benefit leave use and the employee evaluation instrument

Benefit Leave and the Employee Evaluation 1

Running head: BENEFIT LEAVE USE AND THE EMPLOYEE EVALUATION

Benefit Leave Use and the Employee Evaluation Instrument:

A Guide for Determining Benchmark Scoring

Craig A. Leu

Sedgwick County Fire District #1, Sedgwick County, Kansas

September 2009


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is

set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the

language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: ______________________________________________


Abstract

The problem is that the Sedgwick County Fire District #1 (SCFD) has not defined what is

considered the appropriate use of benefit leave. The purpose of the research was to determine the

criterion to be used by SCFD when rating employees in the sick leave category of the evaluations

currently utilized. Descriptive methodology answered: a) What are the criteria used by public

organizations outside the fire industry to determine the rating of the sick leave portion of the

employee evaluation instrument? b) What are the criteria used by other fire departments when

rating the sick leave portion of the employee evaluation instrument? c) What are the criteria for

the sick leave portion of the SCFD employee evaluation instrument?

Literature review findings were inconclusive on an industry standard for the questions

posed, but it did reveal that any criterion used for employee evaluations should be measureable.

A questionnaire yielded information on other organizations methods for gauging sick leave

usage. Personal interviews with SCFD administration produced direction for the

recommendations that include criterion based on average sick leave usage, and utilizing

percentage based criterion for grading employee evaluations.


Table of Contents

Page

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...3

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………....4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….6

Background and Significance……………………………………………………………………..7

Literature Review……………………………………………………………………….……......10

Procedures………………………………………………………………………………………..16

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………22

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..34

References………………………………………………………………………………………..38

Appendix A: SCFD Firefighter Evaluation…………………………………………...…………40

Appendix B: SCFD Lieutenant Evaluation ……..……………………………………………....48

Appendix C: SCFD Captain Evaluation ……..………………………………………………….58

Appendix D: SCFD Division Chief Evaluation ...……………………………………………….70

Appendix E: SCFD Senior Management Evaluation ………….....……………………………...81

Appendix F: SCFD Performance Evaluation Instructions……………………………..………...87

Appendix G: SCFD Sick Leave Usage Data ……………………………………………………98

Appendix H: Sick Leave Questionnaire…………………………………………………..…....101

List of Tables

Table 1: Response to Question #3 from Questionnaire………………………………………....24


Table 2: Response to Question #1 from Questionnaire ……………………………….………...26

Table 3: Response to Question #5 from Questionnaire …………………………………............26

Table 4: Sick Leave Usage Criterion………......………………………………………………...35

Table 5: Sick Leave Criterion Example.............………………….……………………………...36


Benefit Leave Use and the Employee Evaluation Instrument:

A Guide for Determining Benchmark Scoring

Introduction

Like many departments across the country, Sedgwick County Fire District #1 (SCFD)

utilizes an employee evaluation instrument to evaluate and grade employee performance. The

current instrument has several categories, and each category has five choices for scoring the

employee in that particular category. The instrument is the only official tool used by SCFD for

tracking, improving or rewarding employee performance. Although the evaluation instrument is

well thought out, it does have some shortcomings.

The evaluation instrument has one category that deals with employee leave. Within this

category, the use of sick leave is the only variable which is not defined in the guidance for both

the employee and evaluators in this category. This lack of a standard has lead to varying methods

used by supervisors for determining the scoring of SCFD employees in this category. This paper

will describe the available guidance on this subject and identify a standard for benchmark

scoring as it applies to sick leave use in the benefit leave category of the evaluation instrument

used by Sedgwick County Fire District #1. The development of an easily applied and functional

guideline for supervisors and employees is the end goal of this project.

The research problem is that Sedgwick County Fire District #1 has not defined what is

considered the appropriate use of sick leave benefits.

The purpose of this research is to determine the criteria to be used for rating the sick

leave category of the employee evaluation instrument currently utilized by Sedgwick County

Fire District #1.


Descriptive research will be conducted to answer the following questions: a) What are the

criteria used by public organizations outside the fire industry to determine the rating of the sick

leave portion of the employee evaluation instrument? b) What are the criteria used by other fire

departments when rating the sick leave portion of the employee evaluation instrument? c) What

are the criteria for the sick leave portion of the Sedgwick County Fire District #1 employee

evaluation instrument?

Background and Significance

Established in 1955, Sedgwick County Fire District #1 covers 636 square miles within

Sedgwick County, KS (pop. 452,869) with eight strategically located stations. The District serves

the suburban cities of Haysville, Park City, Goddard, Bel Aire, Garden Plain, Maize, Kechi,

Andale, the Oaklawn Improvement District, and several other unincorporated towns. The

majority of the remaining district is farmland with numerous housing additions scattered

throughout the area. Sedgwick County Fire District #1 also has an enhanced first responder

(automatic aid) agreement with the City of Wichita Fire Department; this agreement moves some

of our first due area inside Wichita’s city limits. The District also participates in the statewide

mutual aid system.

The Fire District was formed in 1955 when county commissioners saw a need to protect

farmhouses and railroad bridges out in the unincorporated portions of Sedgwick County. Since

that time, the District has evolved into a full service Fire Department providing services to rural,

suburban and urban areas of Sedgwick County. SCFD is an internationally accredited fire

department through the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE).


Sedgwick County Fire District #1 is comprised of 130 uniformed personnel and 4 support

staff positions. International Association of Firefighters Local 2612 is the bargaining unit for all

non-exempt uniformed personnel working for the District. Exempt employees include all

uniformed personnel ranked Captain and above along with all support staff.

Employee evaluations are performed on all employees of SCFD. The District uses five

different evaluation forms (Appendix A thru E) that coincide with different organizational/rank

levels within the District. All five of the evaluations have a category that addresses benefit leave

use. Benefit leave includes all leaves such as funeral, vacation, sick, etc. In gauging benefit leave

use, the only variable that is not entirely covered by policy is sick leave.

SCFD has policies that deal with the steps an employee must take to use accrued sick

leave, but there is not a definitive definition of the sick leave use and scoring employee

evaluations. Benefit leave such as funeral and vacation leave have strict usage criteria, and is

scheduled well in advance of the employee using it (compared to most sick leave usage). All

employees are given this information and the policies that dictate the use of the other benefit

leaves is well written and not up for interpretation. Sick leave usage is only defined by policy for

usage circumstances and the accrual rate of employees.

The lack of guidance for supervisors to follow when scoring employees has lead to the

main problem this project is trying to correct. Without any sick leave use guidelines, the grading

used in that portion of the employee evaluation is entirely dependent on the interpretation and

expectations of each individual supervisor.

The situation described above has lead to organizational implications that are far from

desirable. As it stands now, employees are unaware of the benchmarks used by their supervisors


regarding sick leave usage until the evaluation period is completed. Employees who work for

multiple supervisors over a period of time can be held to several different standards during their

career. Supervisors are left to defend their scoring method when downgrading employees for sick

leave use because of the lack of an expected performance.

This author believes that the past and present situations are un-acceptable for employees

and supervisors alike. As a supervisor this author has had several employees question my

grading method in this category. I have also questioned my own supervisors on their thought

process and expectations as it relates to sick leave.

The development of a solid but flexible sick leave usage guide will help all District

employees in improving their score or recognizing why they received the score they were given.

It should also make clear to all employees what the expectations of SCFD are with regards to

sick leave usage, and should allow employees to understand where they “stand” at all times

during their evaluation period.

Identifying and producing a guide for sick leave usage should improve the application of

the employee evaluation instrument already used by SCFD. The hope of the author is that a solid

but flexible expectation for sick leave usage will improve employee performance in this category

and overall job satisfaction.

By defining expectations in this category the District should see a significant drop in the

time needed for supervisors to defend or define their individual expectations. This should lead to

a streamlined system that saves time and taxpayer money, thus meeting the United States Fire

Administration (USFA) Operational Goal: 4) “Improve the fire and emergency services’

professional status” (NFA, 2009, p. 10).


During this authors “Executive Leadership” class at the National Fire Academy, we

talked in great length about defining competencies. The text for that class stated that “All

competencies are conceptualized to custom fit industry and organization requirements” (FEMA,

2005, p.7-8). To insure that the expected and actual competencies are defined for employees with

regard to sick leave usage is how this project will directly relate to that portion of the class.

Literature Review

The review of literature for this paper started during this author’s Executive Leadership

course at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The author used several sources

to form a list of relevant material to review. The Learning Resource Center (LRC) at the

National Fire Academy was then utilized for finding and copying the relevant material. Upon my

return from the Fire Academy, I also utilized the Wichita Public Library, City of Harper Public

Library, Sedgwick County Fire District #1 report forms and the internet for gathering the

material that was needed.

The literature review for this project is intended to show findings related to sick leave use

and scoring for employee evaluations. The available literature on the subject of employee sick

leave use is plentiful and diverse. One problem the author found was that recommendations on

scoring sick leave use is almost non-existent.

The first which was reviewed covered a large amount of information that pertains to this

project. Patton, Witt, Lovrich and Fredericksen (2002), found that unscheduled absences can not

only be costly to the employer, but they can inhibit the professional growth of the employee. In

their book titled Human Resource Management: The Public Service Perspective (2002), the


authors state, “Abuse of sick leave can be lessened by first developing a clear policy that

specifies the organization’s standards and employee requirements” (p. 279).

The authors also point out a situation that most organizations have concerning the

evaluation of their employees. When organizations do not set clear standards, “The standard

against which employees are judged may be ambiguous” (p. 285). This statement is the basis on

which this project was proposed.

As was stated earlier, the information on a guide for gauging sick leave use is almost

non-existent. The ability to rank an employee on any category of an evaluation is relative to the

performance of other employees according to Patton et al. (2002). The authors also opine, “If the

traits, competencies, and achievement categories are well defined and instructions are clearly

outlined, error can be minimized” (p.292). This statement shows a need for any employee

evaluation to come with defined expectations to reduce the ambiguity of the process.

Expectations of acceptable sick leave use will vary from employee to employee. The

need for a standard to guide the employee and evaluator is not only for streamlining the process,

but it deals with the subject of the perception of “acceptable”. In Public Safety Communications,

Jennifer Hagstrom tackled the sick leave issue with her article titled “Strategies for Sick Leave

Reduction” (Hagstrom, 2000).

Although the reduction of sick leave use is not an intended outcome of this project, the

information put forth in this article does relate to the stated problem. Hagstrom (2000) wrote,

“Research has shown that line employees believe the acceptable number of unscheduled

absences per year is almost double what management deems acceptable” (p. 53). This does not


surprise this author, but it does point out the reason why guidance is important for employees

and evaluators alike.

When discussing solutions for the reduction of sick leave, Hagstrom (2000) gives several

suggestions that pertain to this project. One of the caveat’s is that any attendance policy be,

“clearly and thoroughly written” (p. 57), and that all employees are made aware of the

expectations set forth in the policy.

The thought of well-documented guidelines showed to be a constant in the literature. In

an article for EMS Magazine, Tim Holman wrote about the evaluations in the article titled

Conducting Employee Reviews (Holman, 2001). In this article, Holman (2001) writes, “It’s

impossible for an employee to perform well if he doesn’t understand what is expected in his

performance” (p. 5).

Holman (2001) also gives the opinion that no employee evaluation can be accurate if it is

subject to interpretation by multiple sources (evaluators). In order for an employee evaluation to

be accurate, it must objective, defined and measurable. Holman (2001) also believes that,

“Expectations should be integrated into the review document” (p. 5), so these expectations are

not a surprise to the employee.

Based on the amount of literature available, many organizations must struggle with

scoring, implementing and attaining accuracy in their employee evaluation. As Hosea (2004)

states in his article for Fire Engineering magazine, “An instrument should be easy to administer.

Instructions and directions should be simple and straightforward” (p. 95). The article titled

Employee Evaluations: How Does Your Organization Measure Up? (Hosea, 2004), set forth

some good recommendations for this project.


According to Hosea (2004), one of the pitfalls of any employee evaluation is,

“Evaluations cannot be based solely on the supervisor’s subjective observations” (p. 96). The

author also believes that, “Evaluations should be measured in relation to any preexisting

standards, objectives or other specific job requirements” (p. 96).

Another good point brought forth in this article was the reminder that, “The purpose of an

employee evaluation is to help employee performance” (p.94). Hosea (2004) wanted to remind

us that the end goal of the evaluation process is to make our organization better.

Quantifying the “proper” amount of sick leave use must not be a simple task because it is

not properly defined in the literature reviewed for this project. That does not mean that is not a

worthy goal, in fact, most of the literature shows a correlation of leave use and employee

performance or organizational commitment.

