Assessment Goals and Assumptions

Assessment Goals and Assumptions
Butler and McMunn (2006) define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals to understand them. Student evaluation or assessments and procedures are an ongoing process that includes both formative and summative evaluations. Evaluations are mostly a summative process however must also contain elements of formative evaluations (Butler & McMunn, 2006).
In comparison to education, a formative evaluation in business is considered an interim evaluation and a summative evaluation would be the annual or yearly evaluation. Educational assessment provides feedback that is equitable in regards to student learning, the success of the instructional material and the weak areas requiring attention and revisions (Reynolds, Livingston, & Willson, 2006). Evaluations in business occur in a results-oriented performance culture in which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments and concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission (Grote, 2002). Employee evaluations in business should motivate employees to achieve higher levels of performance.
In this paper, the writer will identify the goals, and assumptions inherent in the employee assessment process and instruments of the employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Additionally, the writer will analyze the instrument's quality and appropriateness.
HUD Employee Assessment Process
The foundation of the success of any organization is the individual employee. Performance appraisals can promote both the institutional development of the organization and the personal development of the people working in it. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established an employee evaluation plan that relies upon three strategic goals for human capital that are mission focused, maintain a high quality workforce reflective of employees who have necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities he or she needs to do their jobs and are held accountable for their performance, and provides for an effective succession planning process (Nelson, 2008).
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which provides oversight for all Federal Agencies, has provided a directive that requires all federal agencies to implement methods aimed at improving individual and organizational effectiveness. These methods are based on the four principles of being results-oriented, aligning employee performance results that contribute to the success of the organization, rewards depend on performance and results and finally the involvement of employees in planning and identifying critical elements and performance standards. Effective performance standards are standards that are accurately developed and applied, which should result in good employee morale and can affect the agency’s mission.
HUD views this as a results-oriented performance culture which management and employees work together to clarify priorities for performance by focusing on accomplishments. By focusing on accomplishments, employees concentrate on results and how their work directly helps the organization accomplish its mission. When management and employees work together to establish performance criteria and standards that the employee will be accountable for achieving, this enables the employee to maximize productivity and fulfill his or her potential; it also enhances planning, performance appraisals, rewards, and areas for improvement.
HUD has three Performance Management Systems that include Employee Performance Planning and Evaluation System (EPPES)—the performance system for non-supervisory bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees, Performance Accountability and Communication System (PACS)—the performance system for managers and Supervisors, and Executive Performance Accountability and Communication System (EPACS)—the performance system for senior executives (see figure 2). A performance plan, consisting of job elements and performance standards is a key component of performance management (Latham & Wexley, 1994). Job elements should link to the agency’s mission and goals, and performance standards must clearly indicate how each individual’s performance will be measured.
The performance technique used by HUD to develop performance standards is the SMART method. Using this methodology, performance standards are written to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound and are written so they describe how results will be obtained and measured, and when the work needs to be done (Nelson, 2008).
The performance management process consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. During the planning phase the performance expectations are outlined, discussed and agreed upon between management and the employee. Planning requires setting performance expectations and goals for individuals and groups that support organizational goals. The planning phase also identifies how the employee will accomplish the tasks, performance expectations, and criteria for levels of performance evaluation. An important part of the planning process is communicating organizational and individual performance expectations to employees. HUD uses SMART methodology to communicate expectations. This phase is followed by monitoring the employee’s performance. Monitoring means continually and consistently measuring performance and providing ongoing feedback to the employee and the work group on progress toward reaching goals. Monitoring will provide management with an opportunity to observe and note needed training and changes to assist the employee with his or her capacity development and performance improvement.
The developing phase provides the employee the opportunity to seek training, be given new assignments, improving work processes, or coaching. In the rating phase, the employee’s performance is evaluated against the standards in his or her performance plans and assigned an annual rating of record. The final phase is rewarding the employee for good performance. HUD uses a cash reward system to motivate employees and supervisors toward increased productivity and creativity.
Two evaluation systems, EPPES and PACS
HUD uses five rating levels for EPPES; these levels are also used for the PACS and EPACS systems (See figure 1). The appraisal categories used for each critical element are outstanding which is a rating reflecting that the employee has exceeded significantly the established performance standards for the individual critical element, and the achievement is of exceptionally high quality, Excellent means that the employee has produced a consistently high quality and quantity of work, Fully successful means that when the employee performs the duties and responsibilities of the job and has met the fully successful level of performance described in the performance plan, Minimally satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance standards means that the employee has barely or failed to meet the established performance standards.
Goals and Assumptions
The goals of the SMART evaluation plan, as identified in the SMART Performance Standards Guide, are to identify changes in the performance management system, determine how the work unit and individual employees support the HUD’s strategic goals, discuss the importance of monitoring, developing, reviewing and rewarding employees and implement strategies to communicate performance expectations to employees.
The assumptions presented in the performance guide indicate that evaluators and evaluates should remember that employees rated as Outstanding should not be viewed as perfect employees, but those whose efforts, services, and products are extraordinary and have a substantial effect on mission accomplishment. The rating of Outstanding should represent excellence in performance and therefore should be very difficult to achieve. The rating received of fully successful should not be presented as a negative evaluation by the employee. Fully successfully evaluations are also not viewed as mediocre. An employee performing at a level of fully successful has performed at the level intended by the established standard and is acceptable to the organization. The final assumption related to the evaluation process is that the retention standard must be clear and cannot be absolute.
Analysis of Instrument's Quality and Appropriateness
The assessment instruments used by the Department of HUD are justifiable for their intended purposes and based on the sound methodology of the SMART standards. The assessment instrument supports the quality of the evaluation process and supports an acceptable level of difficulty in distinguishing between the various levels of evaluation. The instruments used for both employee and management evaluations are appropriate because the interpretation of the assessment instrument will reflect employee performance customized to both the performance standards and the organization’s mission and goals.
The assessment results are a summative evaluation of employee knowledge, skill and ability as evidenced by accomplishments tied to the organization’s mission and management plan goals. The summative evaluations of the organization are useful to predict how well the evaluation instruction aligns with the organization’s mission and goals (Nelson, 2008).
Conclusion
Diagnostic assessments are designed to determine knowledge, skills, or misconceptions prior to planning instruction and can include both performances and products (Butler & McMunn, 2006). Both formative and summative evaluations are instrumental in the evaluation process of the employees and management of the organization. The performance management process used by HUD consists of five basic components that are planning, monitoring, developing, rating, and rewarding. This process can be viewed as a performance management system that allows the employee, jointly with management, to define the purpose of the job and relate the performance to the goals of the organization.




