Revised November 6, 2001

College of Public Programs Statement of Professional Responsibility:
Annual Performance Review, Salary Allocation and Post Tenure Review




Definitions of Teaching, Research, and Service
Evaluation Levels
Presumptive Responsibilities for Departments and Schools (Work Load)
Presumptive Responsibilities for Individual Faculty (Work Load)


Overall Evaluation


Evaluation Within Each Area (Teaching, Research/Creative Activities, and Service)
Teaching Standards: Examples of Specific Evaluation Criteria
Research and Creative Activity Standards: Examples of Criteria
Service Standards: Examples of Criteria
Preparation of Materials for the Annual Review
Written Performance Agreement

V. POST TENURE REVIEW (for tenured faculty only)

VI. ADDRESSING UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE (for untenured faculty and non-continuing academic professionals)




The Vision

Each of us has a vision of the kind of University environment in which we would like to work. Even though that vision may take many different forms, some of its common elements include an environment where we can teach classes that are interesting, important, and have a positive impact on students’ lives; where we can engage in challenging and creative intellectual scholarship; where we are able to take our research and creative activities into the community and make a difference. The vision includes an environment in which cultural diversity is appreciated rather than simply tolerated; and all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, feel comfortable and valued. We want to be a part of a larger community, one that supports our efforts to make contributions to our students, our local and national colleagues, and to knowledge. We value a sense of choice and control over what we do, and we want to be appreciated for our contributions. We want Arizona State University to be this kind of place.

Statement of College Mission

The College of Public Programs contributes to the progress of the community and society by educating qualified persons to become better citizens, to enhance their capacity for societal leadership, and to prepare them for rewarding careers in the areas of specialized knowledge developed within the College. The faculty recognize a special responsibility for learning and teaching about the most critical societal issues of an advanced, urbanized society. These responsibilities include critically assessing the capacity of government, media, business, and people working together in other ways to solve problems and to create a greater quality of life for all people.

The areas of specialized knowledge that lead to degrees from the College are: broadcasting, communication, journalism, justice studies, recreation management and tourism, public administration, social work, and telecommunications. Certificates are offered in Nonprofit Youth and Human Service Administration (American Humanics), American Indian Studies, Asian Pacific American Studies, Public Administration and Management.

Authority and Responsibility (Also see, ASU Post-Tenure Review Process (ACD 506-11))



The annual performance review should focus on the individual’s contributions to the school or department and to its ability to serve students, community, and to advance knowledge. University policy provides that the evaluation must:

  1. cover 36 months, with substantial emphasis on current year for evaluation of teaching,
  2. provide four measurements, one each for teaching, scholarship, service, and overall;
  3. be conducted by the unit head or peer committee (or combination);
  4. be based on a written, goal-based agreement negotiated by the individual and unit head that fits within unit and campus mission and guidelines;
  5. include and seriously consider student input of teaching including evaluation of faculty classroom performance in all classes;
  6. address every instance of unsatisfactory evaluation in teaching and other areas, as explained under post tenure review.

Following the annual review, the Dean must conduct an audit of the process, as specified below:

  1. The audit must cover a proportion of reviews each year so that over a maximum of 5 years, every file is reviewed. Within the College, at least one unit will be audited each year.
  2. The audit will be conducted by the Dean and two faculty members from outside the unit. One will be appointed by the Dean, the other by the Chair/Director of the unit.
  3. The auditors will review the adequacy of the process and the specific evaluations given to individuals. The results will be reported back to the unit by the Dean.
  4. If appropriate, files may be referred back to the unit for another review

Each unit, whether being audited or not, will submit to the Dean’s office by the agreed-upon date the following materials: (a) the three-year activity report from the faculty member, (b) the negotiated written performance agreements for the last year of the activity report and the next year, (c) the peer or committee reviews (with names of reviewers omitted), and (d) the chair/director’s letter. For the unit being audited, the complete file of the faculty member also should be submitted, including the teaching portfolio, research/creative products, and service products. [This file will be returned].