Seok-Hwan Lee and Dorthy Olshfski (2002) state in their article titled Employee

Commitment and Firefighters: it’s My Job that, “Organizational commitment has been linked to

the fit between the agency and the person, job satisfaction, and variations in organizational

culture and structure” (p. 109). The article makes a good point that people (especially

firefighters) will make an extra effort if they feel they are a part of a top-shelf organization with

clearly defined goals and values.

This author found numerous Executive Fire Officer (EFO) applied research projects

(ARP) that addressed sick leave use and employee evaluations. All of the more current ARP’s

addressed one subject or the other. I found no definitive research that applied to the particular

problem of scoring or gauging sick leave use for the employee evaluation.


Most if not all of the ARP’s reviewed on employee evaluations showed a common theme

for the need of well defined expectations. As Prendergast (2000) stated,

“A problem facing the Danvers Fire Department was that an Employee

Evaluation Program (EEP) containing specific job descriptions did not exist;

management and employees did not have a uniform method to evaluate,

communicate, and exchange performance evaluations in a non-adversarial

climate” (p.6).

The need for a solid definitive guide for all portions of the employee evaluation can be

well justified with the literature mentioned above. If an organization does not define

expectations, they could find themselves in the situation McGregor (2005) wrote about in his

ARP. He stated that, “Evaluations were discontinued four years ago due to subjective practices

and inefficient results” (p.2)

The ARP’s reviewed that addressed sick leave use were all either trying to identify or fix

a sick leave use problem. That is a problem that this authors project does not wish to address

directly. Some useful information on averages and industry trends was attained from the works

of Hayes (2003) and Gulisano (2005). The averages listed in both of these works were used to

give perspective to the original audit of SCFD sick leave usage performed for this project.

The literature review did uncover some guidelines for sick leave use. This was not

usually the case. The State of Montana Hospital Policy and Procedure Manual (2006) gives a

very detailed definition of sick leave and its proper use. Although it is geared more toward

preventing sick leave abuse, it forms a good “jumping point” for developing guidelines.


The Montana Hospital Policy and Procedure Manual (MHPPM) details the “red flags” of

conduct as they relate to leave usage such as, sick leave use after vacations and on certain days

of the month. The policy points out seven hard examples of when an employee will receive

counseling from their supervisor. Although it is not stated, I would assume this behavior would

affect the evaluation score of the employee.

In an agreement between the Town of Derry and the Derry Fire Officers Unit of

International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 4392 (2008), emergency use of earned

time (sick leave) is clearly defined. This agreement gives a usage definition for possible

disciplinary action. The agreement is easy to follow and gives employees and supervisors alike,

the expectations of the department as they relate to the use of accrued leave.

The agreement mentioned above leads into the current memorandum of agreement

(MOA) between the Sedgwick County Fire District #1 and Local 2612 of the IAFF. The 2612

MOA (2009) does not specify any recommendations or labor/management agreements on the use

of sick leave. The MOA does address accrual rates and procedures for using sick leave.

Under the management rights section of the 2612 MOA (2009), SCFD is cleared “…to

determine the workload and work performance level and to make or change reasonable rules,

regulations and practices” (p.4). This statement and the lack of any contradictory statements on

the issue of sick leave give SCFD administration the ability to enact any scoring system they see

fit for employee evaluations.

The last piece of literature reviewed was a SCFD internal document titled Employee

Performance Evaluation Instructions (Appendix G). This document is the only guidance given to

supervisors for conducting the employee evaluations within the District.


This ten page document lays out the procedural mechanism for evaluating employees,

and gives guidance to the scoring method to be used. Under the category of benefit leave used,

the only statement on scoring is a bullet point that delineates the following expectation,

“Attendance and appropriate use of leave benefits” (p.4). This statement reminds the evaluator

that they should determine (individually) if the employee completed or met expectations. The

statement above, or something similar, is mentioned in all of the evaluations used by SCFD, but

there is no mention of what is considered appropriate, and how to score the category using the

five point scale.

The literature review for this project was done over a long period of time, and even

though a great amount of material that the author reviewed was not used, a better understanding

of the subject was attained. The author found that many organizations do not delineate what is

considered an appropriate usage rate of sick leave.

The work that was cited shows a need and the importance of guidance in the employee

evaluation process for employees and evaluators alike. The expectations of the organization

should be readily available and consistent. Presently SCFD does not give any guidance on the

appropriate use of sick leave. The literature showed that by using subjective methods for scoring

the employee evaluation, the integrity of the process is in jeopardy.

Procedures

Research Question Procedures

The procedures for this applied research project began while the author was attending the

National Fire Academy in April of 2009. The author utilized the Learning Resource Center’s

(LRC) card catalog to search for pertinent information on benefits, sick leave, employee


evaluations and appraisals. The author found many publications and articles that related to this

particular project in that search.

Upon returning to Kansas, the author did exhaustive searches on the internet and through

the State of Kansas inter-library loan catalog. The inter-library system connects all of the

participating libraries in the state and allows for a much broader query on specific subjects. The

author conducted the search from the Wichita Central Public Library and it returned similar

results to what was found at the National Fire Academy.

The first text reviewed was Human Resource Management The Public Service

Perspective (Patton et al. 2002). This comprehensive work encompasses a large amount of the

two variables being examined in this project. Sick leave use and Employee evaluations are

covered in several chapters.

Because this author has only worked for one large organization, I felt a need to start this

project by reviewing a current “textbook” style of literature. This allowed this author to do two

things at the beginning of the project. The first thing was to make sure SCFD was using the most

current accepted methods with regards to the subject matter. The second was to see what

recommendations were made on the subject matter.

After reviewing Patton, Witt, Lovrich and Fredericksen (2002), this author moved on to

an article titled Strategies for Sick Leave Reduction (Hagstrom, 2000) in Public Safety

Communications Magazine. This article moved this project in the direction of needing to

research the actual sick leave usage of Sedgwick County Fire District #1.

Contact was made with Sedgwick County Fire District #1 Captain David E. Edwards.

Captain Edwards is one of two in-house information technology experts that the District


employs. I spoke with Captain Edwards on May 21st of 2009, about the information that was

needed for this project. Captain Edwards walked me through the process of attaining the

information through the county’s Firehouse© computer program.

This program is used for tracking all SCFD employees leave use. The program has

several features and the administration of these features is what this author would consider very

“tech” heavy. Captain Edwards made contact with me again on May 24th to tell me that the

project I was working on had intrigued him, and that he had retrieved the information for me.

Captain Edwards had built a custom search query in the Firehouse© program that compiled the

rough data that I had requested.

Captain Edwards then explained to me how to take the rough data and move it into

Microsoft Excel© to work with the data. This solution was optimal for this project, and allowed

me to dissect and compare up to the minute and historical data on leave usage.

The next step in this project was to resume the literature review. An article in EMS

Magazine titled Conducting Employee Reviews (Holman, 2001) was reviewed for information on

employee reviews and the process used outside of the fire service. This article gave insight into

the common theme of defining expectations for the employee.

In Public Administration Review (PAR), a journal that deals with public administration

issues, an article by Lee and Olshfski (2002) titled Employee Commitment and Firefighters: It’s

My Job was reviewed for content relating to the fire service and employee satisfaction. The

notion that defined expectations correlate with job satisfaction had been brought forth by

Holman (2002) and was expanded on in this article.


The search performed at the National Fire Academy found many related EFO projects. I

reviewed about twenty, and found pertinent information in several of them. Prendergast (2000)

discussed the pitfalls of a lack of guidance in the evaluation system. McGregor (2005) wrote in

length on subjectivity in employee performance evaluations. These two ARP’s made a very

strong argument for training and consistency in the employee evaluation process.

Two other papers were reviewed for information on sick leave usage. Hayes (2003) and

Gulisano (2005) put forth a good amount of information on averages and trends. This correlated

with having a benchmark to compare with SCFD’s sick leave usage.

Most of the resources found on the issue of sick leave point to how sick leave abuse can

be identified and reduced. This is not the purpose of this paper, but the signs and symptoms of

sick leave abuse did need to be identified for scoring guidance. A well-written guide for

identifying sick leave abuse was found in the Montana State Hospital Policy and Procedure

Manual (MSH, 2006).

Although the search for an definitive scoring system for sick leave usage in existing

employee evaluations was not successful, an agreement between the Town of Derry and the

Derry Fire Officers Unit of IAFF Local 4392 (Town of Derry, 2008) contained hard numbers and

suggestions on the proper use of sick leave.

After looking at the agreement above, the MOA between Sedgwick County Firefighters

IAFF Local 2612 (Sedgwick County, 2009) was reviewed to ensure that any changes within

SCFD could be made without violating the current agreement.


The last document reviewed was the SCFD Employee Performance Evaluation

instructions (Appendix G). This document outlines the current amount of guidance and

expectations given to employees and supervisors on the subject of evaluations.

After the literature review was accomplished a questionnaire was developed to gain input

from outside organizations. The questionnaire was developed using information gained in the

literature review and it was specifically formulated to answer the first two research questions of

this project.

The questionnaire contained eight questions relating to employee evaluations and sick

leave usage. The last question was basically a contact information question designed to allow

this author to follow up on any information that the participant disclosed in the questionnaire. A

copy of the questionnaire is listed in this project as Appendix H.

The questionnaire was then disseminated using the Survey Monkey

(www.surveymonkey.com) website on July 8th, 2009. The questionnaire was electronically (E-

Mail) sent out to approximately 400 past and present National Fire Academy Executive Fire

Officer Program participants. The questionnaire was a voluntary instrument without any

demographic considerations or constraints. This author hoped to receive the websites limit of 100

responses to the questionnaire and that goal was achieved.

After all of the information above was gathered and digested, an informational briefing

was put together for the two administrators of SCFD that the author chose for personal

interviews. The briefing was an overview of research questions (specifically the first two) put

forth for this project.


The briefing was designed in such a way to give the administrators a good working

understanding of the historical and present state of SCFD with regards to sick leave usage and

employee evaluations. The briefing was giving to both participants prior to the personal

interviews being conducted. The briefing was a quick overview of the statistical data, current

employee evaluation guidelines and the results section of this project.

Personal interviews were held with Chief of Department G.E. Curmode and Deputy Chief

of Operations R.A. Brazill. The interviews were conducted to answer the last research question

of this project. Both Chiefs had been briefed prior to the interviews on the subject matter.

Chief Curmode has over 30 years of fire service experience with the last 15 being Chief

of Sedgwick County Fire District #1. Chief Curmode also serves on several national committees,

and is an accreditation peer assessor for the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). Chief

Brazil has over 30 year’s fire service experience as well. He has served as the Deputy Chief of

Operations for SCFD since 2004.

Any change in the policies or procedures for employee evaluations would need to be

approved and recommended by these two administrators. Each interview lasted approximately 30

minutes, and the following questions were asked; a) Do you believe the District employee

evaluation process is subjective specifically in the benefit leave category? b) Do you believe

Sedgwick County Fire District #1 has a need for a sick leave usage guideline that can be applied

to employee evaluations? c) What standard or guideline would you like to see instituted? d) Do

you see any benefit from giving employees and evaluator’s better training and guidance on this

subject? e) What additional information would you like to offer on the subject of sick leave

usage, District expectations and/or scoring the employee evaluation?


Limitations

While researching for the literature review, it became obvious that there was a vast

amount of information on the subjects of sick leave use and employee evaluations. Like any

research project, this author understands that some pertinent information was not reviewed. The

literature reviewed and used for this project was current and productive, but it does not represent

the entirety of literature available.

Sick leave data utilized for this project came from the SCFD data system. This data is

assumed correct, but the chance for human error in entering this data is possible. After reviewing

the data, this author believes it is accurate, but without a full audit of the system, there is no way

of guaranteeing that it is.

The questionnaire obviously has limitations on scope and reach. The process used for

formulating the questions was not devised using all of the available information on the subject. A

second limitation is that the group utilized for response was limited. The use of this questionnaire

in this project was for the author to receive multiple ideas on the subject matter, but this author

has no illusions that this instrument is in any way statistically or demographically defendable.

Results

The results of the research questions posed for this project show that an industry standard

criterion for sick leave usage is non-existent. The literature review, coupled with a questionnaire

did produce several possibilities for SCFD to copy and/or modify in order to set a guideline for

sick leave usage scoring.

Research Question 1 Results


What are the criteria used by public organizations outside the fire industry to determine

the rating of the sick leave portion of an employee evaluation instrument?

The criteria used by organizations outside of the fire industry are varied. Most organizations do

not use any criteria other than relying on their supervisor to recognize when an employee is

abusing the system.

Hagstrom (2000) wrote that no-fault attendance policies can be easily gauged because,

“The employer limits the number of unscheduled absences an employee may have, whether for

illness, car problems or other emergencies.” (p.54). This system takes sick leave and lumps it in

with any time an employee has an unplanned absence. The employee is aware of the

expectations and the outcome of not meeting them.

