July 1st, the rating will be considered as any CDPS final rating, and any performance salary adjustment will be determined under the provisions of the CDPS Performance Management Program Plan.

b. For new members transferring with an interim rating from their former

Department, CDPS will conduct an interim rating for the remainder of the rating cycle. The interim ratings will be combined into a final rating on the CDPS 221 form.

If the transfer occurs on or after January 1st, the CDPS interim rating can

default to Level 2, as outlined in Chapter 2.C.7.b of this Plan. The supervisor may also perform the rating. Any performance salary adjustment will be determined in accordance with the CDPS PMP Plan.

c. If no interim rating from their former Department was given prior to the

transfer, CDPS will rate the new member for the time they work at CDPS. If the transfer occurs on or after January 1st, the rating can default to Level 2, as outlined in Chapter 2.C.7.b of this Plan. The supervisor may also perform a rating. Any performance salary adjustment will be based upon the full rating cycle.

14. Members transferring out of CDPS to another state Department after receiving their

performance evaluations at CDPS but before July 1st will receive any performance salary adjustment under the provisions of their new Department’s performance pay plan.

15. Members must still be employed on July 1st to receive performance salary adjustments

from the previous performance cycle. After approval, base-building adjustments will be reflected beginning with the member’s July 1st salary. Level 4 performers receiving non-base building performance salary adjustments will receive lump sum payments on the July 31st paycheck.

of 38


Performance Management Salary Adjustment Eligibility at a Glance

PERFORMANCE LEVELS

Level 1

Does not Meet Standards

Level 2

Meets Standards

Level 3 Frequently Exceeds

Standards

Level 4 Consistently Exceeds

Standards

Member below their range maximum - eligible for performance salary adjustment

Not eligible

Yes, eligible for base building up to range maximum. An adjustment that results in a dollar amount greater than the range maximum is not allowed.

Yes, eligible for base building up to range maximum. An adjustment that results in a dollar amount greater than the range maximum is not allowed.

Yes - eligible for base building, and for a non-base-building adjustment for the portion that exceeds the range maximum.

Member at their range maximum (or in saved pay) - eligible for performance adjustment

Not eligible Not eligible for adjustments.

Not eligible for adjustments.

Non-base-building, lump sum.

Adjustment amount if below range maximum Not eligible

Within the range set annually by the state personnel director.



Adjustment amount if at range maximum (or in saved pay)

Not eligible $0 $0 $0 to percentage set by DPA/CDPS, non-base building.

The State Personnel Director will annually set the ranges for performance salary adjustment levels.

Regardless of performance level, an employee cannot be granted an adjustment GREATER than the set performance adjustment maximum.

of 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Chapter 4. Dispute Resolution Process

CHAPTER 4. Dispute Resolution Process CDPS will use a procedure designed to encourage resolution of disputes at the lowest level. This will be an open and impartial process that is not a grievance or appeal. If the dispute is not resolved at the first level, the member may request review up through the chain of command to the appointing authority or PMP decision maker. A. Overview and Guidelines The State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures, Chapters 6 - Performance, and 8 - Dispute Resolution are hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Dispute Resolution Process. The rules and procedures are available from a link on the CDPS HRS web page: www.cdpsweb.state.co.us/hr/ You may also contact CDPS HRS for a copy. The Dispute Resolution Process consists of two stages, an Internal Stage and an External Stage. As required by the State system parameters, the State Personnel Director retains jurisdiction for disputes related to performance evaluations that do not result in corrective or disciplinary actions. State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures, Chapter 8, specify that disputes are not subject to the Personnel Board’s grievance process unless a corrective action is involved or discrimination is alleged. The purpose of the dispute resolution process is to resolve disputes concerning performance management that may arise between a member and supervisor. A problem-solving approach is strongly recommended. This process is not intended to be legalistic or adversarial. The dispute resolution process must be open and impartial, and must allow the parties an opportunity to have issues heard. The parties to the dispute may have an advisor present, but the parties are expected to represent and speak for themselves. This does not translate to an absolute right to legal representation. Please refer to the State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures for the definition of an advisor. Staff of the CDPS Human Resource Services Section may assist members only with information about rules, process and procedures. They should not advise parties how to approach a specific concern or give any advice relating to the substance of the dispute. In this process, a dispute will be heard and timely decisions will be made after all relevant information has been reviewed. All decisions will be provided in writing and must fully address the member’s concern(s). Members should treat each other with respect and courtesy throughout the process. Retaliatory behavior toward any person involved in this process is prohibited under State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures.

of 38


Final resolution of issues concerning the individual’s performance plan (or lack of plan) and the individual’s performance evaluation shall occur within the Internal Stage. Members will have no further recourse for resolution of these disputes. Disputes concerning application of the Department’s Performance Management Program, policies or processes, or full payment of a performance salary adjustment (if relevant) may proceed beyond the Internal Stage (Department level) to the State Personnel Director (External Stage) after completion of the Internal Stage process. The CDPS 221 Performance Management Planning and Evaluation Form contains the steps involved in the CDPS Internal, and the State’s External, Dispute Resolution Process. This information provides all members with written notice that they may, after completion of the internal dispute resolution process, submit a written request to the state personnel director (external dispute resolution process) for disputes concerning the application of the CDPS performance management program or full payment of a performance salary adjustment [refer to Chapter 4.E]. The notice includes deadlines for filing; lists of what must be included in the request; and the address for filing. The External Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process is administered by the State Personnel Director. Only those original issues involving the application of the Department’s performance plan to the individual performance plan and/or evaluation, or full payment of a performance salary adjustment, may advance to this stage. Disputes are not grievances or appeals. B. Parameters of this Resolution Process 1. Members may dispute only the following issues under this Dispute Resolution

Process:

a. Their own performance plan, or lack of a plan during the planning cycle b. Their own final overall rating, or lack of a final rating for a planning cycle c. The application of the CDPS Performance Management Program, policies, or

process to the individual member’s plan and/or evaluation d. Full payment of any performance salary adjustment

2. The following issues are not disputable under this Dispute Resolution Process: a. The evaluations or salary adjustments of any other members b. The content of the CDPS Performance Management Program c. Matters related to the funds appropriated for performance salary adjustments d. The amount of a performance salary adjustment, including whether it is base or

non-base building, any combination, or none (if relevant to new pay plan), unless the issue involves the application of the Department’s Performance Management Program.

e. Any interim progress review

of 38


3. Appointing authorities will be the decision-makers in the internal dispute resolution

process. The dispute will be heard by the appointing authority (PMP decision maker) and a timely decision rendered after all relevant information has been reviewed. Within CDPS, the PMP decision makers are: For EDO, OPSFS, and CICJIS, the CDPS Deputy Executive Director For CSP, the Region Commander (Lieutenant Colonel) or Chief For DCJ, the DCJ Director For CBI, the CBI Director

The appointing authority or PMP decision maker must be at least one level higher than

the reviewer. In all cases, if the appointing authority or PMP decision maker was the rater or reviewer, the CDPS Executive Director will be the PMP decision maker.

4. Decision makers are limited to addressing facts surrounding the current action and

shall not substitute their judgment for that of the rater and reviewer, but may instruct raters to:

a. Follow the Department’s program b. Correct errors c. Reconsider a performance rating or plan d. Suggest other appropriate processes (for example, provide further documentation

supporting a rating) The decision-maker cannot make a decision that would alter the Department’s

Performance Management Program (PMP). 5. Only issues originally presented in writing shall be considered throughout the

resolution process. 6. A copy of each final decision made within a division or the EDO shall be promptly

forwarded to the CDPS Human Resource Services Director. C. Internal Process for Disputes Concerning Performance Plans 1. Any disagreement regarding PMP should be resolved at the lowest possible level. The

first step in resolving a PMP disagreement is for the member to have an informal discussion with the first-level supervisor.

2. If the disagreement is not resolved after an informal meeting with the first-level

supervisor, the member can initiate the dispute resolution process by submitting it in writing to the next-level supervisor (reviewer). If not resolved, the process advances through the chain of command to the appointing authority or the delegated decision-maker.

of 38


a. A member who still disagrees with the performance plan, or who does not have a

plan, after the initial review meeting with the supervisor [see Chapter 2.A.] can initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. This process must be initiated in writing within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting with the supervisor or the plan will become final without the member’s signature. The written request for a review must include the issues that remain in dispute and it must be made to the member’s next-level supervisor (reviewer). If the member does not take this step, the disagreement/dispute is considered resolved and the performance plan becomes final, with or without the member’s signature.

b. When conducting a review, the next-level supervisor will review the plan, after

receiving written responses to the member’s request for review from the member’s supervisor. A meeting among all of the parties may also be held. The reviewer will have 5 work days from the date of receiving a request for review to reach a decision, which must be in writing and given to the member and the supervisor. If the dispute is not resolved at this level, the member may request a review from the next level in the chain of command, and if not resolved, the process continues up the chain of command to the decision maker (the appointing authority or delegate. The decision maker will have five (5) work days from the date of receiving a request for review to render a written decision. These time lines may be waived upon the mutual agreement of the member and the appointing authority/decision maker.

