APS #5009

ActiveLatest Change

Performance Evaluations for University Staff

Brief Description

This APS provides a performance evaluation system for university staff as a critical component of the university's performance management system for effective resource management and employee development.

Reason for Policy

This policy statement provides the guidelines for annual performance evaluation.

Policy Profile

APS Policy Title: 
Performance Evaluations for University Staff
APS Number: 
5009
Effective Date: 
January 1, 2026
Approved By: 
President Todd Saliman
Responsible University Officer: 
Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
Responsible Office: 
Employee Services
Policy Contact: 
Employee Services
Supersedes: 
Performance Ratings for University Staff, January 1, 2021
Last Reviewed/Updated date: 
July 1, 2026
Applies to: 
All university staff and their supervisors

I. Introduction

Consistent with regent laws and policies, the performance of university staff will be evaluated annually.  The performance evaluation will be based upon the position description and performance planning between the supervisor and employee.  The performance evaluation is one of the factors considered in awarding merit pay and other pay adjustments.  The performance rating is the overall summary rating of the individual's performance and constitutes the public record of rating, in accordance with the Colorado Open Records Act.

This Administrative Policy Statement (APS) ensures that the university has a performance management process that serves university interests in human resource management and employee development.  The policy does not affect discretion that may be exercised by system administration and each campus to adopt specific ways to administer the performance management system contained in this APS.

University staff and supervisors of university staff are responsible for understanding and implementing the performance evaluation process as defined in this policy statement.

II. Policy Statement

  1. University staff will be evaluated and assigned a documented performance measure at least annually.  Individual performance evaluations provide a basis for annual merit pay and other pay adjustments, although additional factors may also be used in setting compensation.
    • The evaluated employee has the right to submit a response to the performance evaluation in writing to their evaluator if they so desire.  This response will be attached to the final evaluation and held in the employee’s personnel file.
    • The evaluated employee and their supervisor will sign the performance evaluation form to acknowledge that performance has been discussed.  If the employee refuses to sign the performance evaluation, the supervisor can note this on the employee’s evaluation.
  2. Each campus and system administration shall define and document the rating levels along with designing and maintaining the performance evaluations which include the planning documents, evaluation documents, and the rating(s) that are not eligible for an annual compensation increase.
  3. The performance rating is subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act.
  4. Any written justification for the performance rating, including plan and evaluation forms, may also be placed in the employee's personnel file but will not be disclosed to anyone other than the employee and university personnel with a demonstrated business need.  Human Resources offices are responsible for approving such access.
  5. Performance ratings shall be submitted to the applicable Human Resources Office in accordance with individual campus-defined submittal dates.
  6. The performance rating is only one of the factors that may be considered, consistent with the laws of the regents and university policy, in the annual salary setting process or in comprehensive administrative evaluations.  Additional factors may also be considered.

III. Definitions

Italicized terms used in this APS are defined in this policy.

  1. Performance Evaluation: Performance evaluation is a collaborative supervisor/employee process that begins with identification of job responsibilities found in a position description, the contract/letter of offer and in the unit's workload policies, includes agreement on a performance plan and feedback on defined goals and objectives and concludes with an assessment of performance.  During a performance evaluation, documents and comments from a variety of individuals that relate to an individual's performance may be collected and reviewed.

IV. History

  • Adopted:  July 1, 1989, APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty, Unclassified Staff/Administrator, and Officers.
  • Revised:  July 1, 1999, renamed Performance Ratings for Faculty, Officers, and Exempt Professionals; April 1, 2009, this policy statement provides for the use of the revised 5-point performance rating form in 2008-2009.  It also provides the guidelines for annual performance planning and evaluation using the 5-point performance rating form for 2009-2010 and thereafter.  A separate APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty will be issued.  Reviewed by Chancellors, vice presidents, human resources directors, and the director of training and development; November 1, 2014: The terms “officer and exempt professional”, “OEP” and “officer/exempt professional” were replaced with the term “university staff”; August 1, 2017; July 1, 2018; September 2, 2021, revised for changes related to the Equal Pay Act and made retroactive to January 1, 2021; January 1, 2024:  Pilot provision added for System Administration office; January 1, 2026.
  • Last Reviewed:  January 1, 2026.