Skip to main content

Government Efficiency Final 4-15-09 -   1.2 - Current Performance Evaluations

Go Search
Government Efficiency Final 4-15-09
1. Human Resources
2. Information Technology
3-4. Purchasing
5. Risk Management & Worker Safety
Action Plan

1.2 - Current Performance

Percent employees with current performance evaluations dropped 5.7% from FY07

Print Version
Progress icon Operation in progress...
Data Notes
Data Source: October 2007 Agency HRM Reports
Measure Definition: Number of permanent state employees with current performance evaluations divided by the total number of permanent state employees
Target Rationale: By rule, all permanent state employees are to have annual performance evaluations
Link to Agency Strategic Plan: Strategic Plan Goal 3:  Agencies are offered HR tools and services to support strategic workforce management
Relevance: Employee Accountability and Recognition
Notes: (optional) As of 6/30/2008
Also Available
Action Plan: No
Extended Analysis: No

 Summary Analysis

Charts and analysis for this performance measure have not changed from the 11/19/08 Government Efficiency GMAP. 

This information will be updated after Agencies submit their October 2009 HR Management report.

  • 78.6% of employees have current evaluations – down 5.7% since FY07.
  • 9 of 36 reporting agencies are at 100%.

  • 23 agencies have current performance evaluations for 90%-100% of their workforce (+4 agencies from FY07 reports).

  • Of the 13 agencies with less than 90% current performance evaluations, 5 improved and 8 lost further ground.   Most improved agencies:
    • Dept. of Printing (38.4% improvement)
    • Dept. of Agriculture (35.2% improvement)
    • Dept. of Early Learning (42.0% improvement)
    • Office of Admin. Hearings (38.0% improvement)
    • Office of Financial Management (31.0% improvement)
  • In the 2007 State Employee Survey, the statewide score for Q10 on receiving meaningful performance evals improved significantly, increasing +.06 from 2006.  This may be related to the increased % of employees with completed performance evals from FY06 to FY07.

  • Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM Reports include:
    • Implement automated tracking system.
    • Send out written expectations that evals are a priority.
    • Ensure managers are trained on the importance of on-time and quality performance evals.
    • Change to an annual performance expectation cycle.
    • Implement a Performance Mgmnt team to review each evaluation with a focus on quality.

  • Agencies rated Employees with Current Performance Evaluations with the following priority:  High - 15, Medium - 7, Low - 8, N/A - 6