3. If the request reaches the decision maker and if the decision maker is the appointing

authority’s delegate, the appointing authority will also be notified of the decision. 4. The appointing authority’s or decision maker’s decision on issues involving an

individual performance plan concludes the Internal Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process and is final and binding. (State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures P-8-17.A.)

5. Members who do not receive a performance plan from their supervisor by April 30th of

each year shall inform their immediate supervisor’s supervisor (next-level supervisor or reviewer). The next-level supervisor must provide the member with a written plan by May 15th.

D. Internal Process for Disputes Concerning Performance Evaluations 1. A member who disagrees with the final evaluation after a review meeting with the

supervisor can initiate the Dispute Resolution Process. This process [see Chapter 2.C.14] must be initiated, in writing, within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting with the supervisor, or the evaluation will become final without the member’s signature. The written request for a review must include the issues that remain in dispute and it must be made to the member’s next-level supervisor (reviewer). If the

of 38


member does not take this step, the disagreement/ dispute is considered resolved and the performance evaluation becomes final, with or without the member’s signature.

2. When conducting a review, the next-level supervisor will review the evaluation after

receiving written responses to the member’s request for review from the member’s supervisor. A meeting among all of the involved parties may also be held. The reviewer will have five (5) work days from the date of receiving a request for review to reach a decision, which must be in writing and given to the member and supervisor. If the dispute is not resolved at this level, the member may request a review from the next level in the chain of command, and if not resolved, the process continues up the chain of command to the decision maker (appointing authority or delegate). Since the timetable for tracking evaluations and allocating performance salary adjustments is very short, a written decision must be made within five (5) work days of the receipt of the request at each level of the chain of command. These time lines may be waived upon the mutual agreement of the member and the appointing authority/decision maker.

3. If the request reaches the decision maker and if the decision maker is the appointing

authority’s delegate, the appointing authority will also be notified of the decision. 4. The appointing authority’s or decision maker’s decision on issues involving an

individual performance evaluation concludes the Internal Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process and is final and binding. (Chapter 8 of State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures)

E. The External Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process 1. As required by State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures, the External

Stage of the CDPS Dispute Resolution Process provides for the review of a member’s written request by the State Personnel Director. The State Personnel Director shall establish time lines regarding the deadlines for filing and completion of the process, which shall be contained in Chapter 8 of the State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures.

a. A member must exhaust the remedies provided for by the Internal Stage of the

process before proceeding to the External Stage. b. The review at the External Stage is limited to: 1) Application of the Department’s performance management plan to the

individual member’s plan or final rating, or lack of a final rating. 2) Full payment of a salary adjustment.

of 38


2. A member’s written request for review by the State Personnel Director (address below) must be made within five (5) work days of the Department’s final decision. A copy of the original written dispute and the final Department decision must be included with the member’s written appeal to the State Personnel Director. Only original issues concerning those matters that are disputable are allowed at this stage. No new issues are allowed.

State Personnel Director Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration Attention: Appeals Processing 1313 Sherman Street, Room 122 Denver CO 80203 3. For an issue being reviewed at the external stage, the State Personnel Director or

designee shall not substitute their judgment for that of the rater, reviewer, or the department’s dispute resolution decision maker at the internal dispute stage.

4. In reaching a final decision (in the external stage), the State Personnel Director or

designee have the authority to instruct the rater(s) to: a. Follow the department’s program b. Correct an error c. Reconsider an individual performance plan or final overall evaluation The State Personnel Director or designee may also suggest other appropriate

processes, such as mediation. 5. A written decision is issued within 30 days of receipt. The decision is final and

binding.

of 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Chapter 5. Index

B

Budget officer CDPS.................................................................................................................................... 10

Budget officers division................................................................................................................................. 10

C

CDPS 221......................................................................................... 7, 11, 13, 17, 18, 26, 30, 42 CDPS 222................................................................................................................................. 42 CDPS 223............................................................................................................................. 5, 42 CDPS 224....................................................................................................................... 5, 15, 42 Coaching ........................................................................................................................ 4, 13, 17 Collection of information........................................................................................................... 5 competency

Level 1 in a required ~ prevents final XE "Performance ratings:final" rating higher than Level 2.............................................................................................................................. 15

Competency ....................................................................................................... 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16 Corrective action ................................................................................................ 5, 15, 19, 20, 29 CTO Program........................................................................................................................... 18 Customer .............................................................................................................................. 4, 22

D

Department of personnel .......................................................................................................... 40 Dialogue ..................................................................................................................................... 4 disciplinary action .................................................................................................................... 29 Disciplinary action ....................................................................................... 6, 15, 17, 19, 24, 40 Dispute Resolution Process.............................................................. 8, 11, 14, 19, 29, 30, 32, 33 Distinguishing Levels of Performance....................................................................................... 7

E

Evaluation cycle annual ..................................................................................................................................... 5

F

Feedback .................................................................................................................. 4, 13, 17, 22 continuous .............................................................................................................................. 4 defined.................................................................................................................................... 4

final performance ratings ............................................................See Performance Ratings, final

of 38


Forced distribution not established or tolerated..................................................................................................... 7 prohibited in statute.............................................................................................................. 40

FTO Program ........................................................................................................................... 18

G

Goals department............................................................................................................................ 11 division................................................................................................................................. 11 work unit .............................................................................................................................. 11

Guiding principles PMP........................................................................................................................................ 3

H

HRS Director.......................................................................................................... 22, 25, 28, 30 Human Resource Services ......................................................................................................... 3

director ................................................................................................................................... 3

I

Individual Performance Objectives (IPOs) .................................................................... 8, 15, 16 Information

collection of............................................................................................................................ 5 collection of, for planning and evaluation.............................................................................. 5

Interim rating................................................................................................................ 18, 21, 26

J

Job performance elements of, may be taken into consideration ........................................................................ 7

L

Labels performance rating levels....................................................................................................... 5

Level 1 performance pay eligibility .................................................................................................... 6

Level 1 (Does Not Meet Standards) definition ................................................................................................................................ 5

Level 2 performance pay eligibility ................................................................................................ 7, 9

Level 2 (Meets Standards) definition ................................................................................................................................ 6

of 38


Level 3 Performance pay eligibility ................................................................................................ 7, 9

Level 3 (Frequently Exceeds Standards) definition ................................................................................................................................ 6

Level 4 eligible for non-base building adjustment.............................................................................. 9 Performance pay eligibility ................................................................................................ 7, 9

Level 4 (Consistently Exceeds Standards) definition ................................................................................................................................ 6

Levels rating ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Levels of performance distinguishing ......................................................................................................................... 7

Levels of Performance Distinguishing ........................................................................................................................ 7

M

Mission Department............................................................................................................................. 3

Movement upward or downward............................................................................................................ 18

N

New members......................................................................................................... 13, 17, 25, 26

P

Patrol Interns (Cadets).............................................................................................................. 13 Pay-Out Rules

General State System ........................................................................................................... 10 Performance evaluation

Final evaluation, when required........................................................................................... 18 Final evalutaion, when required........................................................................................... 17 when member has more than one supervisor ....................................................................... 17

Performance improvement plan ........................................................................................... 5, 17 Performance management

CDPS's approach.................................................................................................................. 11 report due annually to State Pers. Dir. (statute) ................................................................... 41

Performance Management Program Team................................................................................. 3 Performance Pay System ........................................................................................... 3, 9, 15, 22 Performance plan ................................................................... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30, 32

no suprises.............................................................................................................................. 4 Performance plans

when required....................................................................................................................... 14

of 38


Performance rating differences among members .................................................................................................. 7

Performance Rating Levels ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Performance ratings ................................................................................................................... 5 final .................................................................................... 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26

Performance salary adjustments not guaranteed ........................................................................................................................ 9

Performance Salary Adjustments Allocation of Funds................................................................................................................ 8 base-building.......................................................................................................................... 9 date effective .......................................................................................................................... 9 non-base building................................................................................................................... 9 non-base building, due to member on July 1st...................................................................... 9 not guaranteed, per statute.................................................................................................... 41 Overview................................................................................................................................ 8

Performance system statutory requirements.......................................................................................................... 40