Definitions of Teaching, Research, and Service

The following definitions will be used in allocation of responsibilities and evaluation of performance:

Teaching-includes classroom and individualized instruction, advising, instructional innovations, curriculum development, and other contributions to student learning and success;

Research and Creative Activities-includes publications, presentations, performances, grant proposals, and other written, audio, or video “products” resulting from the program of scholarly activity that are prepared for academic audiences, public / community service audiences, and/or student audiences;

Service-University (governance) service is service for the department, college, or university; professional service is service to academic organizations, such as holding an office in a national academic association, and public/community service is service to the community through instructional, research, or other projects and by holding an office or chairing a committee in a public or community-based organization, or in a non-academic professional association consistent with the mission of the unit and college.

Units must recognize that faculty activity often fits into more than one category and must insure that all faculty activities are evaluated under one or another area or through some system of integrated scholarship. For example, research reports for non-academic audiences represent the overlap between research and service; research apprenticeship classes are an overlap between research and teaching; and service learning classes are an integration of teaching and service.

Evaluation Levels

Each unit must have at least three levels of evaluation (unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and merit). Units may add a fourth category if they wish (such as “high merit / exemplary”).

Presumptive Responsibilities for Departments and Schools

Each unit is expected to allocate its responsibilities to help insure that the College as a whole meets its overall goals in instruction, research, and service. [See the College Performance Indicators]. At the College level, a minimum of 40% will be allocated to classroom instruction and a minimum of 10% to university service. The remaining 50% is allocated among instruction, service, and research and creative activities. Expectations for each unit may be set by the Dean’s office and will reflect differences in the mission and instructional delivery methods of the units within the College.

Presumptive Responsibilities for Individual Faculty

All faculty presumptively are expected to participate in classroom instruction, engage in university service, and maintain a program of research and creative activities that results in presentations and publications for academic audiences, or public/community audiences, or students. With regard to the allocation of time (FTE), the following should serve as a general guide to individual-level expectations, which can be further refined by each unit:


For performance to be satisfactory or better, ASU’s post tenure review guidelines suggest that units take into account productivity (whether the faculty member is fully employed that is, has assigned responsibilities consistent with the FTE they carry at ASU), quality in carrying out their responsibilities, professionalism, and acceptable balance across teaching, research, and service. Because ABOR policy places a strong emphasis on teaching, units are especially urged to be attentive to the productivity and quality of instructional activities.

Within the College of Public Programs, the evaluation within each area of responsibility includes productivity, quality, and professionalism (citizenship). Evaluations across teaching, research/creative activities, and service are then combined into the overall evaluation. In terms of balance, faculty are expected to have assignments that, collectively, enable the unit to achieve its goals. The written performance agreement should be specific about the expected allocation of FTE across different activities (instruction, service, research, and combinations of these), but each unit should recognize that changes in assignments and responsibilities may be agreed upon during the year if these are in the best interests of the individual and the unit. Such changes should be taken into account during the annual performance review.

The Overall Evaluation

An overall unsatisfactory evaluation will be given if the person is unsatisfactory in 50% or more of his or her assigned responsibilities (FTE); or if the person receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory in any one area of responsibility; or if he or she fails to complete satisfactorily the personal development plan that resulted from a previous unsatisfactory rating.

Overall evaluations of satisfactory, merit, or high merit/exemplary should be determined by combining the evaluations for teaching, research, and service in accord with the FTE assigned to each, and by taking into account any specific deficiencies noted in the most recent written performance agreement and the progress made by the person in correcting those deficiencies.


Evaluation Within Each Area (Teaching, Research/Creative Activities, and Service).