The Allen-Bradley company instituted the no-fault plan in October of 1988. According to

Hagstrom (2000), in the first 25 months of using a no-fault plan, “Absenteeism dropped 83.5

percent… Saving the company nearly $60,000” (p.54).

One of the strategies used that affects the use of sick leave is incentives for employees.

The thought is that employees would not use as much sick leave if they have a monetary or

tangible incentive not to. Patton et al. (2002) wrote that, “Incentives to encourage employees not

to use more personal or sick leave than they need can also help hold down the costs of benefits”

(p.279).

Patton et al. (2002) later in the text tie employee evaluations back to accomplishments

and achievements in the evaluation period. This connection could be used for almost any

category in an evaluation including sick leave usage.


Most of the information that was found pertaining to organizations outside the fire

industry related sick leave use back to the discipline of employees. The Montana State Hospital

policy (2006) is a very good example. It gives good information on what to look for in the abuse

of sick leave. Trends and traits that are inconsistent with “proper” use of sick leave are identified,

but there is no correlation on how to apply that to the employee’s evaluation.

The original questionnaire sent out by this author did have three responses from agencies

outside the fire industry. Although this is not a defendable sample, it is in line with the findings

of the research on this subject. Of the three responses from outside the fire service industry, one

did not grade sick leave as part of the employee evaluation. This was a common answer to

question three which read “Is sick leave use a factor in the employee evaluation instrument?” as

a total of 42.3% or 40 other participants answered no to that question (Table 1). The other two

participants had systems based on sick leave used versus time worked. One employed an average

and the other allowed a certain amount of sick leave usage based on job classification.

Table 1

Question #3. Is sick leave use a factor in the employee evaluation instrument?

Answer Response % Response Count

Yes 50.5% 49

No 42.3% 41

N/A 7.2% 7

Total 100% 97

Note. 3 participants did not answer the question.


After thoroughly reviewing the information gained from this project, the author believes

that there is no “universal” answer to this research question. Multiple methods are used to define

not only the criteria used in employee evaluations, but also that the criteria for classifying sick

leave usage is often only used for discipline actions.


What are the criteria used by other fire departments when rating the sick leave portion of

the employee evaluation instrument?

Much like the criteria found for organizations outside the fire industry, there seems to be

no clear consensus on an industry standard for this research question. Most of the literature, and

a good amount of the questionnaire answers, established guidelines based on sick leave abuse.

The actual ability to differentiate between acceptable use and exemplary use of leave was rarely

defined.

The literature did reveal several methods used to determine criteria used for the employee

evaluations. The criterion outlined was general in nature and was to be applied to all the grading

categories in an employee evaluation.

One of the recurring words used to describe evaluation criteria was “objectivity”. Holman

(2001) wrote that, “The more objective the review, the more accurate the process as seen by the

employees” (p.5). This theory was reinforced by Hosea (2004) who stated that; “Evaluations

cannot be based solely on the supervisors subjective observations” (p.96).

The ability of the evaluator to have a tangible and measureable guide for grading

employees is well documented. Examples of measurable objectives were plentiful in the


literature reviewed with one glaring exception. The criterion used for leave usage was notably

hard to come by. Of the few examples found, most came from the questionnaire.

In the responses to the questionnaire it was found that 91% of the respondents use an

evaluation instrument (Table 2), but 65.3% do not have a guideline or benchmark for grading

sick leave for the evaluation process (Table 3).

Table 2

Question #1. Does your organization use an employee evaluation instrument?


Yes 91.0% 91

No 9.0% 9

Total 100% 97

Table 3

Question #5. Does your organization have a guideline or established benchmarks for evaluating

and grading benefit leave use (sick leave)?


Yes 30.5% 29

No 65.3% 62

N/A 4.2% 4

Total 100% 95

Note. 5 participants did not answer the question.


The reasoning for not including sick leave usage in the employee evaluation was often

explained in question 8 of the questionnaire. Respondents cited legal concerns or past problems

with criteria definitions as the reasoning behind not including it in their evaluations.

The questionnaire did have several respondents that used definitive criterion for gauging

and scoring employees on the employee evaluation. Most of the respondents used a form of

averaging for different employee demographics. Of all the responses that contained any

definable criteria, this was a common technique used to set objectives.

Respondents identified average use of all employees or varying classes of rank and/or age

as the demographic that was included in the average. By no means was this an overwhelming set

of criteria definitions, but in the small sample gained it was used by the majority.

The search for an industry standardized criterion for sick leave usage as applied to the

employee evaluation was not entirely fruitless, but the information gained from this author’s

questionnaire, and the literature review, did not reveal a total consensus on the issue. The only

trend identified was different sets of criteria based on average sick leave use by employees. The

averages were gained from several different demographic methods such as rank, age and

employee classification.


What are the rating criteria for the sick leave portion of the SCFD #1 employee

evaluation instrument?

The current method used for evaluating SCFD #1 employees of all rank in the evaluation

instrument is subjective, and fully dependant on the expectations of the evaluator. The

administration of the department has not set any guidelines for sick leave use.


Evaluators are given a printout of the total leave used by the employee at the time the

evaluation paperwork is delivered for completion. The supervisor must then apply his or her own

standard to the employee. The only guidance given is a general statement in the evaluation

guidance document which states; “Employee uses leave appropriately” (Appendix F).

During the author’s phone interview, Chief G.E. Curmode stated that he believed the

current criterion used by SCFD #1 was vague and subjective. He attributed this to the lack of

data on the subject at the time of development of the current employee evaluation instrument

used. He also stated that creation of a formal set of criteria would be beneficial, and assist the

District in making the evaluation process as fair as possible.

Chief R.A. Brazill also felt that the current methods used for grading employees on sick

leave use was dependant on evaluator expectations and inconsistent. In his phone interview, he

conveyed to this author the need for not only a set of criteria, but also for employee and

evaluator education on the subject of leave use. The need for accountability on both “sides” of

the evaluation instrument would be beneficial for the process according to Chief Brazill.

The results from this study did not show an overwhelming magic formula for grading

sick leave usage in employee evaluations. The literature and this author’s questionnaire did

produce some trends, and showed what others are doing (or lack thereof) when it comes to this

subject.

In personal interviews, it was determined that the top two administrators of SCFD #1 do

believe the District has a need for guidelines and criteria for sick leave usage. They both thought

our current system was subjective and was not consistent from evaluator to evaluator. The

current methods used that were found in the research were conveyed to both Chiefs. The


recommendations section of this project will convey the direction(s) that both Chiefs would like

the District to move towards in setting criterion for grading employee sick leave in the

evaluation.

Discussion

The search for accurately defining properly used benefit leave is nothing new. The

findings from this project have contributed to the wealth of information available on the subject.

The initial work reviewed clarified what is considered optimum criterion for employee

evaluations.

The evaluation process can easily be de-railed by inconsistent or non-existent

expectations. When these conditions exist, an organization can expect an ineffective evaluation

process. When addressing the lack of expectations, Patton et al. (2002) stated, “Unfortunately in

many settings performance assessment may be neither constructive in outcome nor reliable in its

content” (p.285)

Evaluations must give the employee a guide of what the organization’s expectations are

for performance. Holman (2001) wrote, “When conducting an employee review, as a manager,

you must first ensure the evaluation tool is accurate. This means that it should be an objective

evaluation” (p.5). The lack of consistent guidelines or expectations in any organization, make

the entire evaluation process open to subjective interpretations by individual evaluators.

This study did support the fact that SCFD should develop sick leave usage criterion for

the employee evaluation currently used. As Hosea (2004) wrote, “Evaluations should include

definite identifiable criteria based on quality or quantity of work or specific performances

supported by some kind of record” (p.96). Once a need for criteria was clearly established, this


study turned to researching existing models that SCFD could integrate into it’s current evaluation

process.

The questionnaire that was distributed for this study made this author realize that the

purpose of this particular research project is something that many organizations struggle with. A

majority of the participants ended the questionnaire with something to the effect of: if you figure

this out, please share.

As stated earlier in this paper, this author does not believe there is a magic formula for

gauging and grading sick leave use in the employee evaluation. There were several examples of

methods used, both inside and outside the fire industry, which can be utilized for guidance.

The Montana State Hospital policy and procedure manual (2006) gave detailed criteria

for supervisors to use as a guide for determining if leave usage was proper. The following seven

items were provided on page 1 of that procedure:

1. Persistent use of sick days the day before, or the day after, regularly scheduled days

off.

2. Persistent use of sick days the day before, or day after, a holiday.

3. Persistent call-offs for illness on holidays for which the employee is scheduled to

work.

4. Persistent use of sick leave on the same day of the week or month.

5. Patterned use of sick leave on, or after, payday.

6. An employee’s use of most or all of his/her earned sick leave, unless obvious

mitigating circumstances are present.


7. Visual observation of an employee’s activities while on sick leave which indicates

that he/she is not using sick leave properly; such as recreating or attending social

events.

The criterion provided above is consistent with most of the findings in this study, as they

deal more with defining sick leave abuse, rather than gauging sick leave use for employee

evaluations. Although this was not the intent of this study, the author believes that an

organization will need to define what they consider sick leave abuse to apply a scoring method

for evaluations.

The Town of Derry and the Derry Fire Officers Unit of International Association of Fire

Fighters Local 4392 (2008) gave emergency earned time (sick leave) usage definitions that are

tied to defining abuse as well under article 21, page 11 of that document:

e. Abuse of emergency earned time by line personnel, three (3) occurrences in a

three (3)-month period, may be subject to discipline.

f. Abuse of emergency earned time by administrative positions, six (6)

occurrences in a three (3)-month period, may be subject to discipline.

The definitions above are significant in this author’s opinion because they have different

expectations for varying levels within the organization. It would be easy to assume that this is an

adjustment for age because in most organizations the attainment of rank would coincide with

time on the job.

The internal sick leave usage audit of SCFD did show a correlation between age and

usage within the District (Appendix G). As members progress in age, the amount of sick leave


used trended up. The same upward trend also was identified when comparing rank levels within

SCFD. This author assumes that these two trends would hold true in most organizations.

One of the by-products of this study was a determination that SCFD uses sick leave at a

lower rate than the other departments studied. Guilisano (2005) performed an extensive study of

fifty (50) other fire departments and their sick leave usage. The sample population used would be

considered similar in size to SCFD. Guilisano (2005) found that, “The sample population use

rates of approximately ten (10) hours per month per employee from 2001 through 2004, while

Chesapeake’s average for this same time period exceeded thirteen (13) hours per month” (p.39).

In the original sick leave usage audit performed by this author, it was found that SCFD

averaged 7.99 hours of sick leave used per month per employee. Compared to the sample used

by Guilisano (2005), which averaged 10.30 hours per month per employee, SCFD has a very low

sick leave usage rate. These findings reinforce the original intent of this study, and determine

that a widespread sick leave usage problem does not exist within the District.

During personal interviews held with the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Department, this

author was able to gain direction on what the District wanted in a guideline for sick leave usage.

Both Chief G. E. Curmode and Chief R. A. Brazill believed that the benefit leave category of the

SCFD evaluation process is subjective. Both Chiefs also felt that a guideline for gauging sick

leave usage would be helpful, and is warranted.

Chief Brazill offered two suggestions for a guideline in his interview, “I could see using

something like fifty percent of accrued sick leave as an average” (R. A. Brazill, personal

communication, August 25, 2009). Tracking employee usage and contrasting it with accrual rates

could easily be done. Chief Brazill would also be interested in using an average for the position


during the evaluation period. He stated that, “Using a departmental average based on position

would be easily applied, and could still give the evaluator some discretion in that category” (R.

A. Brazill, personal communication, August 25, 2009).

Chief Curmode echoed those thoughts in his interview when asked the same question. He

believed that, “An average use during the evaluation period would help with accountability for

leave usage, and serve as a good starting point for evaluators” (G. E. Curmode, personal

communication, August 25, 2009).

The questionnaire provided some insight into the different methods used to gauge and

grade sick leave usage by other organizations. Some of the methods used seem to be arbitrary

and geared more for preventing sick leave abuse. Of all the respondents, there was one that used

something like what the administrators of SCFD viewed as a favorable solution.

In his response to question eight (8) of the questionnaire, Captain T. McDowell of the

Henrico County Division of Fire stated,“Our general approach is to compare the employee’s sick

leave hours to the average for the Department, and if it is higher, this can negatively impact their

overall rating” (T. McDowell, personal communication, July 10, 2009). This method could be

easily administered using the Firehouse © software currently used by SCFD.