Performance-based management ............................................................................................... 4 Performance-Based Pay ............................................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 24 Personnel file............................................................................................................................ 21 planning and evaluation

form........................................................................................................................................ 7 PMP team................................................................................................................................... 3 PMP Team............................................................................................................................ 3, 22 Policy director ............................................................................................................................ 3 Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ)................................................................................ 8 Progress review .............................................................................................................. 8, 17, 31

Q

Quotas not established or tolerated..................................................................................................... 7

R

Rating Criteria............................................................................................................................ 7 Records

performance management .................................................................................................... 20 Reviewer ........................................................................ 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 31, 32, 33

S

Salary survey adjustment ......................................................................................................... 10 Senior Executive Service ........................................................................................................... 4 Standards of professional conduct ............................................................................................. 8

of 38


State Department of Personnel, Personnel Board Rules and Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures ........... See State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures

State Performance Pay System .................................................................................................. 5 State personnel director.................................................................................................. 9, 40, 41 State Personnel Rules and Administrative Procedures ...................................... 6, 20, 21, 29, 33 Status-changing personnel action............................................................................................. 18 Statutory salary lid ......................................................................................................... 9, 10, 24 Strategic plan.................................................................................................................. 3, 11, 13 Subjectivity ................................................................................................................................ 8 Supervisor

subject to demotion (statute) ................................................................................................ 41 who fails to evaluate (statute) .............................................................................................. 41

Surprise ...................................................................................................................................... 4

T

Timeline (chart) .............................................................................................................................. 11 Transfer .................................................................................................................... 9, 14, 18, 26

Y

Year-end review......................................................................................................................... 8

of 38

CDPS Performance Management Program Plan Appendices

Appendix 1

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 24-50-104, REGARDING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION

(as of 2004 Legislative Session) (c) (I) Based on a system of performance management and evaluation, the state personnel director shall adopt procedures for periodic salary increases for employees in the state personnel system based on performance. (II) The Department of personnel shall develop guidelines and coordinate a performance system pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) that: (A) Is simple and understandable to employees in the state personnel system; (B) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1931, § 5, effective May 22, 2003.) (C) Is developed with input from employees in the state personnel system, managers, and other affected parties; (D) Emphasizes planning, management, and evaluation of employee performance; (E) Includes uniform and consistent guidelines for all state Departments and institutions of higher education; (F) Prohibits a forced distribution of performance ratings; and (G) Authorizes individual and group performance awards. (III) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1931, § 5, effective May 22, 2003.) (IV) The state personnel director may authorize state Departments and institutions of higher education to establish a program for the particular state Department or institution to implement the performance system prepared by the Department of personnel in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (c). The state personnel director shall encourage state Departments and institutions of higher education to implement performance evaluations of employees that are as objective as possible and that, as soon as possible and wherever feasible, include an assessment from multiple sources of each employee's performance. Such sources shall include, where applicable, the employee's self-assessment, the employee's superiors, subordinates, peers, and any other applicable sources of an employee's performance. The state personnel director shall adopt procedures to establish a process to resolve employee disputes related to performance evaluations that do not result in corrective or disciplinary action against the employee. Each program established by a state Department or institution of higher education pursuant to this subparagraph (IV) shall be subject to the director's approval. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of this section,

of 38


salaries may be increased or left unchanged subject to available appropriations for the performance system; except that no annual increase shall be guaranteed. (c.5) (I) The state personnel director shall provide for the evaluation of employee performance. Each employee shall be evaluated at least once a year. The evaluation of performance shall be used as a factor in compensation, promotions, demotions, removals, reduction of force, and all other transactions as determined by the state personnel director in which considerations of quality of service are properly a factor. (II) A supervisor, including a supervisory state employee not within the state personnel system, who does not evaluate subordinate employees in the state personnel system as required by this paragraph (c.5) on at least an annual basis shall be suspended from work without pay for a period of not less than one workweek. The provisions of this subparagraph (II) shall only apply to supervisors who are state employees. (III) The head of each principal Department and each state-supported institution of higher education, respectively, shall determine annually on May 1 whether each supervisor in the Department or institution has completed the mandatory performance evaluation required for each employee in the state personnel system during the preceding twelve months. If any evaluations have still not been completed by July 1, the supervisor may be subject to demotion. If a supervisor has not timely completed annual performance evaluations for two consecutive years, the supervisor shall be demoted to a non supervisory position. (IV) The state personnel director shall adopt procedures for the implementation of the provisions of this paragraph (c.5). Nothing in this paragraph (c.5) shall be construed to limit the ability of the state personnel director to provide for additional sanctions for noncompliance with the provisions of this paragraph (c.5). (V) The state personnel director shall monitor compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (c.5) and paragraph (c) of this subsection (1) and shall annually report the director's findings pertaining to the prior fiscal year no later than January 1 of the following fiscal year to the joint budget committee of the general assembly. The report shall include, by Department or institution, the number of supervisors who were suspended or demoted, the percentage of all supervisors who complied with the requirements of this paragraph (c.5), the total amount of dollars appropriated for performance awards, the total amount of such dollars that were awarded to employees for performance awards, and the total amount of those dollars awarded for each performance category.

of 38


Appendix 2

CDPS PMP Forms

CDPS 221 Performance Management Plan & Evaluation Form – Use is mandatory throughout the Department CDPS 222 Progress Review Form – Use is optional CDPS 223 Performance Improvement Plan – Use is mandatory, along with official

corrective action form for Level 1 ratings CDPS 224 CDPS Performance Management Plan (PMP) Assessment Worksheet – Use is mandatory through the Department

of 38

Colorado Department of Public Safety PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN & EVALUATION FORM

IDENTIFICATION Name (Print): Personnel Number:

Planning/Evaluation Period From To Evaluation (circle one): Annual Other

Member’s

Classification Title: Division: Org. Unit No.

Supervisor’s Supervisor’s Supervisor’s

Printed Name: Pers. Number: Position No:

PLANNING SECTION The member has been provided a Performance Management Plan.

Supervisor’s Signature

I agree disagree* with this performance plan. Member’s Signature Date

*Member should explain disagreement in the Comments From the Member Regarding the Plan area on page 4.

FINAL EVALUATION SECTION Final Annual Rating

FINAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING (information from Page 5)

THE FINAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD WAS (check one):

Level 1 (100-175 Points) — Does Not Meet Standards Level 3 (281-360 Points) — Frequently Exceeds Standards

Level 2 (176-280 Points) — Meets Standards Level 4 (361-400) —Consistently Exceeds Standards Supervisor’s (Rater’s) Signature Date

Reviewer’s Signature Date Reviewer’s Printed Name

I agree disagree* with this performance evaluation.

Member’s Signature Date

*Member should explain disagreement in the Comments From the Member Regarding the Evaluation area on page 6. The member may initiate the Internal Dispute Resolution Process concerning this performance plan or evaluation within five (5) working days following the date when the member received the plan or rating. The member must follow the CDPS Dispute Resolution Process of the CDPS Performance Management Plan (see page 8). (If the member refuses to sign, the rater should note the refusal on the Member Signature line, and indicate the date on which the member refused on the line for the Date of the member’s signature.) If the member does not initiate the dispute resolution process, the disagreement/dispute is considered resolved and the plan or evaluation becomes final, with or without the member’s signature. The State Personnel Director defines a competency as a measurable pattern of skills, knowledge, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully.

PROGRESS REVIEW HELD

Supervisor’s Initials

Date

Member’s Initials

CDPS 221 (REV 03/05) Page 1

NOTE: Statements in each competency area are written as LEVEL 2 — Meets Standards statements.

COMMUNICATION (required for all State Employees) Does Not

Meet Standards

Meets or Exceeds Standards

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Keeps others informed in a timely manner. Ensures communications are clear, concise, easily understood, and grammatically

correct. Actively listens and asks effective questions. IPO: IPO:

OVERALL COMPETENCY RATING

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS (required for all State Employees) Does Not

Meet Standards

Meets or Exceeds Standards 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Treats others professionally, with dignity, respect, and courtesy. Contributes to a productive work environment and positive relationships. Maintains self-control and composure. Balances individual and group efforts. Promotes intra- and interagency cooperation. Provides and accepts constructive feedback in a positive manner. IPO: IPO:


CUSTOMER SERVICE (required for all State Employees) Does Not

Meet Standards

Meets or Exceeds Standards 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Works effectively with internal/external customers (clients, co-workers, peers, and all

contacts) to satisfy service and/or product expectations.

IPO:

IPO:


ORGANIZATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY (required for all State Employees)

Does Not Meet

Standards Meets or Exceeds Standards

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Member’s work behaviors demonstrate responsible personal & professional conduct, which contribute to the overall goals and objectives of the Department of Public Safety.