Within each area, faculty will be evaluated in terms of their productivity, the quality or impact of their efforts, and their professionalism/citizenship contributions to unit and college goals. Productivity is assessed primarily by the amount of work accomplished that is relevant to the unit’s mission, given the FTE assigned. Quality or impact is assessed in terms of the academic/intellectual content of the work, and its contribution to and impact on relevant audiences (i.e., students, academic audiences, lay/professional audiences). Citizenship and professionalism are assessed in terms of creating value for one’s unit, college, and ASU through collegiality, willingness to take on special tasks when asked, contributions to minority recruitment and cultural diversity; and adherence to professional standards of conduct (as specified in unit, college, or university rules or the rules of relevant professional organizations).

Definitions for each level within a specific area are:

[Units may specify more exact standards for each evaluation level, if they wish]

Teaching Standards: Examples of Specific Evaluation Criteria

Productivity of teaching may be determined by indicators such as the student credit hours produced through classroom and individualized instruction; the number of credit hour classes taught in classroom settings, the difficulty of the teaching assignment(s), involvement in instructional or curriculum innovations that increase productivity or quality of the learning environment, and other activities that contribute to the unit’s ability to serve its students, taking into account the FTE assigned, the rank and experience of the faculty member, and the difficulty of the assignment. Teaching productivity must be taken into account when granting merit or high merit evaluations, so that faculty who teach more classes or more SCH, or are able and willing to teach larger classes, required classes, and lower division classes should be properly rewarded, given that the level of quality is acceptable. Individualized instruction and mentoring are expected of all faculty; heavier than average (for the unit) participation in individualized instruction and mentoring should count toward merit and high merit evaluations in teaching, provided the quality is acceptable.

Quality and impact of classroom and individualized instruction may be assessed through indicators such as student evaluations of classes, peer or chair review of class syllabi and other pedagogical materials, other peer or chair reviews such as attending class, and other feedback from students. Faculty are expected to contribute to the unit’s goals, such as increasing persistence rates, reducing time to graduation, maintaining a high level of student satisfaction with the program, and making appropriate changes if student evaluations of classes fall into the lower ranges, such as “four” or “five” on the five point scale. Additional indicators of quality may include having up-to-date and appropriate course materials; maintaining scholarship needed to insure adequate level of knowledge; teaching in such a way that few legitimate student complaints are generated; using appropriate delivery mechanisms and pedagogy; being attentive to course requirements (including meeting the class the requisite number of times, content that generally is consistent with the course description, being available to students through office hours, assignments that are appropriate to the role of the course in the curriculum such as writing assignments); and to be willing to address issues raised in student evaluations or other reviews of teaching.

The professionalism and citizenship of teaching may be assessed through indicators such as faculty willingness to be helpful to students; to set good examples for students; to show respect for students; and to be responsive to the instructional needs of the unit by developing new courses, teaching large classes, or teaching classes that are less desirable, from a faculty point of view, when asked to do so. Faculty citizenship includes making positive contributions to other faculty and to the overall instructional mission of the unit. Other indicators of instructional contributions may include ability and willingness to teach across all levels offered by the unit and across different types of courses (e.g., required courses, lower division courses); to participate in individualized teaching; to contribute to insuring that the curriculum and course content are relevant and up-to-date; to provide leadership in student organizations when requested; to develop new courses or delivery systems when asked to do so; to uphold professional ethics and standards within and outside the classroom; to contribute to positive environment for all, including minority students and women within and outside the classroom.

Teaching that exceeds the minimum standards of productivity, quality/impact, and citizenship should be considered toward merit or high merit evaluations in teaching.

Research and Creative Activity Standards: Examples of Criteria

The productivity of research and creative activities normally is evaluated through the “products” that result from the faculty member’s program of scholarly activity. Products include such things as journal articles, books, textbooks, grant proposals and grant reports, research reports, task force reports, edited books, edited journals, book chapters, book reviews, conference presentations, video or audio tapes, performances, and so forth. Research and creative “products” (including works in progress) contribute toward the assessment of productivity, regardless of whether the intended audiences are academic colleagues, students, non-academic lay or professional groups, newspaper readers, and so forth. Thus, public / community service work that results in written reports, presentations, or performances may be evaluated as part of research and creative activities, or as part of an integrated research/service program. Productivity normally is measured by the number of research-based or creative products, of particular types or “quality” levels, that contribute to the achievement of the unit’s goals, that are produced or appear in print during the evaluation period. Productivity must take into account the FTE the person has available for research and creative activities. To be taken into account, a product must be available for evaluation or have been evaluated through a process approved by the unit.