In this author’s opinion, the criterion used by Henricho County would meet the needs of

SCFD if averages were applied differently. Instead of applying it to the Departmental average,

define criterion for each position by averaging sick leave usage for each rank level within SCFD.

This would allow for the normal increase in sick leave usage that normally takes place with age.


Defining and applying criteria to the employee evaluation for SCFD will have some

implications. According to the research, establishing criterion for sick leave usage will improve

the evaluation by making it less subjective.

Supervisors will also have a clear guideline to follow which should lead to decreased

time when not only grading employees in this category, but when explaining the score received

to the employee as well.

This study proved the importance of having definitive criterion in the employee

evaluation process, and although sick leave usage is a subject that other organizations struggle

with, SCFD wanted and needed criteria that applied to the employee evaluation.

Recommendations

The first recommendation to come from this study is for the criterion for SCFD sick leave

usage will need to be decided upon by the administrative staff of the District. The first criterion

that will need to be set is the mid-way point of the evaluation instrument used by SCFD. In

determining the score of three (3), or average performance, this study has produced the following

choices:

a) Average sick leave usage departmental wide during the employee’s evaluation

period.

b) Average sick leave usage for the employee’s position or rank during the

evaluation period.

c) One half of the accrued sick leave of the employee during the evaluation

period.


The first choice (a) is probably the simplest one to administer, but it does not take into

account the different positions within the District, and the ages of most employees filling those

positions. The second choice (b) accounts for position, and some age differences, but does not

entirely address the various ages of all employees. The third option (c) would be much harder to

administer due to different accrual rates, and would not allow any adjustment for flu or cold

outbreaks.

Once the method for determining what an average score on the employee evaluation is

made, SCFD administration will need to establish the criteria for the other four (4) scores used

on the evaluation instrument. The choices for that criterion will be somewhat subjective, but it

could easily be tied to a percentage of average sick leave usage. An example of using

percentages is listed below in table 4.

Table 4 Sick Leave Usage Criterion ________________________________________________________________ Score Description Criterion ________________________________________________________________ 1 Seldom Meets 50% Above Average 2 Meets Most 25% Above Average 3 Fully Meets Average Sick Leave Use 4 Exceeds 50% Below Average 5 Outstanding 75% Below Average _________________________________________________________________

The criterion listed in table 4 still has some subjective areas where the evaluator will need

to make a determination on how to grade the employee. The chance of an employee landing on


the exact number of the established criteria is slim. The evaluator will need to use their judgment

to make a determination on the score given to the employee.

The table below shows a group of employees and the criterion as it would apply using

table 4, in the sick leave usage audit performed by this author (Appendix G), it was determined

that in 2008 that SCFD Lieutenants used approximately ninety (89.57) hours of sick leave on

average. If the criterion established on percentages in Table 4 is applied to this group, scores

would be determined using the following table (Table 5).

Table 5 Sick Leave Usage Criterion (Example) ________________________________________________________________ Score Description Criterion ________________________________________________________________ 1 Seldom Meets 135 Hours 2 Meets Most 112.5 Hours 3 Fully Meets 90 Hours 4 Exceeds 45 Hours 5 Outstanding 22.5 Hours _________________________________________________________________

The criterion used above can be applied to all of the choices SCFD administration will

have to choose from for establishing what method is used to set the average score. The method

will also work in all five of the different evaluation forms used, because all of them utilize a five

point grading scale. Chief G. E. Curmode stated that he believes that any sick leave usage criteria

SCFD adopted would need to be, “Dynamic and fluid” (G. E. Curmode, personal

communication, August 25, 2009). The criterion methods used to choose an average score and

the criterion listed in table 4 can be adjusted as SCFD administration sees fit.


Another recommendation would be for all supervisors to receive training on the new

criterion and what to look for in sick leave use. This could be accomplished in several of the

already familiar modes of training currently utilized by the District. Once supervisors have been

trained on the methods and criterion, all employees should then be “brought up to speed” on the

expectations and criterion that will be used by the District.

The last recommendation is that clerical staff within the District will need to be trained

on how to retrieve the information, and the information will need to be distributed with the

employee evaluation.


References

Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Executive fire officer operational policies and procedures. Retrieved April 3. 2009 from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/efop_guidelines.pdf Gulisano, S. J. (2005, September). Sick leave usage in the Chesapeake fire department. Retrieved May 9, 2009, from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo38329.pdf Hagstrom, J. (2000, March). Strategies for sick leave reduction. Public Safety

Communications, 66, 52-58. Hayes, D. A. (2003, October). Identifying and addressing sick leave use trends for the Tulsa fire department. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/tr_03dh.pdf Holman, T. (2001, September). Conducting employee reviews. EMS Magazine, 30, 8.

Hosea, J. B. (2004, August). Employee evaluations: How does your organization

measure up? Fire Engineering, 157, 93-96.

Lee, S. H., & Olshfski, D. (2002, September). Employee commitment and firefighters:

It’s my job. Public Administration Review, 62, 108-113.

McGregor, R. (2005, August). Establishing an effective employee performance

evaluation procedure for the Bryan fire department. Retrieved May 13, 2009,

from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo38371.pdf Montana State Hospital. (2006). Policy and Procedure HR-16, Sick Leave Abuse. Helena, MT: Author. National Fire Academy. (2005). Executive Leadership (FEMA/USFA/NFA-EL Student manual). Emmitsburg, MD: Author

Patton, D. W., Witt, S. L., Lovrich, N. P., & Frederickson, P. J. (2002). Human resource


Management: The public service perspective. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Prendergast, S. L. (2000, September). Employee evaluation program development for

the Danvers Fire Department. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo23393.pdf Sedgwick County Fire District #1. (2009). Memorandum of agreement between Sedgwick County Fire District #1 and IAFF local 2612 Sedgwick County firefighters. Sedgwick County, KS: Author Town of Derry. (2008). Agreement between Town of Derry and Derry fire officers unit of IAFF local 4392. Derry, NH: Author United States Fire Administration. (2009). United States Fire Administration strategic plan fiscal years 2009 – 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/strategic_plan.pdf


Appendix A

SCFD Firefighter Evaluation

Sedgwick County Fire Department Fire District #1

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

FIREFIGHTER VERSION


EMPLOYEE EVALUATION

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Record the number of points for the rating which you feel best describe the performance of the

firefighter. Supervisor comments must accompany every category. 2. Rate each factor separately and independently of all others.

3. Do not let your rating on one factor influence your ratings on the other factors. A

firefighter may be rated low on one factor and high on another.

4. Do not allow one recent atypical incident to unduly influence the complete picture.

5. Evaluate firefighter in relation to position classification or job description. DO NOT EVALUATE THE FIREFIGHTER IN COMPARISON TO OTHER FIREFIGHTERS.

6. The supervisor shall gain input from the firefighter’s Lieutenant and the firefighter’s

peers when completing the evaluation form and justify all scores in the comments section of each category.

7. Add up numerical ratings and place the total score in the OVERALL NUMERICAL

RATING blank.

If any single category is rated at 1 or the minimum point total is less than 27, merit raise is withheld for a minimum of 90 calendar days, and not to exceed 180 calendar days subject to re-evaluation every 90 days.

8. After the evaluation is completed, have the firefighter sign the evaluation form.

9. Send the signed evaluation to the head of department for review. If the head of department is evaluator, leave blank empty.

10. A copy of the evaluation will be provided to the firefighter.

11. Evaluations and distribution must be made within 30 days of receipt of the evaluation

by the department.


12. An Interim evaluation is given every 6 months. Additional Interim evaluation updates are available to a firefighter upon request. The Interim form is to be retained on file by the station Captain and in the event of a station transfer, the firefighter’s forms and a copy of his/her goals and objectives should be forwarded to the station Captain receiving the firefighter.

13. When evaluating a firefighter that has been supervised by other Captains, the

evaluator is responsible for gaining input from all previous supervisors since the last evaluation period.

Firefighter Name:

Period of Evaluation From: To:

PART I: (To be completed by firefighter) List achievements that have been attained during your last evaluation period: List of strengths: List of weaknesses: SUPERVISOR: Comment on statements of firefighter. Indicate any exceptions or additions.


EXAMPLES FOR FIREFIGHTER EVALUATION

(This list is meant to be examples only and not all inclusive of the firefighters duties) Quality of Work – Emergency Situations

♦ Is the employee dependable? ♦ Is the employee thorough? ♦ Does the employee exhibit self-control? ♦ Does the employee follow SOG/SOP (Safety and operating procedures)

Quality of Work – Station ♦ Is the employee thorough? ♦ Is the work done in an efficient and organized manner? ♦ Does the employee complete extra work? (exceeds requirements) ♦ Is the assigned work completed?

Meeting Requirements ♦ Is the employee performing daily requirements?

(equipment check, active participation in training, active participation in Physical fitness) ♦ Is the employee able to perform procedures expected of a firefighter at the appropriate step? ♦ Does the employee make effective decisions?

Follow Instructions ♦ Does the employee willingly follow direction? ♦ Is the employee a person that complains, or complains with alternative solutions? ♦ Are the instructions completed promptly?

Initiative ♦ Is the employee a self-starter? ♦ Is the employee ambitious? ♦ Does the employee display enthusiasm? ♦ Does the employee like to volunteer?

Self Improvement ♦ Does the employee use spare time for job related study? ♦ Does the employee demonstrate professional maturity? (Positive attitudes & behavior towards unfavorable

decisions) ♦ Is the employee eager to learn in training sessions?

Works Well With Others ♦ Is the employee effective when working with the public? ♦ Does the employee cooperate with others? ♦ Does the employee work to prevent conflict? ♦ Is teamwork atmosphere exhibited? ♦ Does the employee respect diversity?

Physical Fitness ♦ How participative is the employee in the fitness program? ♦ Does the employee go beyond requirements?

Punctuality/ Attendance ♦ Is the employee prepared and ready training sessions on time? ♦ Is the employee on time for work? ♦ Does the employee start and finish routine activities on time? ♦ Are absences reasonable and justified?


Appearance ♦ Does the employee comply to the hair code? ♦ Is the clothing/uniform worn neat and clean? ♦ Does the employee display personal hygiene?

PART II: Quality of Work – Emergency Situations

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Quality of Work - Station Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Meeting Requirements Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Follows Instructions

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Initiative

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1 Comments:


Self Improvement Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Works well with others Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Physical Fitness Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Punctuality/ Attendance Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1 Comments: Appearance Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most Seldom

Meets 5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Point Total Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

PART III: Goals and objectives are helpful for setting purposes, clear expectations, and gaining commitment. Objectives need to meet the following criteria:

1. Must be realistic – Can they be achieved within a reasonable length of time? What costs are involved? Will they bring about desired changes?


2. Must be specific – Do they specify when results can be expected? Do they say what benefits or improvements will be achieved? Do the state what results are sought?

3. Must ensure improvement – Do they offer sufficient challenge? Will they overcome problems, seize opportunities? Do they offer the chance to be of service to others?

A performance objective is:

1. Job related 2. Specific 3. Attainable but challenging 4. Measurable 5. Achievable within a time frame 6. Action oriented

An objective is reached face-to-face. It involves bargaining, resolving disagreements and reaching mutually agreed upon commitments. See appendix A for a list of examples (not limited to the attached list) A well-written objective communicates:

1. Who will achieve the objective? 2. What action(s) will be undertaken? 3. What will the measurable key result be? 4. When will the objective be accomplished?

Objectives represent specific outcomes or results that the firefighter will be accountable for during the year. These objectives can reflect one-time events, intermittent work or ongoing job responsibilities. These objectives should include any productivity or production standards established for the firefighter. One or more objectives are to be set by both the supervisor and the firefighter. The following objectives are to be a tool for professional development only and will not affect point totals or be rated in part II of this form. The firefighter and station captain should each retain a copy of these on file for future reference. Obtainable Performance Objectives to be accomplished during Evaluation Period: (must have a minimum of 3 to 5 with measurable objectives. Must support the departments goals) How can SCFD #1 help me in obtaining my goals and objectives:


PART IV: A. Supervisor Comments: Firefighter Comments:

B. POINT TOTALS: (Add Part II to get rating) OUTSTANDING 46 to 50 points EXCEEDS 40 to 45 points FULLY MEETS 30 to 39 points MEETS MOST 20 to 29 points SELDOM MEETS 10 to 19 points Overall Numerical Rating ______________ If any single category is rated at 1 or the minimum point total is less than 27, merit raise is withheld for a minimum of 90 calendar days, and not to exceed 180 calendar days subject to re-evaluation every 90 days. Probationary firefighters only: Recommended continued employment: ( ) YES ( ) NO All firefighters: Recommended Merit Raise (if eligible) ( ) YES ( ) NO

C. Evaluation Discussed with Firefighter on: __________________________ Date Evaluated By: _______________________________________Date:____________________ Firefighter’s Signature:________________________________Date:____________________ (Signature does not constitute agreement) Reviewed By: _______________________________________Date:____________________


Appendix B

SCFD Lieutenant Evaluation


EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

LIEUTENANT VERSION


LIEUTENANT EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Record the number of points for the rating which you feel best describe the performance of the

lieutenant. Supervisor comments must accompany every category. 14. Rate each factor separately and independently of all others.