Adheres to laws, regulations, policies, rules, and procedures. Performance demonstrates commitment to the department’s values, goals, missions,

vision, and philosophies. Observes duty hours. Adapts to changing conditions. Positively represents the department. IPO: IPO:


Level 4: Member consistently exceeds standards. Level 3: Member frequently exceeds standards Level 2: Member consistently meets standards.

KEY TO RATING LEVELS (Rating Definitions on Page 7)

Level 1: Member consistently or significantly does not meet standards. CDPS 221 (REV 03/05) Page 2

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE (required for all CDPS Members)

Does Not Meet


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Demonstrates job knowledge and proficiency. Maintains confidentiality of information acquired during course of employment. Performs duties/tasks in a timely and accurate manner. Ensures a safe and secure work environment. Is proficient in the operation and care of equipment. Exercises sound fiscal responsibility. IPO: IPO:


SUPERVISION/MANAGEMENT (required for all State Employees who supervise one or more members)

Does Not Meet


1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Effectively implements and administers the CDPS Performance Management program

within his/her span of control. Develops, positively influences, motivates and challenges subordinates. Adapts leadership style to a variety of situations. Plans, supports, and provides assistance, resources, and direction in accomplishing

objectives. Appropriately delegates while maintaining responsibility. Effectively utilizes available resources to accomplish objectives. Exercises sound financial management. Demonstrates ability to make appropriate, timely, logical decisions using all available

information and assesses the potential impact. Adheres to the Department’s affirmative action principles and policy, while ensuring a

work environment free from harassment.

IPO: IPO:


Up to two additional (optional) competency areas may be used at the discretion of the supervisor and the member. These two areas, below, may also be used for additional IPOs. A member should have no more than 12 IPOs (total) in the annual plan.

OPTIONAL: Does Not

Meet Standards

Meets or Exceeds Standards 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 IPO:

IPO:

IPO:

IPO:


OPTIONAL: Does Not

Meet Standards

Meets or Exceeds Standards 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 IPO:

IPO:

IPO:

IPO:


Level 4: Member consistently exceeds standards. Level 3: Member frequently exceeds standards Level 2: Member consistently meets standards.

KEY TO RATING LEVELS (Rating Definitions on Page 7)

Level 1: Member consistently or significantly does not meet standards. CDPS 221 (REV 03/05) Page 3


PERFORMANCE PLANNING NARRATIVE (If more space is needed, please add a page after page 10)

COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBER REGARDING THE PLAN (If more space is needed, please add a page after page 10)


STEP 1. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - RATING

WEIGHT X (TIMES) RATING = POINTS COMPETENCY AREA TITLES % 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4.0

THE “WEIGHT %” COLUMN MUST TOTAL 100%

INTERIM/CURRENT RATING – POINTSIf no Interim Rating was done, go to Step 3, below. If Interim Rating(s) were done, go to Step 2, below.

STEP 2. IF ONE OR MORE INTERIM RATINGS WERE REQUIRED DURING THE RATING PERIOD, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TO DETERMINE THE FINAL ANNUAL RATING:

1. Enter the Interim Points Earned for each interim rating in column A. 2. Determine the months covered by each interim rating and convert months to decimal (see figure at right, below). 3. Enter the decimal for months covered for each interim rating in column B. 4. Multiply the interim total points earned by the decimal figure. Enter the result in column C for each interim rating. 5. Add the adjusted interim point ratings to arrive at the Final Annual Rating – Points. 6. Go to Step 3.

Column A Column B Column C

INTERIM POINTS EARNED X DECIMAL = INTERIM POINT

RATING Date X

Date X

Date X

Date X

1 month = 0.08 2 months = 0.17 3 months = 0.25 4 months = 0.33 5 months = 0.42 6 months = 0.50 7 months = 0.58 8 months = 0.67 9 months = 0.75

10 months = 0.83 11 months = 0.92

FINAL ANNUAL RATING - POINTS

STEP 3. CONVERSION OF POINTS (from STEP 1 or STEP 2) TO FINAL OVERALL RATING. CHECK BOX, BELOW: 100-175 Points = Level 1 — Does Not Meet Standards 281-360 Points = Level 3 — Frequently Exceeds Standards 176-280 Points = Level 2 — Meets Standards 361-400 Points = Level 4 — Consistently Exceeds Standards

FINAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING: 1 2 3 4Enter the POINTS in the FINAL ANNUAL RATING and check the appropriate box on Page 1.

The Performance Evaluation Narrative and Comments from the Member are on page 6.

Any competency area(s) rated at Does Not Meet Standards require(s) a written explanation of the rating (use the area on page 7). If any overall competency rating (for a required competency) is rated overall at Does Not Meet Standards, the final overall performance rating cannot be higher than Level 2. A final overall performance rating of Does Not Meet Standards requires a completed CDPS 223 Performance Improvement Plan, which must be attached to this form. A corrective action must also be processed (do not attach corrective action to this form).


PERFORMANCE EVALUATION NARRATIVE (If more space is needed, please add a page after page 10)

COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBER REGARDING THE EVALUATION (If more space is needed, please add a page after page 10)

Rating Levels – Definitions: Level 1 (Does Not Meet Standards): This rating level encompasses those members whose performance does not consistently and independently meet expectations set forth in the performance plan, as well as those members whose performance is clearly unsatisfactory and consistently fails to meet requirements and expectations. Marginal performance requires substantial monitoring to achieve consistent completion of work, and requires more constant, close supervision. Though these members do not meet expectations, they may be progressing satisfactorily toward a level 2 rating and need to demonstrate improvement in order to satisfy the core expectations of the position. Level 2 (Meets Standards): This rating level encompasses a range of expected performance. It includes those members who exhibit competency in the work behaviors, skills, and assignments for the job, as well as those employees who are successfully developing in the job. These members are meeting all the expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives on their performance plan and, on occasion, may exceed them. This is the member who reliably performs the job assigned. Level 2 performers are successful and valued members of the department. Level 3 (Frequently Exceeds Standards): This rating level encompasses the accomplished performers who consistently exhibit the desired competencies effectively and independently, while frequently exceeding expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives of the job assigned. For example, the member may have participated in one or more projects or groups, over and above what would normally be assigned to the position during the evaluation year, or may have been called upon to serve in an “acting” or similar capacity at some point. Their work has a documented impact beyond the regular assignments, and performance objectives that directly support the mission of the organization. Level 4 (Consistently Exceeds Standards): This rating represents consistently exceptional and documented performance or consistently superior achievement beyond the regular assignment. Members make exceptional contribution(s) that have a significant and positive impact on the performance of the unit or the organization, and may materially advance the mission of the organization. The member provides a model for excellence and helps others to do their jobs better. Peers, immediate supervisors, higher-level management and others can readily recognize such a level of performance. Level 4 is unique and difficult to achieve. This person is a role model. NOTE: A single unique or unusual contribution during a rating period does not provide sufficient justification for an overall Level 4 rating for the year.

Any competency area(s) rated at Does Not Meet Standards require(s) a written explanation of that rating. Use the area below. (If more space is needed, please add a page after page 10)

If applicable, member has met all CDPS training requirements (CDPS 225 is attached).

INSTRUCTIONS: The original of this form (the plan) should be kept by the supervisor in the local personnel file until the plan is closed by a final evaluation (annual, separation, transfer, etc.). Once the plan and evaluation are complete, the original of this form should be sent to the CDPS Human Resource Services Section at Headquarters. For the annual cycle, which begins April 1st and runs through March 31st, the plan must be completed by April 30th. Please refer to the CDPS Performance Management Program document for other important time lines and information.



Performance Management Evaluation Dispute Resolution Process This area of the form should be completed, initialed, and dated by the supervisor. Then a copy of the entire CDPS 221 form, including these pages 8 and 9, should be given to the member at the time of the final performance evaluation. The “Date Given to Member”, below, must be the date that the final evaluation is given to the member. Member’s Appointing Authority (or PMP decision maker) is: (Appointing Authority or Designee - contact HRS if unsure) Supervisor’s Initials: Date Given to Member: The Dispute Resolution Process consists of two stages, an Internal Stage and an External Stage. As required by State system parameters, the State Personnel Director retains jurisdiction for disputes related to performance evaluations that do not result in corrective or disciplinary actions. State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures, Chapter 8, specify that disputes are not subject to the Personnel Board’s grievance process unless a corrective action is involved or discrimination is alleged. CDPS encourages resolution of disputes at the lowest level. The purpose of this process is to resolve disputes concerning performance management that may arise between a member and supervisor. This process will be open and impartial, and is not intended to be legalistic or adversarial. It is not a grievance or appeal. CDPS Internal Stage: 1. A dispute should be resolved at the lowest possible level. The first step in the resolution of a disagreement (or

dispute) about your performance evaluation is for you to informally discuss it with your supervisor. You must request this meeting, in writing, within five (5) work days of being given your final evaluation (see “Date Given to Member”, above). This meeting must be held within five (5) days of your supervisor’s (rater’s) receipt of the written request. It should be approached as a problem-solving action, not as a legal or adversarial meeting. The rater (supervisor) and the member may agree to make changes to the final evaluation, if a consensus can be reached.