References

Butler, S. M. & McMunn, N. D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom

assessment: Understanding and using assessments to improve student
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Grote, R.C., (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for
managers. New York: AMACOM Books.
Latham, G.P., & Wexley, K. N., (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal.

2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.

Nelson, K. A., (2008). Strategic human capitol management; revised human capitol plan for
fiscal year 2008-2009. Retrieved June 21, 2010, from www.hud.gov/po/a/administration
Reynolds, C.R., Livingston, R.B., & Willson, V., (2006). Measurement and Assessment in
Education. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Smart Performance Standards retrieved June 19, 2010 from [PDF] SMART Performance Standards Course hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02 -


Figure 1:
HUD Mission: Increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.
HUD
STRATEGIC GOALS
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02

PROGRAMMATIC GOALS
Increase homeownership opportunities Promote decent affordable housing Strengthen communities
• Expand national homeownership opportunities.
• Increase minority homeownership.
• Make the home buying process less complicated and less expensive.
• Fight practices that permit predatory lending.
• Help HUD-assisted renters become homeowners.
• Keep existing homeowners from losing their homes. • Expand access to affordable rental housing.
• Improve the physical quality and management accountability of public and assisted housing.
• Increase housing opportunities for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
• Help HUD-assisted renters make progress toward self-sufficiency. • Provide capital and resources to improve economic conditions in distressed communities.
• Help organizations access the resources they need to make their communities more livable.
• End chronic homelessness and move homeless families and individuals to permanent housing.
• Mitigate housing conditions that threaten health.
CROSSCUTTING GOALS
Ensure equal opportunity in housing
• Resolve discrimination complaints on a timely basis.
• Promote public awareness of Fair Housing laws.
• Improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Embrace high standards of ethics, management and accountability
• Rebuild HUD’s human capital and further diversify its workforce.
• Improve HUD’s management, internal controls and systems and resolve audit issues.
• Improve accountability, service delivery and customer service of HUD and its partners.
• Ensure program compliance.
• Improve internal communications and employee involvement.
Promote participation of faith-based and community organizations
• Reduce regulatory barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations.
• Conduct outreach to inform potential partners of HUD opportunities.
• Expand technical assistance resources deployed to faith-based and community organizations.
• Encourage partnerships between faith-based/community organizations and HUD’s traditional grantees.








Figure 2
SMART Performance Standards Training Manual
Retrieved from hudatwork.hud.gov/po/a/dasops/hihrts/eprfmnc/SMARTGuide.pdf - 2007-10-02


EPPES
PACS
EPACS

Rating Cycle
Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30 Oct 1 – Sept 30
5 Level
Performance
Ratings
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully
Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory
O – Outstanding
E – Excellent
FS – Fully Successful
MS – Minimally
Satisfactory
US – Unsatisfactory

Basis for
Evaluation
Critical Elements

Performance
Standards Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives Critical Elements
(Strategic Goals)
Performance
Objectives