15. Do not let your rating on one factor influence your ratings on the other factors. A

lieutenant may be rated low on one factor and high on another.

16. Do not allow one recent atypical incident to unduly influence the complete picture.

17. Evaluate lieutenant in relation to position classification or job description. DO NOT EVALUATE LIEUTENANT IN COMPARISON TO OTHER LIEUTENANTS.

18. The supervisor shall gain input from the lieutenant’s subordinate firefighters when

completing the evaluation.

19. Add up numerical ratings and place the total score in the OVERALL NUMERICAL

RATING blank.

If any single category is rated at 1 or the minimum point total is less than 44, merit raise is withheld for a minimum of 90 calendar days, and not to exceed 180 calendar days subject to re-evaluation every 90 days.

20. After the evaluation is completed, have the lieutenant sign the evaluation form.

21. Send the signed evaluation to the head of department for review. If the head of department is evaluator, leave blank empty.

22. A copy of the evaluation will be provided to the lieutenant.

23. Evaluations and distribution must be made within 30 days of receipt of the evaluation

by the department.

24. An Interim evaluation is given every 6 months. Additional Interim evaluation updates are available to a lieutenant upon request. The Interim form is to be retained on file


by the station Captain and in the event of a station transfer, the lieutenant’s forms and a copy of his/her goals and objectives should be forwarded to the station Captain receiving the lieutenant.

25. When evaluating a lieutenant that has been supervised by other Captains, the

evaluator is responsible for gaining input from all previous supervisors since the last evaluation period.

Lieutenant Name:

Period of Evaluation From: To:

PART I: (To be completed by the lieutenant) List achievements that have been attained during your last evaluation period: List of strengths: List of weaknesses: SUPERVISOR: Comment on statements of lieutenant. Indicate any exceptions or additions

EXAMPLES FOR LIEUTENANT EVALUATION (This list is meant to be examples only and not all inclusive of the lieutenant’s duties)

Quality of Work – Emergency Situations

♦ Is the employee dependable? ♦ Is the employee thorough?


♦ Does the employee exhibit self-control? ♦ Does the employee follow SOG/SOP (Safety and operating procedures)

Quality of Work – Station ♦ Is the employee thorough? ♦ Is the work done in an efficient and organized manner? ♦ Does the employee complete extra work? (exceeds requirements) ♦ Is the assigned work completed?

Meeting Requirements ♦ Is the employee performing daily requirements?

(equipment check, active participation in training, active participation in Physical fitness) ♦ Is the employee able to perform procedures expected of a firefighter at the appropriate step? ♦ Does the employee make effective decisions?

Follow Instructions ♦ Does the employee willingly follow direction? ♦ Is the employee a person that complains, or complains with alternative solutions? ♦ Are the instructions completed promptly?

Initiative ♦ Is the employee a self-starter? ♦ Is the employee ambitious? ♦ Does the employee display enthusiasm? ♦ Does the employee like to volunteer?

Self Improvement ♦ Does the employee use spare time for job related study? ♦ Does the employee demonstrate professional maturity? (Positive attitudes & behavior towards unfavorable

decisions) ♦ Is the employee eager to learn in training sessions?

Works Well With Others ♦ Is the employee effective when working with the public? ♦ Does the employee cooperate with others? ♦ Does the employee work to prevent conflict? ♦ Is teamwork atmosphere exhibited? ♦ Does the employee respect diversity?

Physical Fitness ♦ How participative is the employee in the fitness program? ♦ Does the employee go beyond requirements?

Punctuality/ Attendance ♦ Is the employee prepared and ready training sessions on time? ♦ Is the employee on time for work? ♦ Does the employee start and finish routine activities on time? ♦ Are absences reasonable and justified?

Appearance ♦ Does the employee comply to the hair code? ♦ Is the clothing/uniform worn neat and clean? ♦ Does the employee display personal hygiene?


PART II: Quality of Work – Emergency Situations

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Quality of Work - Station Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Meeting Requirements Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Follows Instructions

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1 Comments: Initiative

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1 Comments: Self Improvement Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Works well with others Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets


5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Physical Fitness Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Punctuality/ Attendance Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Appearance Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1 Comments: Point Total Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most Seldom

Meets

EXAMPLES FOR PART III OF EVALUATION (Supervisory Section)

(This list is meant to be examples only and not all inclusive of the lieutenant’s duties) Planning

♦ Does the lieutenant effectively take time to plan? ♦ Is the planning in advance? ♦ Are decisions made as to what to be done, who will do it, and where it will be done?

Training

♦ Does the lieutenant display the ability to teach? ♦ Are the employee’s natural talents encouraged? ♦ Does the lieutenant guide the employee toward further development?

Leadership of Station Personnel

♦ Does the lieutenant set a good example? ♦ Has the lieutenant gained the respect of the employees? ♦ Is the lieutenant able to motivate and lead others?


♦ Are good decision-making skills present? Leadership in Emergency Situations

♦ Does the lieutenant display self-control? ♦ Does the lieutenant effectively size up the situation and act in a decisive manner? ♦ Are SOG/SOP procedures safely followed

Fairness and Impartiality

♦ Is an open-minded attitude display? ♦ Does the lieutenant exhibit a commitment to working with a diverse workforce and the public? ♦ Are actions implemented consistently and fair?

Working Relationship with Staff

♦ Does the lieutenant communicate effectively? ♦ Are people informed? ♦ Is the information presented clearly? ♦ Does the lieutenant encourage a team atmosphere

PART III: Planning Skills Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Training Skills Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Leadership/ Station Personnel Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Leadership/ Emergency Situations

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1


Comments: Fairness and Impartiality Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Working Relationship with Staff

Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most

Seldom Meets

5 4 3 2 1

Comments: Point Total Outstanding Exceeds

Fully Meets

Meets Most Seldom

Meets

PART IV: Goals and objectives are helpful for setting purposes, clear expectations, and gaining commitment. Objectives need to meet the following criteria:






An objective is reached face-to-face. It involves bargaining, resolving disagreements and reaching mutually agreed upon commitments. See Appendix A for a list of examples (not limited to the attached list)


A well-written objective communicates:


Objectives represent specific outcomes or results that the employee will be accountable for during the year. These objectives can reflect one-time events, intermittent work or ongoing job responsibilities. These objectives should include any productivity or production standards established for the lieutenant. One or more objectives are to be set by both the supervisor and the lieutenant. The following objectives are to be a tool for professional development only and will not affect point totals or be rated in part II or III of this form. The lieutenant and station captain should each retain a copy of these on file for future reference. Obtainable Performance Objectives to be accomplished during Evaluation Period: (must have a minimum of 3 to 5 with measurable objectives. Must support the departments goals) How can SCFD #1 help me in obtaining my goals and objectives: PART V:

A. Supervisor Comments:

Employee Comments:

B. POINT TOTALS: (Add Part II and III to get rating)

OUTSTANDING 73 to 80 points EXCEEDS 64 to 72 points FULLY MEETS 48 to 63 points MEETS MOST 32 to 47 points SELDOM MEETS 16 to 31 points Overall Numerical Rating ______________


If any single category is rated at 1 or the minimum point total is less than 44, merit raise is withheld for a minimum of 90 calendar days, and not to exceed 180 calendar days subject to re-evaluation every 90 days. Probationary Employees only: Recommended continued employment: ( ) YES ( ) NO All Employees: Recommended Merit Raise (if eligible) ( ) YES ( ) NO

Evaluation Discussed with Lieutenant on: ________________________________________ Date Evaluated By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________ Lieutenant’s Signature:_________________________________Date: ___________________ (Signature does not constitute agreement) Reviewed By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________


Appendix C

SCFD Captain Evaluation

SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS

HUMAN RESOURCES

Our Mission Is ...

To assure quality public services that provide for the present and future well-being of the citizens of Sedgwick County.

“Sedgwick County…working for you”

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION EMPLOYEE NAME Captain DUE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE


SEDGWICK COUNTY VALUES As adopted through the strategic planning departmental implementation meetings and the values consolidation

meeting.

ACCOUNTABILITY Accepting responsibility for our job performances, actions, behavior, and the resources entrusted

to us.

COMMITMENT Individual and collective dedication of employees to their jobs and the organization in providing

quality services to meet client/customer needs.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Providing a work environment which is fair to all current and prospective employees through equal treatment in employee benefits, promotions, training, continuing education, and daily

responsibilities, as well as fair and equitable access for all citizens and consumers of Sedgwick County services.

HONESTY Truthful, forthright interaction among employees, management and the public--which fosters

trust, integrity and a lasting working relationship.

OPEN COMMUNICATION The honest exchange and processing of ideas and information with the public, coworkers, staff,

and other departments, and administration.

PROFESSIONALISM An individual promoting honesty, respect, pride, positive self-image and team effort; adhering to

a high standard of ethical conduct, competence, and innovation; and who acknowledges criticism, accepts responsibility, and strives for occupational growth.

RESPECT Consistently demonstrating a deep regard for the diversity, needs, feelings, and beliefs of all

people, and acknowledging ideas and opinions of every employee, citizen and consumer.

Received and adopted by the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, October 14, 1992.


Employee Performance Review (12 month annual)

Employee Name: Department: Fire District

Job Title: Fire Captain Supervisor’s Name: Division Chief Annual Review Period: to Beginning Ending

Quarterly Reviews

Quarter #1 Quarter #2 Quarter #3 Final

NON-SUPERVISORY POSITIONS: Complete Parts I; II; III; V; VI; and VII. SUPERVISORY POSITIONS: Complete Parts I; II; III; IV; V; VI; and VII.

PART I: Primary Job Responsibilities The supervisor should list the five primary job responsibilities of the employee’s position. Under each primary job responsibility, the supervisor lists performance goals/expectations. The supervisor and employee should discuss the performance measurements of each primary responsibility prior to the rating period. The supervisor and employee will meet at least quarterly to discuss the employee’s performance. The supervisor will document observations regarding the primary job responsibilities throughout the review period. At the end of the annual review period, in preparation of the final quarterly session, the supervisor will assess and rate the employee’s performance regarding each primary job responsibility. Justify ratings in writing (no matter what the number) by addressing areas of strengths as well as areas for improvement and/or growth in fulfilling the job responsibilities. Rating Definitions: Outstanding: Performance demonstrates an unusually high level of performance relative to all

assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful

performance on all major assignments and objectives. Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most

assignments and objectives. Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is

not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements.

Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements.


#1 Primary Job Responsibility: Normal “routine” Day at Station.

Goals/Expectations:

Maintains a sound, safe, and fiscal responsive station. Includes all aspects of supervision, discipline, management, and fire apparatus/fire station maintenance/reliability. Includes fire inspections/pre-plans, and familiarization of businesses, etc., and done in an accurate and concise fashion meeting all deadlines. Stays within cost centers. Maintains an active Public Education program in your first due area; this may be Adopt-a-School, or other Pub. Ed. approved programs.

Performance Measurements Maintains a well planned day, constructive/productive from 0700-1700 hours, and evening hours as needed to perform tasks, studying, etc.

Supervisor’s Observations:

Performance Assessment: Outstanding

Above Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0

#2 Primary Job Responsibility: Emergency and Non-Emergency Responses, Specialty areas readiness, Accreditation Awareness.

Goals/Expectations: Maintains crew readiness in emergency and non-emergency response, maintains his/her specialty area--

Performance Measurement: Maintains safe, efficient, productive, trains crews, proper record keeping, meets all deadlines. Maintains and stays abreast of all categories on ACCREDITATION. (Special attention to Category 5).

Supervisor’s Observations:

Performance Assessment: Outstanding Above Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0

#3 Primary Job Responsibility: Training responsibilities with crew, shift, department, and EMSS training.

Goals/Expectations:

Conducts training throughout the year. Maintains a close watch on their crew to maintain good morale, physical fitness, and readiness for both emergency and non-emergency responses. Training evolutions are done in accordance with proper methodology. Physical fitness is mandatory and mandated each shift; any misses or non-participation may be subject to NOT meeting this goal. Must do a minimum of 1 Tender Shuttle in training during the year; this must be documented, sent to your division chief, then onto Division Chief of Trng/Medical/Safety and Deputy Fire Chief. All training must be recorded in database that department is using.

Performance Measurement: Either completed or incomplete. Supervisor’s Observations:



Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0

#4 Primary Job Responsibility: Professional Development - Fire chief will discuss with each of you individually and set mandatory goal(s).