2. If you still disagree with the final evaluation after meeting with your supervisor, you can initiate the Dispute

Resolution Process, in writing, within seven (7) calendar days of the meeting with your supervisor. The written request for a review must be made to your next-level supervisor (your supervisor’s supervisor, who is also the reviewer). If you do not take this step, the dispute is considered resolved and the performance evaluation becomes final, with or without your signature.

3. You may dispute only the following issues under this Dispute Resolution Process: a. Your own individual performance plan, including the lack of a plan during the performance cycle. b. Your own final overall rating, or lack of a final rating for a planning cycle c. The application of the CDPS Performance Management Program, policies, or process to your evaluation d. Full payment of any performance salary adjustment 4. You may not dispute:

a. The evaluations or performance salary adjustments of any other members b. The content of the CDPS Performance Management Program c. Matters related to the funds appropriated for performance salary adjustments d. The amount of a performance salary adjustment, unless the issue involves the application of the

Department’s Performance Management Program. e. Any interim progress review

5. You and your supervisor may have an advisor present, but you are expected to represent and speak for

yourselves. This does not translate to an absolute right to legal representation. Please refer to the State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures for the definition of an advisor. Staff of the CDPS Human Resource Services Section may assist you only with information about rules, process, and procedures. They should not advise you or your supervisor how to approach a specific concern or give any advice relating to the substance of the dispute.

6. When conducting a review, the next-level supervisor (reviewer) will review your evaluation after receiving written responses to your request for review from your supervisor. A meeting with you, your supervisor, and the reviewer


may be held. The reviewer will have five (5) working days from the date of receiving your request for review to reach a decision. The decision must be in writing, and be given to you and to your supervisor.

7. If you feel the dispute is not yet resolved at this level, you may request a review from the next level in the chain of

command. You must make this request, in writing, within seven (7) calendar days of the date of the written decision. If the dispute is not resolved at that level, the process continues up the chain of command to the decision maker (appointing authority or delegate). A written decision must be made within five (5) work days of the receipt of the request at each level of the chain of command. You have seven (7) calendar days from the date of each written decision to request a review at each level of the chain of command. These time lines may be waived if you and the appointing authority/decision maker both agree to do so.

8. Only issues originally presented in writing shall be considered throughout the resolution process. 9. If your request reaches the level of the PMP decision maker, and if the decision maker is the appointing

authority’s delegate, the appointing authority will also be notified of the decision. 10. The appointing authority’s or decision maker’s decision on issues involving your performance evaluation

concludes the Internal Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process, and is final and binding. (State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures, Chapter 8.)

11. All members should treat each other with respect and courtesy throughout the process. Retaliatory behavior toward any person involved in this process is prohibited (State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures P-8-19.).

12. If the dispute concerns your final performance evaluation, resolution of the dispute shall occur within the Internal

Stage. You will have no further recourse for resolution. 13. If your dispute concerns the application of the Department’s Performance Management Program, policies or

processes, or full payment of a performance salary adjustment (if relevant), the dispute may proceed beyond the Internal Stage (department level) to the State Personnel Director (External Stage) after completion of the Internal Stage process.

External Stage (State Personnel Director): 1. The External Stage of the Dispute Resolution Process is administered by the State Personnel Director. Only

those original issues involving the application of the Department’s performance plan to your performance evaluation, or full payment of a performance salary adjustment, may advance to this stage.

2. Your written request for review by the State Personnel Director must be made within five (5) working days of the

Department’s final decision. A copy of the original written dispute and final Department decision must be included with your written appeal to the State Personnel Director. Only original issues concerning those matters that are disputable are allowed at this stage. No new issues are allowed. Mail your request and documentation to:

State Personnel Director, Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration, Attn: Appeals Processing, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 122, Denver CO, 80203 3. The Personnel Director will select a neutral third party to make the decision regarding the dispute. A written

decision will be issued within 30 days of receipt. The decision is final and binding. Refer to the State Personnel Board Rules and State Personnel Director’s Administrative Procedures, Chapters 6 - Performance, and 8 - Dispute Resolution for complete information regarding dispute resolution for performance management evaluations. These rules are available: On the Internet at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/gss/hr/rules/ruleshome.htm

On the CDPS HRS web page at: www.cdpsweb.state.co.us/hr/ and click on RulesFrom the CDPS Human Resource Services Section (303.239.4427)

Colorado Department of Public Safety PROGRESS REVIEW FORM

Member:

Supervisor:

Period Covered:

COMPETENCY:

Communication

COMPETENCY:

Interpersonal Skills

COMPETENCY:

Customer Service

COMPETENCY:

Organizational Accountability

CDPS 222A ( 03/02) Optional Form

COMPETENCY:

Professional Competence

COMPETENCY: Supervision/Management

COMPETENCY:

COMPETENCY:

Remember to transfer this date (below) to, and then initial, the CDPS 221 form. I received this progress review on this date:

PROGRESS REVIEW -- SIGNATURES:

Supervisorr Date Member CDPS 222A ( 03/02) Optional Form

Colorado Department of Public Safety PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MEMBER’S NAME (Print): PERS. NO.

SUPERVISOR’S NAME (Print):

DATE:

This form may be used to correct and improve a member=s job performance or behavior in a formal, systematic manner. If a member=s performance in one or more competency areas is rated at Level 1 (Does Not Meet Standards) at any time during the performance management cycle, this form may be used to indicate the need for improved performance and to document the actions taken to do so. This form may be used in the case of an interim or final performance evaluation with an overall Level 1 rating. This form will not be used if the overall performance evaluation of Level 1 is the second consecutive rating at that level, or if the initial overall rating indicates that the member=s level of performance warrants immediate corrective or disciplinary action. In that situation, a formal letter of corrective action is required. Per State Personnel Rules R-6-4, a performance improvement plan is not a corrective action.

1. The following competency area(s) do(es) not meet standards:

2. Improvement Action(s) and Date(s):

3. Dispute Resolution: If the member disagrees with this performance improvement plan, the standard grievance process described in State Personnel Rule R-8-8 applies. The member must make a request for an informal meeting with the supervisor within 10 calendar days of the Date of Receipt of this plan. Additional provisions of the grievance process may be obtained from the CDPS Human Resource Services Office or via the HRS web site (http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/hr/forms.htm).

Supervisor’s Signature Pers. No. I have received a copy of this performance improvement plan. (Member’s Signature):

Date of Receipt

CDPS 223 (03/02)

CDPS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP)

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

(Effective for Performance Cycle Beginning 4/1/05)

Performance Level Key

DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS MEETS STANDARDS FREQUENTLY EXCEEDS

STANDARDS CONSISTENTLY EXCEEDS

STANDARDS

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4

This rating level encompasses those members whose performance does not consistently and independently meet expectations set forth in the performance plan, as well as those members whose performance is clearly unsatisfactory and consistently fails to meet requirements and expectations. Marginal performance requires substantial monitoring to achieve consistent completion of work, and requires more constant, close supervision. Though these members do not meet expectations, they may be progressing satisfactorily toward a level 2 rating and need to demonstrate improvement in order to satisfy the core expectations of the position.

This rating level encompasses a range of expected performance. It includes those members who exhibit competency in the work behaviors, skills, and assignments for the job, as well as those employees who are successfully developing in the job. These members are meeting all the expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives on their performance plan and, on occasion, may exceed them. This is the member who reliably performs the job assigned. Level 2 performers are successful and valued members of the department.

This rating level encompasses the accomplished performers who consistently exhibit the desired competencies effectively and independently, while frequently exceeding expectations, standards, requirements, and objectives of the job assigned. For example, the member may have participated in one or more projects or groups, over and above what would normally be assigned to the position during the evaluation year, or may have been called upon to serve in an “acting” or similar capacity at some point. Their work has a documented impact beyond the regular assignments, and performance objectives that directly support the mission of the organization.

This rating represents consistently exceptional and documented performance or consistently superior achievement beyond the regular assignment. Members make exceptional contribution(s) that have a significant and positive impact on the performance of the unit or the organization, and may materially advance the mission of the organization. The member provides a model for excellence and helps others to do their jobs better. Peers, immediate supervisors, higher-level management and others can readily recognize such a level of performance. Level 4 is unique and difficult to achieve. This person is a role model. NOTE: A single unique or unusual contribution during a rating period does not provide sufficient justification for an overall Level 4 rating for the year.

