Department of Social Welfare and Development GUIDE ON THE DSWD PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION CY 2013

Transcription

1 Department of Social Welfare and Development GUIDE ON THE DSWD PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION CY 2013 I. RATIONALE In 2013, a harmonized/master Performance Contract (PC) template has been developed to specify the annual performance goals of each Office/Bureau/Service (OBS). This was the result from the Department s articulation of its medium term goals known as the Strategic Goals (SG) and the cascading of SGs along with the existing performance frameworks to the different Offices, Bureaus and Services. This is also in relation to the Performance Evaluation System for Third Level Officials or the adoption of Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) mandated by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), prescribed rating forms must be duly accomplished and submitted to the CESB by first quarter of the succeeding year of the rating period. Failing which, officials will not have a performance rating on record. The performance management system (PMS) has four (4) stages: (1) Performance Planning and Commitment; (2) Performance Monitoring and Coaching; (3) Performance Review and Evaluation, and (4) Performance Rewarding and Development Planning. The third stage is the performance review and evaluation where accomplishments are evaluated based on performance indicators identified for commitments made during the Performance Planning and Commitment stage. The Department aims to complete its Performance Review and Evaluation (or assessment) by first quarter and submit the required performance rating of its Officials by the set deadline to the CESB. The result of the evaluation will also be a basis for the conditions and requirements of the grant of the performance-based bonus (PBB) for CY This shall serve as guide for the conduct on the implementation of the third stage in DSWD s performance management process. II. OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF OFFICE PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMACE CONTRACT OF OFFICIALS General: The objective of the Performance Review and Evaluation (PRE) session is to assess performance of officials based on targets and indicators committed in their CY 2013 Office Performance Contract (OPC) Individual Performance Contract (IPC) or Adjusted PC forms. 1

2 Specifics: 1. Identify issues and recommendations that will input into the performance contract for the next rating period; 2. Determine the performance rating on the Office and Individual Performance Contract and Review (OPCR/IPCR) form for CY 2013 of Head of Offices; 3. Identify recommendations and best practices experienced by the OBS. III. COVERAGE, PARTICIPANTS AND DURATION 1. The PRE Session will cover performance of Heads of Field Offices, Bureaus and Services for CY They key documents that will be used in this session are: OPCR and IPCR with self-rating; Scorecards from pertinent OBS in the Central Office; Validating Tool from OBS and FOs (for OPCR) Satisfaction Rating Guide from OBS and FOs (for IPCR) Guide on Computing Performance Ratings (version 3) 3. The Performance Review and Evaluation shall be conducted with the following: The Head of Office, Bureau or Service (HOBS) as the Ratee; The Cluster Head as the final Rater/evaluator of accomplishments to approve the PCR; Panel Members (for the Field Offices) composed of the following: o Representative from different clusters as the resource person on the accomplishments of the FOs and assist the Rater/s in validating claims of the Ratee. 4. The duration of the session is set for about two (2) hours per Office. IV. PROCEDURE FOR THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EVALUATION SESSION A. Pre Evaluation For Field Offices Only 1. The HRDB shall request OBS to prepare their scorecard for the Field Offices and shall furnish copies of PCs to all OBS. 2. All OBS at the Central Office shall review the OPC and IPC of Regional Directors and prepare their scorecard specifying the target being monitored, accomplishment and proposed rating and reason for rating such. This shall also include the OBS monitoring of the guidelines, memorandum circulars and other documents they requested for comments/inputs/recommendation from the FOs, the description of 2

3 substance on their comments and the proposed ratings (a sample template in Annex 1). 3. The scorecard shall be submitted to the OSM and HRDB on set deadline for reference during the PRE session. For both Field Offices and CO OBS 4. To aid the OPCR PRE session, the OBS at CO shall rate the FOs while the FOs shall rate the CO-OBS to gauge the overall performance of the office using the Validating Tool (Annex 2). To aid the IPCR PRE session, the OBS shall rate the FOs while FOs shall rate the CO-OBS to gauge the level of satisfaction about the Official s ability to deliver the expected leadership and managerial performance that the position requires using the Satisfaction Rating Guide (Annex 3). 5. The Cluster Head/Rater shall set the schedule for the PRE session for each OBS. 6. All HOBS shall prepare his/her OPCR and IPCR with self-rating and shall this to the PDPB and HRDB 2-3 days before the PRE session for review on the computation of ratings. a. Accomplish the OPCR/IPCR (Annex 4). The Form is the OPC/IPC with additional three (3) major columns to indicate: o Actual accomplishment (e.g. absolute number and percentage of actual accomplishment with the universe (60% or 60 out of 100), qualitative description and date submitted/accomplished); o Ratings (Quantity, Quality, Time and Average Ratings) (See Annex 5 for Guide on How to Compute ratings); o Remarks or comments on the targets and performance indicator, challenges encountered, facilitating factors, suggestions, etc. b. Accomplish the self-assessment for LMCAT (refer to Annex 6 for instruction). This shall include the critical incidents or evidences on demonstrated behaviours during the rating period. B. Actual Evaluation B.1 OPCR and IPCR PRE Session 1. The Secretariat shall open the session by reading the ground rules, introducing the participants and respond to any questions that may be asked about the process. Afterwhich, the floor shall be given to the HOBS. 2. The HOBS shall present to the panel the Office/Regional Situationer specifying its profile and Office inputs such as number of human resources, budget allocation, and difficulties encountered, among others. 3