Goals/Expectations: Complete the goal(s). Performance Measurement: Either completed or incomplete. Supervisor’s Observations:


Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0

#5 Primary Job Responsibility:

Training responsibilities with other mutual aid and automatic aid depts. Must maintain ISO required training with Mutual Aid companies. (This goal will be different for each captain, due to different fire depts. that each respond with in their first due district.) (Fire chief will discuss individually.)

Goals/Expectations: Quarterly training with each of the fire depts. in your immediate first due area, a MINIMUM of once a quarter per station among 3 shifts. Must be documented.

Performance Measurement: Minimum must be met; quality of training will be evaluated. Supervisor’s Observations:


Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0

#6 Primary Job Responsibility: Secondary Goal - Fire chief will discuss with each of you individually and set mandatory goal(s).



Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0


#7 Primary Job Responsibility: Secondary Goal - Fire chief will discuss with each of you individually and set mandatory goal(s).



Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0 PART II: Additional Contributions The supervisor should list additional performance contributions such as special projects or other activities within this evaluation period. PART III: Performance Effectiveness For All Employees Rating Definitions: Outstanding: Performance demonstrates an unusually high level of performance relative to all

assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful

performance on all major assignments and objectives. Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most

assignments and objectives. Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is

not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements.

Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements.

FACTOR Outstanding Above Satisfactory Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Interpersonal Skills - The effectiveness of the employee’s interactions with others and as a team participant.

4 3 2 1 0

Willingness and ability to form and maintain working relationships with co-workers, supervisors, customers, and team participants. The ability to convey information through written expressions, oral expression, sharing information willingly, utilizing tact and diplomacy.

RATING


Supervisor Observations:


Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Work Habits – The extent to which the employee may be relied upon to complete work assignments with a minimum of supervision.

4 3 2 1 0

Reports to work at assigned time; provides adequate notice of absence and uses leave time appropriately; safely operates assigned equipment and provides for proper use and maintenance; work area is kept clean and orderly; time is efficiently used for assigned tasks.

RATING



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Approach To Work – The characteristics the employee demonstrates while performing job assignments.

4 3 2 1 0

Actively seeks ways to streamline processes; open to new ideas and approaches; initiative; planning and organization; flexible and adaptable; follows instructions; seeks additional training and development.

RATING

Supervisor Observations: PART IV: Performance Effectiveness For Supervisors (This section must be completed for Supervisors only.) Rate supervisors on additional performance effectiveness factors.



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Leadership – Leads with integrity. 4 3 2 1 0 Demonstrates ethical behavior; adheres to the Sedgwick County Values; committed to providing quality service, creates a work environment of equal opportunity, truthful, forthright interaction among employees, peers, management and the public; demonstrates deep regard for the diversity, needs, feelings, and beliefs of others.; makes effective and timely decisions and takes accountability; considers impact of own behavior/decisions on other people; addresses conflict and works to resolve issues; applies solid problem-solving skills; prioritizes conflicting demands.

RATING



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Resource Management – Allocation and effective use of resources which are responsive to the changing needs of our customers.

4 3 2 1 0

Fiscal responsibility; effective control and utilization of personnel and equipment within scope of assigned duties; responsive to service delivery issues in a manner that provides added value to the customer.

RATING



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Employee Development – Trains, encourages and recognizes employees for hard work, creativity and innovation in the delivery of quality public services.

4 3 2 1 0


Empowers, trains, and motivates employees and fosters a participatory atmosphere; values diversity; ensures personal competence necessary to effectively perform job duties; facilitates appropriate recruitment and selection of employees according to County policies; fair employment practices and succession planning; exercises sound personnel practices in accordance with County personnel policies.

RATING

Supervisor Observations: PART V:

Performance Improvement Plan The Performance Improvement Plan is mandatory for any performance evaluation results which include a single rating of Partially Meets Expectations or any single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations. The Performance Improvement Plan should include improvement goals and completion timeline of any Primary Job Responsibility and or Effectiveness Factor(s) receiving a Partially Meets Expectations rating or a Does Not Meet Expectations rating. If a non-exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee will be placed on a probationary status up to six months. If an exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee must complete a Performance Improvement Plan within six months. During this six months, any employee receiving a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, serves at the pleasure of the appropriate hiring authority and may be terminated for any reason not prohibited by Federal or State Law. For new employees serving their initial probation, an extension of probation will be considered part of the initial probation, until the hiring authority recommends removal of the probationary status. The supervisor should summarize any specific improvement goals necessary for continued employment. 1. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 2. What/How: By When?


Review Dates: 3. What/How: By When? Review Dates:

Training and Development Plan The supervisor should summarize any specific projects, performance objectives, or training and development plans for the next review period. 1. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 2. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 3. What/How: By When? Review Dates:


PART VI: All Employees Supervisor Comments:

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS – Employees may use the attached form to provide written comments as part of the review process. The form is to be returned to the supervisor the next business day after the ratings are discussed. PART VII: OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING

Add up numerical ratings of Part I, Part III and Part IV (as appropriate). The Performance Improvement Plan is mandatory for any performance evaluation results which include a single rating of Partially Meets Expectations or any single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations. The Performance Improvement Plan should include improvement goals and completion timeline of any Primary Job Responsibility and or Effectiveness Factor(s) receiving a Partially Meets Expectations rating or a Does Not Meet Expectations rating. If a non-exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee will be placed on a probationary status up to six months. If an exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee must complete a Performance Improvement Plan within six months. During this six months, any employee receiving a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, serves at the pleasure of the appropriate hiring authority and may be terminated for any reason not prohibited by Federal or State Law. For new employees serving their initial probation, an extension of probation will be considered part of the initial probation, until the hiring authority recommends removal of the probationary status. The supervisor should summarize any specific improvement goals necessary for continued employment. The supervisor and employee will review the evaluation. The employee may make any comments at that time or prior to the end of the next scheduled workday, or as agreed by the supervisor, in writing (which will be attached to and become part of the evaluation). A copy of the evaluation will be provided to the employee. Evaluations and distributions must be made prior to the due date noted on the front of the Employee Performance Evaluation. Employees who strongly disagree with the performance evaluation may appeal by submitting a written request to the evaluation reviewer (with a copy to the supervisor) within 14 days of the date the ratings were discussed (date on the last page). The written appeal must state in one typed page or less the perceived problem and desired remedy. The reviewer shall determine the merit of the appeal and render a written decision within 14 days to the employee and supervisor. The written appeal and decision will be attached to and become part of the final evaluation.


NON-SUPERVISORY POSITION: SUPERVISORY POSITION: Total

Score Total

Score Merit Pay Adjustments will not be awarded for a total score of 15 or below for non-supervisory positions or 21 or below for supervisory positions or any employee with a single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations for any Primary Job Responsibility or Effectiveness Performance Factor which places them in a six month performance improvement plan status. Employee Signature:

Date:

I have read and discussed this evaluation with my supervisor and I understand its contents. My signature means that I have been advised of my performance status and does not necessarily imply that I agree with either the appraisal or the contents.

Supervisor Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS FORM

EMPLOYEE

NAME:

EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE DATE

SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE


Appendix D

SCFD Division Chief Evaluation SEDGWICK COUNTY VALUES

As adopted through the strategic planning departmental implementation meetings and the values consolidation meeting.

ACCOUNTABILITY Accepting responsibility for our job performances, actions, behavior, and the resources entrusted

to us.

COMMITMENT Individual and collective dedication of employees to their jobs and the organization in providing

quality services to meet client/customer needs.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY Providing a work environment which is fair to all current and prospective employees through equal treatment in employee benefits, promotions, training, continuing education, and daily

responsibilities, as well as fair and equitable access for all citizens and consumers of Sedgwick County services.

HONESTY Truthful, forthright interaction among employees, management and the public--which fosters

trust, integrity and a lasting working relationship.

OPEN COMMUNICATION The honest exchange and processing of ideas and information with the public, coworkers, staff,

and other departments, and administration.

PROFESSIONALISM An individual promoting honesty, respect, pride, positive self-image and team effort; adhering to

a high standard of ethical conduct, competence, and innovation; and who acknowledges criticism, accepts responsibility, and strives for occupational growth.

RESPECT


Consistently demonstrating a deep regard for the diversity, needs, feelings, and beliefs of all people, and acknowledging ideas and opinions of every employee, citizen and consumer.

Received and adopted by the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, October 14, 1992.

Employee Performance Review (12 month annual)

Employee Name: Department: Fire District #1

Job Title: Division Chief Supervisor’s Name: Gary Curmode, Fire Chief Annual Review Period:

to

Beginning Ending

Quarterly Reviews

Quarter #1 Quarter #2 Quarter #3 Final

NON-SUPERVISORY POSITIONS: Complete Parts I; II; III; V; VI; and VII. SUPERVISORY POSITIONS: Complete Parts I; II; III; IV; V; VI; and VII.

PART I: Primary Job Responsibilities The supervisor should list the five primary job responsibilities of the employee’s position. Under each primary job responsibility, the supervisor lists performance goals/expectations. The supervisor and employee should discuss the performance measurements of each primary responsibility prior to the rating period. The supervisor and employee will meet at least quarterly to discuss the employee’s performance. The supervisor will document observations regarding the primary job responsibilities throughout the review period. At the end of the annual review period, in preparation of the final quarterly session, the supervisor will assess and rate the employee’s performance regarding each primary job responsibility. Justify ratings in writing (no matter what the number) by addressing areas of strengths as well as areas for improvement and/or growth in fulfilling the job responsibilities. Rating Definitions: Outstanding: Performance demonstrates a unusually high level of performance relative to all assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful performance on all major assignments and objectives.


Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most assignments and objectives. Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements. Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements.


Normal, “routine day”; maintains a sound, safe, and fiscal responsive battalion. Includes all aspects of supervision, management, and fire apparatus/fire station maintenance/reliability, etc. Includes all fire inspections, pre-plans, and familiarization done in an accurate and concise fashion meeting all deadlines. Stays within cost center(s).

Goals/Expectations: To be done in its entirety. Performance Measurement: Meets all deadlines and requirements. Supervisor’s Observations:

Performance Assessment: Outstanding

Above Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0


Maintains his/her specialty area—i.e., PPE, CIP, Hazmat, Technical Rescue, EMSS, Fire Prevention/Public Education/Code Enforcement, Safety, Medical, Fire Suppression, etc. This includes but not limited to: maintaining inventory, seeing that training is carried out, staying within budget.

Goals/Expectations: To be completed in its entirety. Performance Measurement: Meets all deadlines and requirements. Supervisor’s Observations:


Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0


Conducts some training throughout the year, maintains a close watch on the stations to make sure that the training evolutions are done in accordance with proper methodology. Makes a minimum of 2 stations per day (that way all stations should be visited at least every 2 shifts. Physical fitness is done daily on duty shift—Lead by example. Makes sure that all of their stations are meeting the training expectations for ISO.




Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0 #4 Primary Job Responsibility: Maintains and stays abreast of all Categories on ACCREDITATION. Goals/Expectations: To be completed in its entirety. Performance Measurement: Meets all deadlines and requirements. Supervisor’s Observations:


Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0


Maintains yearly professional ongoing education. Discussion will occur with the Fire Chief, and the Fire Chief will make the final decision on these goals. Among these selections are: Accreditation 3 day workshop, NFA, WSU-CMD supervisory courses, College Courses, EFO at the NFA, CFO at the CPSE (Center for Professional Excellence), Completion of AA/BA/MA, and review of a professional text or book, and a written report and lecture will be done for all the shifts.



Satisfactory

Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

Rating (0-4): 4 3 2 1 0 PART II: Additional Contributions The supervisor should list additional performance contributions such as special projects or other activities within this evaluation period. PART III: Performance Effectiveness For All Employees Rating Definitions: Outstanding: Performance demonstrates a unusually high level of performance relative to all assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful performance on all major assignments and objectives. Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most assignments and objectives.


Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements. Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements.


Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Interpersonal Skills - The effectiveness of the employee’s interactions with others and as a team participant.

4 3 2 1 0

Willingness and ability to form and maintain working relationships with co-workers, supervisors, customers, and team participants. The ability to convey information through written expressions, oral expression, sharing information willingly, utilizing tact and diplomacy.

RATING



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Work Habits – The extent to which the employee may be relied upon to complete work assignments with a minimum of supervision.

4 3 2 1 0

Reports to work at assigned time; provides adequate notice of absence and uses leave time appropriately; safely operates assigned equipment and provides for proper use and maintenance; work area is kept clean and orderly; time is efficiently used for assigned tasks.

RATING




Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Approach To Work – The characteristics the employee demonstrates while performing job assignments.