The standards for each competency are defined in the LEVEL 2 column, and appear on the CDPS 221.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 1 of 18

COMMUNICATIONS Standards are defined in the LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.

DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS MEETS STANDARDS FREQUENTLY EXCEEDS STANDARDS

CONSISTENTLY EXCEEDS STANDARDS


• Fails to keep supervisors, co-workers, or subordinates informed in a timely manner.

Example: Fails to take and/or deliver timely, accurate messages.

• Keeps others informed in a timely manner.

Examples: Disseminates appropriate information to all levels are necessary — to supervisors, co-workers, subordinates, and customers. Efficiently uses voice mail, cell phone, e-mail and sign out board. Collects and disseminates information appropriately, accurately, and timely.

• Builds trust and respect through communications, and takes initiative to encourage timely communications among others.

Example: Member can be depended upon to relay information in a time-sensitive manner in order to avert potential disruption of work processes, to assist others, or to save time.

• Communication skills are of such a high quality that the member has been consistently recognized and/or is consistently utilized to represent the unit/office/division/department.

Example: Consistently demonstrates timely communication with and/or among others that increases the overall effectiveness of the unit/office/division/department.

• Communications are unclear, not concise, grammatically incorrect, and/or not effective.

Examples: Verbal communication is ineffective. Communicates inaccurate information. Written communication is improperly punctuated, unclear, grammatically incorrect, and/or is not in the proper format. Does not use reference materials and/or software tools to check quality of written materials. Documents are not directed through the appropriate chain of command.

• Ensures communications are clear, concise, easily understood, and grammatically correct.

Examples: Ensures that effective voice control, tone, and articulation are maintained in all verbal communication. Ensures that proper format, correct spelling, acceptable grammar and punctuation are used on all written documents, and directs those documents through the appropriate chain of command. Utilizes reference materials and/or software tools to check quality of written materials.

• Maintains an effective communication system, which includes both written and verbal communications containing accurate content, within area of responsibility,

Examples: Member frequently submits written documents that are complete, accurate, and of high quality with little or no correction required. Takes initiative to improve verbal and/or written communication skills.

• Provides the most accurate information possible for written and verbal dissemination through research, fact checking, coordination with external resources, error detection, etc.

Examples: Member is recognized for a high level of technical proficiency and/or is used by the unit/office/department in an advisory or other capacity; or written products are used as examples for the unit/office/department. Communication skills are of such high quality that the individual is used to train others. Demonstrates communication skills that enhance the image of the unit/office/division/department.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 2 of 18

COMMUNICATIONS Standards are defined in the LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.




• Fails to ask appropriate questions in order to clarify misunderstandings.

• Actively listens and asks effective questions.

Examples: Makes certain she/he understands directions. Effectively communicates by actively listening and sharing relevant information with co-workers, supervisors, and other customers to anticipate problems and ensure effectiveness. Collects complete, accurate information through appropriate questioning.

• Excels at communicating appropriately with individuals at ALL levels within the organization as well as with external customers.

Example: Frequently collects complete, accurate information, and attempts to prevent and resolve misunderstandings through appropriate questioning.

• Demonstrates a high level of professional communication skills through work product, as well as in interactions with all levels within the organization and with external customers.

Examples: Prevents misunderstandings by anticipating problems and recommending a solution used by others. Recommends an office procedure that results in a significant improvement in communication.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 3 of 18

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS Standards are defined in the LEVEL 2 column and appears on the CDPS 221.




• Does not maintain a professional demeanor in the workplace.

Examples: Makes offensive or inappropriate comments. Demeans or belittles others. Treats others rudely and/or without respect.

• Treats others professionally, with dignity, respect, and courtesy.

Examples: Behavior is consistent and appropriate in all interactions, correspondence, and conversations. Uses appropriate language, and treats everyone with dignity and respect for personal rights. Uses tact and diplomacy when dealing with others.

• Treats others with courtesy and respect, and acknowledges the work of others regardless of level of experience, expertise and responsibility.

Examples: Actively discourages gossip and rumors while maintaining an excellent relationship with others. Enhances skills to adapt to a diverse working environment.

• Motivates others to act professionally within the work place through a demonstration of a positive attitude towards assignments, fellow members, and professional relationships both internal and external to the Department/Division/Unit.

Examples: Develops and uses a strategy to improve a diverse work environment.

• Projects and/or promotes a negative attitude/image.

Examples: Participates in gossip. Spreads rumors. Embellishes the truth. Is argumentative. Does not assist others when asked.

• Contributes to a productive work environment and positive relationships.

Examples: Allocates and manages time appropriately. Appropriately shifts priorities to keep things in balance. Assists others when asked.

• Enhances the work environment through professional relationships and a positive attitude.

Examples: Motivates others to act professionally within the workplace by demonstrating a positive attitude. Recognizes when others need help and offers assistance.

• Employs a high level of interpersonal skills (such as patience, intuition, consensus building, listening and facilitating) to obtain cooperation from co-workers, supervisors, and external customers.

Examples: Consistently motivates others to act professionally within the workplace by demonstrating a positive attitude. Develops and uses a strategy to improve a productive work environment. Member is consistently recognized by customers or colleagues for having an exceptional attitude. Anticipates needs of others in advance and offers strategies or provides solutions.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 4 of 18





• Regularly fails to take control of own actions/behaviors or to maintain composure.

Examples: Uses profanity or inappropriate language. Adds unnecessary stress to the work environment. Acts out anger inappropriately, such as breaking or damaging state owned or leased property. Fails to maintain appropriate voice control.

• Maintains self-control and composure.

Examples: Maintains appropriate demeanor in all situations. Handles emotions in an acceptable and non-disruptive manner.

• Contributes to a calm, controlled environment conducive to productive work.

Example: Diffuses stressful/emergency situations by maintaining a professional attitude and demeanor.

• Possesses the ability to prevent/defuse stressful situations through planning and execution of proactive strategies.

Examples: Maintains a professional attitude and demeanor while assisting others during stressful/emergency situations. Is acknowledged or recognized for handling a stressful/emergency situation in a way that enhances the image or furthers the mission of the unit/office/division/department.

• Fails to work well with others. Examples: Is not a team player. Failure to manage own workload negatively impacts others. Does not cooperate with others.

• Balances individual and group efforts.

Examples: Cooperates with, and acts as a member of, the work team. Maintains own workload and does not negatively impact others.

• Recognizes the needs of team members and accepts and maintains a more than equitable share of the workload.

Example: Promotes cooperation among team members and other work units.

• Takes initiative to form teams and address issues when situations dictate such action.

Example: Recognizes the needs of team members and is able to obtain the cooperation of others through trust and integrity of the member.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 5 of 18





• Fails to work well with the public/other agencies/public officials.

Examples: Responds inappropriately to inquiries or requests from customers. Portrays a negative attitude towards other entities or agencies. Customers do not trust member’s responses.

• Promotes intra- and interagency cooperation.

Examples: Responses to both internal and external customers are dependable and consistent. Maintains a good working relationship with the public and other agencies. Member’s contacts with both internal and external customers foster trust.

• Establishes positive working relationships within the Department/ Division/Unit and throughout the state government system allowing for information to be efficiently exchanged.

Example: Relationships with the public and other agencies serve to enhance the image of the unit/office/division/department.

• Relationships with the public or other agencies serve to enhance the image of the Department/Division/Unit.

Example: Is recognized by colleagues or customers for having demonstrated exceptional ability to promote cooperation.

• Does not accept or offer constructive feedback in a positive manner.

Example: Becomes defensive and/or unwilling to listen when constructive feedback is given.

• Provides and accepts constructive feedback in a positive manner.

Example: Responds appropriately to constructive feedback.

• Uses constructive feedback to an advantage by reviewing the feedback received and improving work based upon that feedback.

Example: Offers and uses constructive feedback to address or resolve problems, and improve performance.

• Peers, managers and subordinates solicit constructive feedback based upon member’s character and level of experience.

Example: Uses constructive feedback to positively influence others and prevent problems.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 6 of 18

CUSTOMER SERVICE Standards are defined in LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.




• Receives complaints that are valid or founded.

Examples: Does not respond to customer requests. Does not respond adequately to customer requests. Gives customers old or incorrect information.

• Works effectively with internal/external customers (clients, co-workers, peers, and all contacts) to satisfy service and/or product expectations.