Satisfactory productivity is very difficult to ascertain because of the extreme differences in the time required to produce different types and quality of research products and differences in the contributions the research and creative products make to the goals of the unit as a whole. The College’s general guideline is that faculty with .40 or more FTE assigned to research and creative activities should, over a reasonable period of time, produce peer-reviewed research “products” that are nationally distributed. Units may set more specific standards, or standards for other FTE allocations.

The quality of research/creative activities may be measured by indicators such as the extent to which the work reflects appropriate scholarly standards, the impact on intended audiences, and the importance, innovativeness, and relevance of the work. Indicators of quality also may include the quality of the journal, quality of the publisher, quality of the conference, centrality of the journal (publisher or conference) to the overall mission of the unit; size of the audience to which the product is distributed; citations in citation indices; published or unpublished peer reviews; reprints of previously-published articles in edited books; publication of subsequent editions of books, and so forth.

The professionalism and citizenship of research and scholarly activity may be evaluated using indicators such as contributions to cultural diversity; mentoring of other faculty; participation in grant proposals with multiple investigators; co-authoring papers with graduate or undergraduate students; involving students in research projects through individualized instruction; participation in unit, college, or university colloquia to present research; helping others with their research and publications, and conducting research so that it meets the accepted professional standards of the discipline, university, college, and unit.

Research and creative activities that exceed the minimum expectations for productivity, quality, and/or citizenship should be counted toward merit and high merit evaluation.

Service Standards: Examples of Criteria

Activities encompassed under service must be largely pro bono or compensated through released time from other university responsibilities, the activities must contribute to the greater good of the unit, college, university, or broader community, and (in the case of public/community service) must involve the academic expertise of the faculty member.

University service (department, college, and university-wide) includes attending faculty meetings, providing leadership within the unit, participating in graduation exercises and other student-oriented activities at the unit, college, or university level; serving on committees and task forces, serving in the academic senate; accepting special project assignments (such as “loaned executive,” or coordination of unit’s speakers series) when asked; administrative service includes associate chair, graduate director, undergraduate director, and so forth; other services include less tangible activities such as providing computer assistance for other faculty, special training programs for faculty or students, etc.

Professional (academic) service includes holding offices in national or regional associations; serving on national or regional committees; serving as program chair or local arrangements chair for conferences; making accreditation visits or program reviews to other universities; editing academic journals; serving on editorial boards; serving as reviewer for journals or granting agencies; serving as judge for student contests, etc.

Public/community service includes activities that serve non-academic organizations or interests, provided that such activities draw on the scholarly expertise of the faculty member and also are recognized by the unit as contributing to their service goals. Such activities include research or instructional projects for or with non-academic groups, holding offices in non-academic professional associations; membership in professional, public or community-based organizations; on-going relationships with community-based organizations, public agencies, or other non-academic organizations provided that these relationships involve instruction, technical assistance, training, research, and so forth.

The evaluation of service may be based on indicators such as: (1) regular attendance at faculty meetings unless explicitly excused; (2) willingness to participate in a “fair share” of committee assignments, with regular attendance and participation in the activities of the committee; (3) willingness to take on special projects or assignments as requested by the chair/director or faculty as a whole; (4) positive citizenship contributions to the well-being of the unit in terms of minority recruitment and cultural diversity, as well as the other aspects of good citizenship noted under teaching and research/creative activities; and (5) adherence to professional standards of conduct.

The quality/impact of university service and the citizenship of service is assessed by the chair/director (with input as appropriate from peer reviews or personnel committee review, interviews with students, surveys or input from other committee members).