4 3 2 1 0

Actively seeks ways to streamline processes; open to new ideas and approaches; initiative; planning and organization; flexible and adaptable; follows instructions; seeks additional training and development.

RATING


PART IV: Performance Effectiveness For Supervisors (This section must be completed for Supervisors only.) Rate supervisors on additional performance effectiveness factors.


Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Leadership – Leads with integrity. 4 3 2 1 0 Demonstrates ethical behavior; adheres to the Sedgwick County Values; committed to providing quality service, creates a work environment of equal opportunity, truthful, forthright interaction among employees, peers, management and the public; demonstrates deep regard for the diversity, needs, feelings, and beliefs of others.; makes effective and timely decisions and takes accountability; considers impact of own behavior/decisions on other people; addresses conflict and works to resolve issues; applies solid problem-solving skills; prioritizes conflicting demands.

RATING




Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Resource Management – Allocation and effective use of resources which are responsive to the changing needs of our customers.

4 3 2 1 0

Fiscal responsibility; effective control and utilization of personnel and equipment within scope of assigned duties; responsive to service delivery issues in a manner that provides added value to the customer.

RATING



Partially Meets

Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations Employee Development – Trains, encourages and recognizes employees for hard work, creativity and innovation in the delivery of quality public services.

4 3 2 1 0

Empowers, trains, and motivates employees and fosters a participatory atmosphere; values diversity; ensures personal competence necessary to effectively perform job duties; facilitates appropriate recruitment and selection of employees according to County policies; fair employment practices and succession planning; exercises sound personnel practices in accordance with County personnel policies.

RATING


PART V:

Performance Improvement Plan The Performance Improvement Plan is mandatory for any performance evaluation results which include a single rating of Partially Meets Expectations or any single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations. The Performance Improvement Plan should include improvement goals and completion timeline of any Primary Job Responsibility and or Effectiveness Factor(s)


receiving a Partially Meets Expectations rating or a Does Not Meet Expectations rating. If a non-exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee will be placed on a probationary status up to six months. If an exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee must complete a Performance Improvement Plan within six months. During this six months, any employee receiving a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, serves at the pleasure of the appropriate hiring authority and may be terminated for any reason not prohibited by Federal or State Law. For new employees serving their initial probation, an extension of probation will be considered part of the initial probation, until the hiring authority recommends removal of the probationary status. The supervisor should summarize any specific improvement goals necessary for continued employment. 1. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 2. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 3. What/How: By When? Review Dates:

Training and Development Plan The supervisor should summarize any specific projects, performance objectives, or training and development plans for the next review period. 1. What/How: By When?


Review Dates: 2. What/How: By When? Review Dates: 3. What/How: By When? Review Dates: PART VI: All Employees Supervisor Comments: EMPLOYEE COMMENTS – Employees may use the attached form to provide written comments as part of the review process. The form is to be returned to the supervisor the next business day after the ratings are discussed. PART VII: OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING

Add up numerical ratings of Part I, Part III and Part IV (as appropriate). The Performance Improvement Plan is mandatory for any performance evaluation results which include a single rating of Partially Meets Expectations or any single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations. The Performance Improvement Plan should include improvement goals and completion timeline of any Primary Job Responsibility and or Effectiveness Factor(s) receiving a Partially Meets Expectations rating or a Does Not Meet Expectations rating. If a non-exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee will be placed on a probationary status up to six months. If an exempt employee receives a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, the employee must complete a Performance Improvement Plan within six months. During this six months, any employee receiving a rating of Does Not Meet in any category, serves at the pleasure of the appropriate hiring authority and may be terminated for any reason not prohibited by Federal or State Law. For new employees serving their initial probation, an extension of probation will be considered part of the initial probation, until the


hiring authority recommends removal of the probationary status. The supervisor should summarize any specific improvement goals necessary for continued employment. The supervisor and employee will review the evaluation. The employee may make any comments at that time or prior to the end of the next scheduled workday, or as agreed by the supervisor, in writing (which will be attached to and become part of the evaluation). A copy of the evaluation will be provided to the employee. Evaluations and distributions must be made prior to the due date noted on the front of the Employee Performance Evaluation. Employees who strongly disagree with the performance evaluation may appeal by submitting a written request to the evaluation reviewer (with a copy to the supervisor) within 14 days of the date the ratings were discussed (date on the last page). The written appeal must state in one typed page or less the perceived problem and desired remedy. The reviewer shall determine the merit of the appeal and render a written decision within 14 days to the employee and supervisor. The written appeal and decision will be attached to and become part of the final evaluation.

NON-SUPERVISORY POSITION: SUPERVISORY POSITION: Total

Score Total

Score Merit Pay Adjustments will not be awarded for a total score of 15 or below for non-supervisory positions or 21 or below for supervisory positions or any employee with a single rating of Does Not Meet Expectations for any Primary Job Responsibility or Effectiveness Performance Factor which places them in a six month performance improvement plan status. Employee Signature:

Date:

I have read and discussed this evaluation with my supervisor and I understand its contents. My signature means that I have been advised of my performance status and does not necessarily imply that I agree with either the appraisal or the contents.

Supervisor Signature Date Reviewer Signature Date

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS FORM

EMPLOYEE

NAME:


(Print Name Clearly)

EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE DATE

SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE

REVIEWER SIGNATURE DATE


Appendix E

SCFD Senior Management Evaluation

SEDGWICK COUNTY

SENIOR MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL

Employee Name: Completed By:

Title: Title:

Division/Department: Type of Review:

Period Covered: From To

SECTION 1 – PERFORMANCE GOALS (Objectives, weights and key performance indicators must be developed with the employee prior to the beginning of the review period.) Rating Definitions: (4) Outstanding: Performance demonstrates a unusually high level of performance relative to all assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. (3) Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful performance on all major assignments and objectives. (2) Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most assignments and objectives. (1) Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements. (0) Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements. List objectives and key performance indicators below and enter the assigned weights (%) in Column 1. Ensure total weight adds to 100%.

Weight (w) Rating

(r) (0 – 4)

Weighted Rating (w * r)

GOAL #1

%

Objectives:


GOAL #2

%

Objectives: GOAL #3

%

Objectives: GOAL #4

%

Objectives: GOAL #5

%

Objectives: GOAL #6

%

Objectives: GOAL #7

%

Objectives: GOAL #8

%

Objectives:


TOTAL RATING 0.00% Sum of

weighted ratings

0.00

SECTION 2 – MANAGEMENT/EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS Rating Definitions: (4) Outstanding: Performance demonstrates a unusually high level of performance relative to all assignments and objectives. Distinguished overall performance. (3) Above Satisfactory: Performance surpasses job requirements. Demonstrates successful performance on all major assignments and objectives. (2) Satisfactory: Performance meets job requirements. Demonstrates successful on all or most assignments and objectives. (1) Partially Meets Expectations: Performance is inconsistent. Meets some job requirements, but is not consistent and is below the acceptable level. Performance must improve to meet minimum job requirements. (0) Does Not Meet Expectations: Performance is consistently below job requirements. Fails to meet job requirements.

Management/Executive Performance Dimensions Performance Rating (0-4)

Interpersonal Skills – The effectiveness of the employee’s interactions with others and as a team participant. Willingness and ability to form and maintain working relationships with co-workers, supervisors, customers, and team participants. The ability to convey information through written expressions, oral expression, sharing information willingly, utilizing tact and diplomacy. Supervisor Comments:


Work Habits – The extent to which the employee may be relied upon to complete work assignments with a minimum of supervision. Reports to work at assigned time; provides adequate notice of absence and uses leave time appropriately; safely operates assigned equipment and provides for proper use and maintenance; work area is kept clean and orderly; time is efficiently used for assigned tasks. Supervisor Comments:

Approach To Work – The characteristics the employee demonstrates while performing job assignments. Actively seeks ways to streamline processes; open to new ideas and approaches; initiative; planning and organization; flexible and adaptable; follows instructions; seeks additional training and development. Supervisor Comments:

Leadership – Leads with integrity. Demonstrates ethical behavior; adheres to the Sedgwick County Values; committed to providing quality service, creates a work environment of equal opportunity, truthful, forthright interaction among employees, peers, management and the public; demonstrates deep regard for the diversity, needs, feelings, and beliefs of others.; makes effective and timely decisions and takes accountability; considers impact of own behavior/decisions on other people; addresses conflict and works to resolve issues; applies solid problem-solving skills; prioritizes conflicting demands. Supervisor Comments:


Resource Management – Allocation and effective use of resources which are responsive to the changing needs of our customers. Fiscal responsibility; effective control and utilization of personnel and equipment within scope of assigned duties; responsive to service delivery issues in a manner that provides added value to the customer. Supervisor Comments:

Employee Development – Trains, encourages and recognizes employees for hard work, creativity and innovation in the delivery of quality public services. Empowers, trains, and motivates employees and fosters a participatory atmosphere; values diversity; ensures personal competence necessary to effectively perform job duties; facilitates appropriate recruitment and selection of employees according to County policies; fair employment practices and succession planning; exercises sound personnel practices in accordance with County personnel policies. Supervisor Comments:

SUM

Average Rating SECTION 3 – MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING Weight

(w) Rating

(r)

Weighted Rating (w * r)

Section 1: Performance Objectives % Section 2: Management/Executive Performance Dimensions %


OVERALL RATING 100% SECTION 4 – COMMENTS STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT The objectives and performance standards have been discussed and agreed to for this rating period.

Employee’s Signature Date

Appraiser’s Signature Date

Reviewer’s Signature Date

MID-YEAR REVIEW ANNUAL REVIEW

Employee’s Signature Date Employee’s Signature Date

Appraiser’s Signature Date Appraiser’s Signature Date

Reviewer’s Signature Date Reviewer’s Signature Date


Appendix F

SCFD Employee Performance Evaluation Instructions


Employee Performance Evaluation Instructions


Sedgwick County Fire Department Interim Review (6 months)

Evaluating employee performance on a regular basis allows supervisors to know where employees stand in terms of job satisfaction, career goals and training needs. Employees need to know what is expected of them and how well they are performing their work. The appraisal system also opens and improves communication between supervisors and subordinates. The evaluation process provides an avenue of counseling or coaching employees if there needs to be improvement in performance. Employers of all organizations have similar objectives:

1. To attract qualified employees. 2. To retain those employees. 3. To motivate employees to direct their efforts toward achieving the values of

the organization. The Interim Review is mandatory and will be completed for all employees at six month intervals. It is to give feedback to employees regarding performance of job responsibilities and review any problems there may be in meeting those responsibilities. The review will allow supervisors to discuss issues and problems before the employee is due a performance review. Supervisors must discuss the Interim review form with every new employee at the outset of their employment, explaining the job duties, expectations, and begin to establish objectives noted on the form. Personnel will provide each department a supply of Interim Review forms and will also send a report to department heads indicating when their employees are scheduled for an Interim Review. The Interim Review is to be reviewed by the department head and signed in the designated area on the form. It is the department’s responsibility to provide the opportunity for employees to be given a copy of their evaluation. Completed forms will be maintained at the department level until employees have their Performance Review, at which time a copy of each Interim Review will be attached to the Performance Review and returned to the Personnel Department. Performance Reviews will be returned to the department if a copy of each Interim Review is not attached. The Performance Review will not be processed and the employee will not receive a salary adjustment until Personnel has received the Performance Review with the Interim Review (s).


Sedgwick County Fire Department Performance Review (12 or 18 months)

The performance review is used every twelve or eighteen months, depending on the employee’s placement in the pay matrix or at either the employee’s or supervisors request. A supply of these forms will be maintained in all departments. Personnel will send a report to department heads indicating employee Performance Review due dates. Part I: Employee Completes The employee should list his/her successes from their previous list of Performance Objectives as well as any additional successes or accomplishments using additional pages if necessary. Part II: Supervisor Completes The thirteen areas of the performance criteria to be reviewed and rated are the same as the Interim Review. The same guidelines noted are to be used to review and rate the employee. Criteria for reviewing and rating are as follows. Outstanding: The employee continuously exhibits superior performance and effort. Exceeds: The employee’s performance often exceeds expectations for experience and responsibility level. Results often contribute to improved or innovative work practices. Fully Meets: The employee’s performance meets all and exceeds some expectations for experience and responsibility level. This category applies to strong performance. Meets Most: The employee’s performance meets performance expectations for experience and responsibility level. The employee could demonstrate improvement in certain performance areas. Does Not Meet: The employee’s performance does not meet minimum performance expectations for experience and responsibility level. Improvement must be immediate and significant. The supervisor must complete the comments section under EACH performance criteria to provide the employee feedback on job performance. If the supervisor marks Outstanding, Exceeds, or Does Not Meet, it is mandatory that the supervisor complete the comments section of the evaluation explaining why the employee was rated in these performance areas and provide examples.