4 3. The HOBS shall present to the panel the performance target, actual accomplishment and self-rating. 4. The Rater/Coach-Monitor may require the HOBS to identify its Best, Good, Problematic performances and may request evidence to support the self-rating claimed by the HOBS. 4. The panel members may clarify/comment on the accomplishments or the evidence presented in aiding the Rater to score the accomplishment. Panel members should avoid dwelling into how or why a performance target was set; providing lengthy technical assistance or recommendations. 5. The Cluster representatives shall take note on their areas of concern and/or respond to them accordingly. 6. The Coach-Monitors shall take note of key points and ensure that these are addressed in the next performance rating period. 7. The Rater/Coach-Monitor shall request feedback/suggestion on the following: Assistance needed on challenges encountered Master PC template 8. The Panel members, Coach-Monitor and Rater shall approve the OPCR and IPCR by affixing their signature. The Assistant Secretary of the OSec Cluster or the Undersecretary of the IDG shall take over the session should the Secretary be unable to stay or attend. B.2 LMCAT Feedbacking Attached is a separate Guide for LMCAT rating and feedbacking for Officials (Annex 7). This shall include the critical incidents or evidences on demonstrated behaviours during the rating period. C. Post PRE Session 1. The HOBS shall submit the approved PCRs to the PDPB, OSM for their reference and HRDB for submission to the CESB on the CEPES rating of Officials. 2. After the retrieval of the LMCAT from the superior, peer and subordinate raters, the HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall process the computation on the LMCAT ratings that will compose percentage depending on the type of office the total rating of the Officials. 3. The HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall forward the Official s DSWD internal rating for his/ her concurrence. The same shall be forwarded to Coach and Rater for concurrence. 4

5 4. The HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal shall submit to the CESB the approved IPCR with the Behavioral Competency Scale (BCS) ratings for processing of the CESPES rating of Officials. 5. Once CESB issued the CESPES rating to concerned official, official shall provide the HRDB/HRDU/PMS focal copies of his rating for file and reference. ANNEX 1 Objective: The scorecard provides the matrix of accomplishments of Field Offices with the corresponding rating from OBS standards on the key result/targets committed in the PC and the 1-7 rating scale. (The OBS may revise their own scorecard similar to the 5

6 content of this sample). Instruction: Indicate the performance target and the actual accomplishment specifying the number of output, quality description, date submission receipt, proposed rating and reason for rating such or summary of feedback to FOs accomplishment. SCORECARD FOR FIELD OFFICES CY 2013 [NAME OF OBS] Field Office CAR I II III IV-A IV-B V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII CARAGA Key Result/ Performance Target/ Indicator Actual Accomplishment (Quantity, Quality and Date Receipt) Propose d Rating Reason for Rating/ Remarks Prepared by: (Name of Head of OBS) (Office) 6

7 Instruction: The Validating Tool aims to gauge the overall performance of an office. It shall be used to provide a general assessment on the Field Office s accomplishments based on the work dealings/relationship/encounters of your office with the FOs last year (CY 2013). Please provide your feedback in the space provided in terms of Quantity, Quality and Time. If in case you do not have the capacity to rate the FO, indicate N/A, not applicable. Please submit the completed Tool to the HRDB. ANNEX 2 VALIDATING TOOL FOR FIELD OFFICES January to December CY 2013 FO/ OBS Quantity How many % of the total target outputs relevant to your concern or deliverables did the FO accomplish? If you are to give a score of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, what will be your overall score for QUANTITY? Quality How would you rate the overall Quality of outputs of the FO based on your concern or deliverables? Is it relevant? Reliable? Useful? Innovation? If you are to give a score of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, what will be your overall score for QUALITY? Timeliness Were the outputs delivered within the target period of submission? How many % of the time? On time? Ahead? Late? If you are to give a score of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, what will be your overall score for TIMELINESS? Prepared by: (Name and Signature of EXECOM//MACOM/RD Rater) (Office) 7