Public/community service publications, presentations, written products, performances or talks, etc., represent integrated scholarship overlapping research/creative activities and service. These must be counted toward the productivity of the faculty member in one category or another, or within an integrated research/service category that also combines the person’s research and service FTE.

Preparation of Materials for the Annual Review

Faculty are responsible for preparing materials for their assessment that will cover the previous three-year time period that they were in residence. Faculty who were on sabbatical during the time period should include their service and teaching contributions for the most recent six semesters when they were in residence. Units are encouraged to use calendar years, but may use other dates if they prefer. Contributions to minority recruitment and cultural diversity may be incorporated as a category of their own, or may be included within each of the other three.

For academic professionals, evaluations are based on the individualized job descriptions and the talent, energy, and contributions the person demonstrates within and beyond that job description. Contributions to cultural diversity are included if there are any opportunities for such contributions. Academic professionals should submit the FTE distribution across various assignments if appropriate, their activity report, and whatever written materials are appropriate for the evaluation.

Faculty activity reports must include:

Teaching information: A table showing each course taught during the most recent 6 semesters and, for each, the name of the course, the number of students, SCH, and summary student evaluation scores. For each class taught in the most recent year, the faculty member should include the syllabus and written assignments, including tests.

The research/creative activities information should provide a full citation for each written product, video, or audio product, produced within the three-year evaluation period, within categories specified by the unit (e.g., nationally-published books, refereed articles, non-refereed articles, etc.). Units should develop specific guidelines on “works in progress,” reprints of previously published articles (such as in anthologies), second or subsequent editions of books, and other issues.

The service information should include a brief “citation” for each service project along with cross-references to written, audio, or video materials listed previously. Products of service should be included if they are available and appropriate (such as task force reports, committee reports, policy statements, memoranda, etc.). Service that involves research or creative activities may be considered either under “research and creative activities” or under service, or within an integrated category. In terms of university service, consideration should be given to the individual’s contribution to a collegial, cooperative, environment, contributions to the intellectual richness of that environment, contributions to an effective faculty governance process, contributions that encourage peace-making rather than controversy, helpfulness rather than obstruction.

Contributions to cultural diversity may be included either as a separate category or encompassed within each of the other three. Contributions include efforts that facilitate recruitment, retention, and achievement of or by culturally diverse persons (including racial and ethnic minorities, women in under represented fields, disabled persons, persons of diverse sexual orientation, and other disadvantaged groups specified by the unit).

The Written Performance Agreement

The written performance agreements (also referred to as the “goal based agreement” in ABOR policy) for the last year of the assessment period and the next year should be attached to the activity report. They are initially drafted by the faculty member for review by the chair/director (and by peers during peer review). They should specify the desired FTE assignment and explain how the individual plans to meet the unit’s agreed upon standards of productivity and quality in each area. Beyond the minimum standards, the written agreement should reflect the faculty member’s actual goals within each area for the year. The department chair is responsible for reviewing the faculty member’s preferred assignments and goals, negotiating these with the individual if needed to insure that all persons have a full workload of assignments, as well as to provide a fair distribution of effort among faculty and to insure that faculty efforts will enable the unit to meet its collective responsibilities. Chairs also are responsible for incorporating into the written agreement any special conditions arising from deficiencies or problems uncovered during the current evaluation. When evaluating the person the next year, any special conditions should be taken into account. However, the assessment of whether a faculty member “meets,” “exceeds,” or “greatly exceeds” expectations must be based on the uniform department standards, not on the person’s stated goals. All faculty with the same FTE assigned in a particular area should be held to the same minimum standards, although some consideration can be given for rank and years of experience. No faculty member should be penalized for setting high goals in their written performance agreement nor rewarded for setting low ones.

The Dean’s office should be provided either with (a) a copy of the written performance agreement signed by the faculty member and the chair, or (b) a copy of the written agreement as drafted by the faculty member along with a copy of the chair’s letter to the faculty member, with the latter signed by both parties.