Instructions: Job Knowledge • Technical competence/skills • Ability to apply knowledge to job • Knowledge of relevant policies and procedures • Understands job duties and standards

Instructions: Dependability • Punctuality • Attendance and appropriate use of leave benefits • Meets deadlines • Meets work schedules • Fulfills job responsibilities • Meets commitments in a conscientious, thorough and timely manner • Extent of supervision required

Instructions: Job Performance (Production):

• Accountability • Quality/quantity of work • Initiative • Follows instructions • Practices work place safety • Resources utilization • Schedules met over which the employee has control • Sees and acts on opportunities independently • Uses time efficiently

Instructions: Interpersonal Skills • Written/oral communication • Flexibility/adaptability • Honesty/fairness • Teamwork/peer relations • Practices equal opportunity • Customer/client skills • Listens attentively • Ability to adjust to work interruptions and work schedules • Exhibits self control • Exhibits a commitment to working with a diverse work force and the public • Establishes positive relationships with the public Instructions: Employee Characteristics

• Commitment to the organization and quality public services • Attitude • Loyalty • Self improvement


• Demonstrates professional maturity (Positive attitudes & behavior towards unfavorable decisions)

• Judgment/decision making • Involvement in internal/external training and participation • Presents himself/herself in a professional appearance • Reports for work with proper clothing/uniform, clean and well groomed according to

department standards

Instructions: Physical Fitness • Completes daily • Maintains good health routine • Actively participates with crew • Leads by example • Exibits positive behavior and attitude in participation • Good health/weight management

Instructions: Planning and Organizing • Plans and coordinates projects • Organizes staff and schedules work • Develops priorities of projects • Sets realistic goals and establishes a reporting system to assure completion • Anticipates obstacles and responds to changes when required • Processes done in a thoughtful and articulate manner Instructions: Judgment and Decision Making • Makes timely decisions • Analyzes available information and identifies problems and conditions • Reaches logical and effective conclusions/solutions • Recognizes when potential benefit of making decisions with existing information outweighs

those of delaying decisions until more data can be gathered • Fosters two-way communication with citizens and employees to build trust, confidence

and team work to ensure informed decisions as the County mission indicates Instructions: Employee Development • Encourages employees toward further development • Encourages employees to enroll in service training and outside development programs • Recognizes and utilizes diversity of employee talents, skills and abilities


Instructions: Coaching, Counseling and Evaluating • Recognizes employees for hard work, creativity and innovation in delivering quality

public services • Willing and able to use formal techniques to recognize good performance and correct

behavioral problems or to remove a problem employee from the department • Provides employees with constructive suggestions • Assesses employees with an unbiased, open-minded attitude • Sets professional and personal goals for their subordinates (goals should have completion

dates attached) Instructions: Leadership • Demonstrates a good example or role model • Influences the activity of others, establishes credibility • Effectively delegates responsibilities • Inspires confidence • Motivates employees to their maximum effectiveness • Enthusiastically communicates and supports visions, values and leadership principles • Encourages high level productivity • Actively supports the County’s effort in equal opportunity and diversity • Provides a work environment that encourages, rewards and recognizes employees for

hard work, creativity and innovation in their jobs of developing quality public services as the County mission indicates

• Promotes a safe and secure work environment Instructions: Control of Operation/Resource Management

• Fiscal responsibility and conservation of resources (as applicable) • Monitors projects to completion, on time, and within budget • Effectively introduces new methods and procedures while identifying new ideas and

generates a climate for implementation • Establish methods for effectively measuring and evaluating activities while making

improvements or necessary corrections • Gives thorough attention to the County mission to allocate and use resources for

basic and essential services that are responsive to the changing needs of our community

Instructions: Innovation

• Ability to get out of the box • Innovation / Creativity • Seeks new methods and procedures for quality/quantity improvement • Recognizes problems and suggests possible solutions to different situations • Encourages other employees to innovate, try pilot projects/programs to improve fire

service delivery


Part III: Supervisor’s comments/Employee’s comments This section provides an opportunity for both the supervisor and the employee to make comments regarding the evaluation. The role of the supervisor as a performance coach is to monitor employee performance relative to goals, objectives and standards. The supervisor provides corrective feedback as necessary, and reviews expectations. Ongoing coaching is a vital part of the performance management process. It is the responsibility of the supervisor and the employee. The employee should feel comfortable in soliciting coaching, and the supervisor should seek and capitalize on coaching opportunities. Throughout the performance year, the employee and supervisor should:

• Meet frequently; • Offer feedback; and • Address all aspects of performance

Part IV: Performance Objectives for the Next Review Period Goals and objectives are helpful for setting purposes, clear expectations, and gaining commitment. Objectives need to meet the following criteria:






An objective is reached face-to-face. It involves bargaining, resolving disagreements and reaching mutually agreed upon commitments. See appendix A for a list of examples (not limited to the attached list) A well written objective communicates:



Objectives represent specific outcomes or results that the employee will be accountable for during the year. These objectives can reflect one-time events, intermittent work or ongoing job responsibilities. These objectives should include any productivity or production standards established for the employee. One or more objectives are to be set by both the supervisor and the employee. Part V: Signatures Notes “salary adjustment (if eligible) granted” or “salary adjustment (if eligible) extended six months”. Check the appropriate box. The supervisor, the employee and the reviewer should all sign and date the form. It is the department’s responsibility to provide the opportunity for employees to be given a copy of their evaluation. The evaluation is then submitted to Personnel for processing, along with a copy of each Interim Review form. The Performance Review form will be returned to the department if a copy of each Interim review form is not attached. The Performance Review will not be processed, and the employee will not receive a salary adjustment until all required forms have been received by personnel. The evaluation must be completed and returned to Personnel by the due date. Personnel will send out late notices to bureau directors/department heads for the Performance Reviews not received by their due date.

Appendix A The following are example categories of performance objectives that can be used in Part IV of the Supervisor Version of the Employee Performance Evaluation. This is a list of examples and not meant to be a complete list, nor is the evaluator and/or the employee limited to only the items listed. I. Emergency Response: a. Medical 1. medical-general 2. vehicle-accidents 3. farm/industrial 4. trauma


b. Rescue 1. buildings-upright structures 2. extrication 3. water related incidents 4. trapped victims 5. below grade incidents and confined space c. Fire 1. structure 2. vehicle 3. groundcover 4. misc. d. Haz-Mat 1. chemical odor 2. fire of hazardous materials 3. haz-mat incidents involving transportation situations 4. leaks/spills e. Hazardous Situations 1. gas leak 2. powerline down 3. misc. f. Natural Disasters 1. tornado 2. flood 3. storms/wind g. Mutual Aid 1. automatic 2. mutual aid agreements II. Non-Emergency Responses: 1. washdowns 2. stand-bys 3. carbon monoxide monitoring 4. check smoke/detector 5. assist law enforcement 6. assist citizens 7. roadside assistance 8. lock outs


9. assist other governmental agencies III. Fire Prevention/ Public Service: 1. building inspections 2. burn permits 3. pre-fire planning 4. building information forms 5. hydrant inspection 6. building familiarization 7. community events 8. road permits 9. map productions 10. station tours and demonstrations 11. adopt-a-school 12. reach program 13. fire patrol IV. Training: 1. medical related 2. fire related 3. rescue techniques 4. apparatus/equipment 5. physical 6. outside agencies/fire departments 7. safety V. Station/Vehicle Maintenance: 1. building 2. vehicle 3. grounds 4. equipment/tools 5. hose VI. Management Skills: 1. record keeping 2. reports/documentation 3. employee evaluations 4. computer/communications 5. people skills


a. administrative b. employees c. public 6. SOG/Policy 7. radio/communications 8. incident command VII. Off Duty Activities: 1. public service events 2. committee involvement 3. educational advancement


Appendix G

SCFD Sick Leave Data

2006 Sick Leave Usage

Day of Week # of

occurrences % Total Hours Sunday 69 13.19% 1,656.00 Monday 76 14.53% 1,792.00 Tuesday 77 14.72% 1,848.00 Wednesday 79 15.11% 1,896.00 Thursday 70 13.38% 1,680.00 Friday 86 16.44% 2,040.00 Saturday 66 12.62% 1,585.00 Grand Total 523 100.00% 12,497.00

Rank Group # of

occurrences % Total Hours Average

Per Use Employee

Firefighter 248 47.42% 5,929.00 82.35 Hours Captain 107 20.46% 2,568.00 95.11 Hours Division Chief 27 5.16% 648.00 81.00 Hours Lieutenant 141 26.96% 3,352.00 159.62 Hours Grand Total 523 100.00% 12,497.00 97.63 Hours

Age Groups # of

occurrences % Total Hours 0-25 9 1.72% 192.00 26-30 23 4.40% 552.00 31-35 82 15.68% 1,968.00 36-40 47 8.99% 1,128.00 41-45 92 17.59% 2,209.00 46-50 97 18.55% 2,328.00 51-55 125 23.90% 2,968.00 56-60 10 1.91% 240.00 60+ 38 7.27% 912.00 Grand Total 523 100.00% 12,497.00

Activity # of

occurrences % Total Hours Sick family 138 26.39% 3,313.00 Sick Self 385 73.61% 9,184.00 Grand Total 523 100.00% 12,497.00

Average Sick Leave Usage – Per Member/ Per Month = 8.14 Hours



Day of Week # of

occurrences % Total Hours

Sunday 83 13.47% 1,968.00 Monday 99 16.07% 2,309.75 Tuesday 82 13.31% 1,929.50 Wednesday 96 15.58% 2,240.00 Thursday 82 13.31% 1,944.00 Friday 93 15.10% 2,156.00 Saturday 81 13.15% 1,927.00 Grand Total 616 100.00% 14,474.25

Rank Group # of


Average Per

Use Employee


Age Groups # of


0-25 7 1.14% 162.00 26-30 23 3.73% 552.00 31-35 75 12.18% 1,800.00 36-40 58 9.42% 1,392.00 41-45 121 19.64% 2,877.75 46-50 156 25.32% 3,610.50 51-55 163 26.46% 3,768.00 56-60 12 1.95% 288.00 60+ 1 0.16% 24.00 Grand Total 616 100.00% 14,474.25

Activity # of


Sick family 153 24.84% 3,610.00 Sick Self 463 75.16% 10,864.25 Grand Total 616 100.00% 14,474.25




Day of Week # of


Sunday 74 15.81% 1,584.00 Monday 77 16.45% 1,660.00 Tuesday 63 13.46% 1,172.50 Wednesday 64 13.68% 1,330.00 Thursday 70 14.96% 1,483.50 Friday 59 12.61% 1,324.00 Saturday 61 13.03% 1,344.00 Grand Total 468 100.00% 9,898.00

Rank Group # of


Average Per

Use Employee


Age Groups # of


0-25 12 2.56% 264.00 26-30 31 6.62% 744.00 31-35 52 11.11% 1,004.50 36-40 61 13.03% 1,327.50 41-45 83 17.74% 1,680.00 46-50 99 21.15% 2,024.50 51-55 113 24.15% 2,469.50 56-60 17 3.63% 384.00 Grand Total 468 100.00% 9,898.00

Activity # of


Sick family 145 30.98% 3,120.00 Sick Self 323 69.02% 6,778.00 Grand Total 468 100.00% 9,898.00



Appendix H

Questionnaire

1. Does your organization use an employee evaluation instrument? Yes No

2. Does the instrument have a category for attendance and/or punctuality?

Yes

No

N/A 3. Is sick leave use a factor in the employee evaluation instrument?

Yes

No

N/A 4. Does the employee evaluation instrument you use have a grading scale of?

1-2 (Satisfactory or Not-Satisfactory)

1-3

1-4

1-5

Greater than a 5 point scale

N/A 5. Does your organization have a guideline or established benchmarks for evaluating and grading benefit leave use (sick leave)?

Yes

No

N/A 6. Does your organization provide any training to employees on what is considered proper use of benefit leave?

Yes


No

N/A 7. In your organization how is benefit leave use graded on the employee evaluation?

We have a guideline

Each supervisor grades independently

Guidance is given to supervisors from superiors

We do not grade benefit leave use

N/A 8. Could you please provide a brief summary of your organizations methods of grading employees on benefit leave use (specifically sick leave) on evaluations?

9. Could you please fill out the following information? Name Rank or Title Organization Email Address City State Country

I appreciate the time you have taken to answer my questionnaire. If you have any SOP's or SOG's on this subject you can send them to [email protected] Once again...Thanks. Captain Craig Leu Sedgwick County Fire District #1 Sedgwick County, Kansas

benefit leave use and the employee evaluation instrument

Documents