8 Instruction: This Satisfaction Rating Guide is a tool to gauge the level of satisfaction about the RD s ability to deliver the expected leadership and managerial performance that the position requires. Using the 1-7 point scale, with 7 being the highest, please rate RDs in terms of quantity, quality and time. For the strengths and areas for improvement, kindly provide feedback on the columns provided by indicating situations/incidents that you have observed. If you do not have capacity to rate the Ratee, indicate N/A (not applicable). Please submit the completed Guide to HRDB. SATISFACTION RATING GUIDE January to December CY 2013 ANNEX 3 Officials FO/ OBS Quantity In a scale of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, how satisfied are you on the percent of accomplishment that the RD delivered through his/her managerial skills? Quality In a scale of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, how satisfied are you on the relevance, reliability and innovativeness of the Programs, Activities and Projects that the RD led? Timeliness In a scale of 1-7, with 7 being the highest, how satisfied are you in his/her ability to respond/deliver targets on time? Strengths What do you commend most in his/her leadership/ managerial style, if any? Areas for Improvement In what leadership areas would you recommend her to improve on, if any? Prepared by: (Name and Signature of EXECOM//MACOM/RD Rater) (Office) 8

9 Instruction: This Form is the Office/Individual Performance Contract with additional three (3) columns. Pleas fill-in the columns and indicate the following: a. Actual Accomplishments: e.g. actual number or percentage of current accomplishment (60% or 60 out of 100); actual qualitative accomplishment based on performance indicator (Guidelines/Report/comments drafted/for finalization/endorsed to OBS-CO/Secretary); b. Ratings (for Quantity, Quality, Time and Average Rating) c. Remarks or comments on the performance indicator, challenges encountered to accomplishing the target, facilitating factors, suggestions, or proposed changes, etc. OFFICE PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND REVIEW (Name of Office/Bureau/Service) January-December CY ANNEX 4 I,, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my Office. KEY RESULT AREA/ Major Final Output/ Program, Activity, Project Success/ Performance Indicators/Measures (Quantity, Quality, Time) Weight Allotted Budget Accountable Division/Unit Actual Accomplishment Rating Qn Ql T Ave. Remarks Final Average Rating Adjectival Rating Prepared by: Concurred by: Rating Approved by: (Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach Monitor) CORAZON JULIANO-SOLIMAN Director/ Date: (Position)/ Date: (Position)/Date: 9

10 INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND REVIEW (Name of Office/Bureau/Service) CY I,, commit to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of the following targets and indicators for my duties. KEY RESULT AREA/ Program, Activity, Project/ Deliverable Success/ Performance Indicators/Measures (Quantity, Quality, Time) Weight Actual Accomplishment Rating Qn Ql T Ave. Remarks/Coaching Final Average Rating Adjectival Rating Prepared by: Concurred by: (Name of Ratee) (Name of Coach) (Name of Director/HOBS) (Position) (Position) (Position) Date: Date: Date: 10

11 Annex 6 INSTRUCTION FOR SELF-RATING LEADERSHIP AND MANAGERIAL COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT TOOL (L&M CAT) I. Objective The Leadership and Managerial Competency Assessment Tool (LMCAT) used behavioral indicators derived from the Competency-based Leadership Development Program (CBLDP) intervention by the Capacity Building Bureau. This tool aims to measure the leadership and managerial competencies of officials. II. Instruction 1. Please accomplish the needed information by filling out all the blanks. Kindly put your name as the Ratee Name of Official being Rated. 2. On the statements indicated, please provide your self-assessment by encircling the number that corresponds to the frequency you demonstrated the behavior. The scale are defined as: 7 = Always exhibited the behaviour 6 = Almost always exhibited the behaviour 5 = Very often exhibited the behaviour 4 = Oftentimes exhibited the behaviour 3 = Sometimes exhibited the behaviour 2 = Rarely exhibited the behaviour 1 = Never exhibited the behaviour No basis for rating/unable to answer 3. On the Evidence box, kindly cite critical incident/s or behaviors that you exhibited during the rating period. 11