V. POST TENURE REVIEW (for tenured faculty only)

[Unless some other procedure is developed, unsatisfactory performance for academic professionals with continuing appointments will follow this same procedure].

(a) Unsatisfactory in a specific area-A rating of unsatisfactory in any area of assigned responsibility will result in a developmental plan at the unit level. This developmental plan will have specific goals for the faculty member to achieve, within one year, with appropriate interim monitoring and feedback. A second consecutive unsatisfactory performance rating in the same area will result in an overall unsatisfactory rating.

(b) Unsatisfactory overall-If a faculty member receives an overall unsatisfactory rating during the annual performance evaluation, a mandatory enhanced review will occur. The mandatory enhanced review is a more thorough review of the faculty member’s record undertaken to verify the results of the process, verify the unsatisfactory performance rating, and/or provide information for improvement. This review can result in overturning the unsatisfactory evaluation, overturning it but noting areas of weakness that need to be addressed, or confirming the unsatisfactory performance. If it is confirmed, the faculty member will be expected to participate in a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) as formulated by the unit head and the Dean with the assistance of the faculty member. If the PIP is completed successfully, that is, goals or outcomes are satisfied, the faculty member will return to the normal annual performance evaluation process. If the goals and outcomes are not achieved by the expiration of the PIP, the appropriate administrator will exercise the option to initiate the Dismissal for Cause process. In either case, a final report will be made by the unit head to the faculty member and the Dean. It is important to note that in no way does this post-tenure review process eliminate the rights of the faculty member to use the grievance process outlined in ACD 509-02.

VI. ADDRESSING UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE (for untenured faculty and non-continuing academic professionals)

An unsatisfactory rating in any one area or overall for an untenured faculty member (including instructors and lecturers) or an academic professional who is not on a continuing appointment may result in a recommendation for (a) a regular contract in the next year with notation of improvement that is expected; (b) dismissal at the end of the academic year, (c) a conditional contract during the next year, or (d) a terminal contract, as described in ACD 508-01.


Recognizing that no single system of allocation, evaluation, and compensation will meet all needs, each unit within the college is expected to develop a flexible system that meets its needs, within the parameters of the college and university guidelines. These guidelines must be approved by the Dean’s office and the Provost’s office.

Criteria for allocating salary funds from the Dean’s office to the units are (a) faculty and academic professional personnel budget, (b) faculty and academic professional headcount, (c) distance from the average national salary benchmarks for faculty, and (d) unit contributions to college and university strategic initiatives and longer-term goals. No more than five percent of the salary allocation to the college will be distributed in accord with the fourth criterion.

Each unit will conduct an equity analysis each year that discretionary salary funds are anticipated. The equity analysis will identify inversion (defined as salaries of persons of a higher rank are less than persons at a lower rank without performance-based justifications), compression (salaries that are too close together, given differences in years in rank and performance), and loyalty taxes (salaries that have lagged behind and are too far away from other persons, more recently hired, even though there are no performance justifications for such differences). Based on this analysis, each unit may specify the percentage of its salary allocation that will be provided for performance-based equity adjustments, with the remainder allocated to merit adjustments, assuming that University guidelines permit.


Faculty and academic professionals may appeal the performance evaluation or the salary allocation on the grounds that the unit, college, or university guidelines were violated or were not applied consistently. Generally, appeals regarding consistency of application should be grounded in a claim that reasonable persons who assessed the evidence according to professional standards within the criteria specified by the unit, and who were aware of the other evaluations within the unit, would have arrived at a different decision. The appeal must first be filed and considered at the unit level. If an appeal is not resolved at the unit level, it may be referred to the Dean’s office by the party or parties who lost at the unit level. The Dean will submit the appeal to the College Personnel Committee for a recommendation.

Appeals must be submitted to the Dean’s office within 30 working days of the date the faculty member was notified of the result which is being appealed. The Dean’s decision will be made within 30 working days (summers excluded) of the date the appeal is filed with the Dean’s office.