Examples: Responds to customer requests in a timely and professional manner. Makes current and correct information available to customers. Assists customers and co-workers in a positive manner and follows through on commitments. Ensures compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) requirements. Uses available resources to assist others with special needs. Uses available resources (such as other peers, policy or statutes, spell-check or thesaurus) to ensure that communications to customers are clear and accurate, and meet the customer’s needs or request.

• Recognizes customer problems and anticipates future customer needs.

Examples: Assists others in using available resources (such as other peers; policy or statutes; spell-check or thesaurus) to ensure that communications to customers are clear and accurate, and meet the customer’s needs or request. Develops specialized skills, such as sign language, foreign language or other physical disability assistance, that will assist others with special needs. Identifies opportunities to improve customer service. Member’s efforts go beyond normal expectations to prevent complaints through appropriate interaction, and the member seeks opportunities to improve own professional image.

• Is known and utilized as an expert in their area(s) of expertise.

Examples: Assists co-workers who are experiencing difficult customer service problems. Is sought by others as a resource in ADA, LEP, cultural competence or similar programs. Member is recognized as one who helps coworkers/customers through efficient and effective innovations and solutions. Initiates model services for persons with special needs that improves the delivery of services. Member builds partnerships with key stakeholders. Member develops methods and procedures to make customer service opportunities more efficient and cost effective. Member receives formal recognition in the form of letters, awards, public recognition, etc.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 7 of 18

ORGANIZATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY Standards are defined in LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.




• Work behavior demonstrates a lack of personal and professional responsibility and conduct that detracts from the overall goals and objectives of the Department/ Division/Unit.

Examples: Personal problems interfere with the workplace or with job duties. Personal hygiene or appearance causes disruption or complaints. Does not accept responsibility for own actions. Does not appropriately address concerns about work schedules. Wears attire that is not appropriate for the workplace. (Examples: extremely short skirts, shorts, “muscle” shirts, low-cut necklines, bare midriffs, tattered or torn articles of clothing, clothing that bears offensive language or images.) Damages, loses or fails to maintain state equipment entrusted to their care.

• Member’s work behaviors demonstrate responsible personal and professional conduct, which contributes to the overall goals and objectives of the Department/Division/Unit.

Examples: Does not allow personal problems to interfere with job duties. Maintains personal appearance and hygiene that projects a professional image. Wears attire that is appropriate for the workplace. Accepts responsibility for actions and takes appropriate corrective action, such as making an apology, correcting errors, etc. Accepts work schedules in a positive manner. Notifies supervisors in a timely manner of scheduling changes or conflicts. Handles and maintains all state-owned property in a diligent manner, guarding against neglect and abuse, and takes required corrective measures as needed. (Examples of this could be: Uses equipment for its intended purpose. Does not place damaging objects, beverages, or substances on or near keyboards or electronic equipment.)

• Identifies a need within the organization and proposes a procedure/ policy that has a positive impact on the overall goals and objectives of the Department/Division/Unit.

Examples: Physical appearance and grooming enhance the image of the Department/Division/Unit. Uses alternative methods (e.g. technology) to perform duties in an efficient and effective manner. Recommends solutions when advising supervisor of scheduling changes or conflicts. State-owned equipment is maintained in a manner that is an example to other members (e.g., clean).

• Procedural recommendations made by the member are adopted by the Department/Division/Unit as best practices.

Examples: Is consistently used as or considered an example of performing duties in an efficient and effective manner, and enhances the image of the department/division/unit. Member consistently exceeds fitness standards required for the essential functions of the job. Develops scheduling solutions that positively impact the department/division/unit. Member initiates ideas that contribute to the overall maintenance and effectiveness of state-owned equipment.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 8 of 18





Cleans meeting rooms and other common areas after use, and returns items to proper location. Ensures that public areas are kept neat and clean, and promotes safety and security.

• Disregards laws, regulations, policies, rules, and procedures that may prove detrimental to the operations of the agency.

Examples: Member receives disciplinary or corrective action for a violation of regulations, policies, rules, or procedures. Uses state computer systems for inappropriate uses, such as accessing pornography or other offensive or illegal information, using state e-mail for personal use, forwarding or sending “chain” e-mail or unauthorized material.

• Adheres to laws, regulations, policies, rules, and procedures.

Examples: Supports and works within Department’s and Division’s Policies and Procedures. Uses state computer systems and software appropriately.

• Is able to provide interpretation of laws, regulations, policies, rules, and procedures to other individuals within the organization.

Example: Encourages others to work within policies, rules and procedures.

• Contributes expertise to the creation of, refining of and/or enhancement of laws, regulations, policies, rules, and procedures that benefit not only the department/division/unit, but the general public as well.

Example: Member has an exceptional working knowledge of policy, rules and procedures, and member’s expertise is solicited or offered to others.

• Is not committed to the Department’s/Division’s/Unit’s values, goals, missions, vision, and philosophies.

Example: Member disrupts the business operations and/or programs and goals of the department/division/unit.

• Performance demonstrates commitment to the Department’s values, goals, missions, vision, and philosophies.

Examples: Actively supports philosophies, programs and goals of the department/division/unit. Actively supports the Division’s/Unit’s guiding principles and/or core values.

• Actively encourages others to support the Department’s/Division’s/Unit’s values, goals, missions, vision, and philosophies, and is a resource to others.

• Consistently encourages others to support the Department’s/Division’s/unit’s values, goals, missions, vision, and philosophies, and is recognized as a role model for others.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 9 of 18





• Member does not observe duty hours and is not readily available during the Department’s hours of operation.

Examples: Abuses leave policies. Does not report to work on time, or return promptly from breaks, meetings, and lunch. Leaves work area before the end of scheduled work hours.

• Observes duty hours. Examples: Does not abuse leave policies. Does not abuse work breaks. Reports to work area on time, returns promptly from breaks, meetings, and lunch. Does not leave work area before the end of scheduled work hours.

• Observes the Department’s hours of operation and is readily available for consultation.

Example: Demonstrates initiative to adjust schedule and/or works additional hours to accomplish job duties (as appropriate and if approved).

• Recognizes that the responsibilities of the position sometimes demand accessibility that exceeds the normal duty hours and demonstrates the flexibility needed to meet those challenges.

Examples: Member has an exceptional attendance record and is consistently reliable. Member volunteers for special projects outside of normal work hours. Member is consistently available on short notice.

• Member’s resistance to change within the organization negatively impacts others.

Example: Member refuses to implement a procedural change.

• Adapts to changing conditions. Examples: Member accepts changes with a positive attitude. Member addresses concerns from a problem-solving perspective. After discussion, member supports management decisions without interjecting personal perspective.

• Encourages others to adapt to changing conditions.

Examples: Shows willingness to learn new job responsibilities or procedures based on organizational change. Provides feasible alternatives and recommendations to appropriate authority.

• Initiates and participates in the development of a positive method that enables the Department/Division/Unit to adapt to changing conditions.

• Member negatively represents the Department/Division/Unit either through actions or comments.

• Positively represents the Department/Division/Unit.

• Member serves as a model for peers in positively representing the Department/Division/Unit by displaying professionalism in all facets of job responsibility.

• Member identifies and acts on opportunities to promote the Department/ Division/Unit, and/or enhances customer relationships on behalf of the Department/Division/Unit.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 10 of 18

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE Standards are defined in LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.




• Does not demonstrate a knowledge of, and proficiency in the responsibilities associated with this position.

• Demonstrates job knowledge and proficiency.

Examples: Maintains certification and qualification standards. Demonstrates safety consciousness and uses proper safety/emergency equipment when required or needed. Demonstrates a working knowledge of technical aspects relating to duties and responsibilities.

• Member is generally regarded as an authoritative source based on position expertise within the agency.

Examples: Shows initiative with regard to upgrading own or others skills relating to job duties. Develops and utilizes multiple training and certification skills. Possesses in-depth knowledge of state/federal laws, rules, and regulations and related areas so that others seek their advice.

• Member’s knowledge or expertise is utilized in an advisory/training capacity for internal and external customers on a division, department, state and/or national level.

Examples: Member consistently makes contributions that positively impact division/department/unit and State goals and/or objectives and is recognized for their efforts. Member uses skills that lead to exceptional performance which is used as a model for others and impacts training and certification. Identifies a significant deficiency and develops a program or solution to address the deficiency. Identifies a significant need and develops a procedure or program that increases the proficiency of others.

• Does not maintain confidentiality within the office setting.

• Maintains confidentiality of information acquired during course of employment.

Examples: Does not discuss or disclose sensitive information outside the division/department/unit. Observes federal and state laws and rules relating to release of information.

• Not only maintains confidentiality, but is also effective in preventing and/or handling inappropriate behavior and/or office gossip.

Example: Member is utilized beyond job requirements and is seen as a resource regarding federal and/or state laws and rules relating to either the confidentiality or the release of sensitive information.

• Is entrusted, and exhibits exceptional ability in all areas, with sensitive or confidential information by supervisors or other stakeholders.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 11 of 18





• Does not complete tasks in a timely and accurate manner. These actions impact the duties/tasks of others in the Department/Division/Unit.

• Performs duties/tasks in a timely and accurate manner.

• Uses systematic methods for completing quality work in less time and consistently distinguishes between low and high priorities.

• Performance of duties/tasks within the Department/Division/Unit positively impacts the quality and quantity of work product delivered by other members within the Department/Division/Unit.

• Does not ensure a safe and secure work environment.

• Ensures a safe and secure work environment.

Example: Member ensures that all workplace security measures are enforced during work and after work hours such as wearing security identification, not admitting unauthorized individuals, using proper procedure for escorting visitors in facility.

• Behavior serves as an example to others regarding a safe work environment.

Example: Brings safety issues to appropriate personnel and suggests a solution.

• Contributes to the Department’s policies and procedures in making the work place safer for staff.

• Is unable to operate and maintain equipment.

• Is proficient in the operation and care of equipment.

Examples: Monitors and performs preventative maintenance of equipment in an ongoing and diligent manner. Follows Department/Division/Unit policies regarding computer equipment and exercises caution when opening e-mail, or using other software applications.

• Serves as a resource for training other staff in the care and operation of equipment.

• Consistently researches technological improvements in relevant equipment, and recommends improvements based on that research that are both fiscally responsible and that will improve the efficiency of the work done by the Department/Division/Unit.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 12 of 18





• Does not exercise sound fiscal responsibility with budgeted funds.

• Exercises sound fiscal responsibility.

Examples: Member uses proper procurement forms or procedures. Member utilizes state approved vendors when making purchases. Member operates within the Department’s/Division’s/Unit’s budget parameters and accurately utilizes state fiscal rules.

• Member serves as a resource to others regarding fiscal policies and procedures.

• Member identifies potential budget problems and recommends solutions.

Example: Member improves the fiscal health of the Division/Unit through savings or through securing new fiscal resources.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 13 of 18

SUPERVISION/MANAGEMENT Standards are defined in LEVEL 2 column and appear on the CDPS 221.




• CDPS Performance Management program is not effectively implemented and administered by member.

Examples: Does not develop plans. Does not conduct mid-year reviews nor provide feedback to members. Evaluations are not timely or are incomplete. PDQs for subordinate members are not current.

• Effectively implements and administers the CDPS Performance Management program within his/her span of control.

Examples: Plans are in place on a timely basis. Conducts mid-year reviews and records comments. Evaluations are timely and thorough. All PDQs are periodically reviewed and revised.

• Implements the CDPS Performance Management program in such a way that the plan enhances the productivity of the members under the member’s management.

Example: Manager is seen as an example or resource for other supervisors concerning the implementation of Performance Management.

• Implements the CDPS Performance Management program in a way that results in enhanced productivity and response to changing needs of the organization (i.e., member uses the Performance Management program as part of strategic management).

• Does not develop, positively influence, motivate or challenge subordinates.

• Develops, positively influences, motivates and challenges subordinates.

Example: Utilizes skills or available resources to upgrade the skills and efficiency of subordinate members.

• Raises subordinates’ level of responsibility through motivation and appropriate challenges that help them develop as members.

Example: Recognizes members’ potential and implements a program that encourages personal growth.

• Positive interaction between the member and subordinates, as well as the rest of the unit (if applicable), results in an improved level of efficiency.

Example: Member’s actions result in fiscal savings, improved study outcomes, improved customer relations, or improved management and distribution of grant funds.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 14 of 18





• Member’s leadership style does not adapt to challenges and is not varied.

• Adapts leadership style to a variety of situations.

Examples: Flexibility, recognition and understanding of pending or imminent challenges allows for the member to be prepared and to plan accordingly. Member’s adaptive leadership style allows for minimal disruptions in the course of day-to-day work assignments, as well as management expectations.

• Member’s leadership style serves as an example for others.

• Member is recognized as having exceptional leadership abilities that enhance the image of the Department/Division/Unit.

• Does not plan, offer support, or provide assistance, resources, or direction in accomplishing objectives.

• Plans, supports, and provides assistance, resources, and direction in accomplishing objectives.

Example: Exercises sound resource management.

• Methods of planning, support and providing assistance are of such a high quality that member is frequently recognized by peers.

Examples: Member is asked to facilitate planning or strategizing sessions. Member is frequently asked for advice or insight on supervision/management concerns.

• Members planning and direction abilities allow for the recognition and avoidance of possible challenges beforehand, allowing for accurate and efficient execution of actions that will help the Department/ Division/Unit reach its objectives.

Examples: Member’s expertise is utilized in an advisory/training capacity for internal and external customers on a division, department, state or national level. Secures resources and/or develops schedules that significantly benefit organizational needs, strategies, and objectives when allocated resources are limited.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 15 of 18





• Member does not appropriately delegate.

• Appropriately delegates while maintaining responsibility.

Example: Assigns tasks that are appropriate and that utilize or develop subordinates’ skills, provides guidance and support, and ensures adequate follow-up.

• Encourages subordinate growth through managed delegation that challenges the subordinate to grow in both skill and understanding of responsibilities within their position.

Example: Encourages subordinates to assume responsibility in new areas in order to enhance or develop existing or new skills.

• Creatively blends own responsibilities into the working components of the unit, allowing subordinates exposure to all facets of responsibility for the unit, and further enhancing their work experience within their positions.

• Does not effectively utilize available resources to accomplish objectives.

• Effectively utilizes available resources to accomplish objectives.

Examples: Effectively and/or appropriately schedules staff. Develops schedules to meet organizational needs, strategies and objectives. Ensures that adequate material resources are available and used appropriately. Identifies needs and provides necessary training to all assigned personnel.

• Ability to recognize, assess, and plan for future objectives allows for programmatic growth within the Department/Division/Unit.

Examples: Combines required training and member-requested training to improve the efficiency of the work unit (within allocated resources). Individual training plans take into consideration long-term goals of subordinates.

• Consistently attains new objectives through effective utilization of resources that may have been unattainable if not for effective planning by the supervisor/manager.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 16 of 18





• Does not exercise sound financial management.

• Exercises sound financial management.

Examples: Participates in the allocation process. Monitors the budget(s) for area(s) of responsibility to ensure that budget is properly managed throughout the year. Utilizes all available resources to develop and monitor budgets. Understands and implements federal and state rules and regulations regarding procurement and fiscal transactions, and ensures they are followed by subordinates.

• Recognizes, assesses, and plans for future fiscal challenges within the department/division/unit.

Example: Develops cost-saving strategies that enable more resources to be used toward attaining unit goals and/or to assist other units or programs.

• Consistently attains new objectives that may have been unattainable without effective utilization of fiscal resources, as result of exemplary fiscal planning by the supervisor/manager.

• Does not make appropriate, timely or logical decisions.

Examples: Is unable to realize consequences of actions. Decisions are wrong and ineffective. Close supervision is required whenever judgment is required.

• Demonstrates ability to make appropriate, timely, logical decisions using all available information, and assesses the potential impact.

Examples: Integrates experience and feedback to arrive at appropriate decisions. Effectively communicates decisions to all affected members.

• Prior to making decisions that impact the Department/Division/Unit, explores and considers all avenues of consultation (staff, management, external parties).

Examples: Frequently arrives at timely, logical decisions on highly complex matters. Anticipates/recognizes problems and takes action to avoid negative consequences.

• Demonstrates exemplary ability to reach logical, informed decisions, and is relied upon by Department/Division/Unit staff as a resource to aid in all levels of decision making throughout the agency.

Examples: Consistently arrives at timely, logical decisions on highly complex matters. Others seek the member’s advice and counsel.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 17 of 18





• Does not adhere to the Department’s affirmative action principles and policy.

Example: Member does not ensure a work environment free from harassment.

• Adheres to the Department’s affirmative action principles and policy, while ensuring a work environment free from harassment.

Examples: Has working knowledge of and follows personnel rules. Ensures compliance with state and federal laws, state personnel rules, and all policies and procedures. Member creates a work environment that is conducive to equity, recognition, fairness and creativity.

• Improves the work environment to ensure equity, recognition, fairness and creativity.

• Demonstrates exemplary dedication to department’s affirmative action principles and policy, and is utilized by others in the Department/Division/Unit as a reliable resource in ensuring a diverse work environment free from harassment.

CDPS 224 (REV 02/05) Page 18 of 18

colorado department

Technology