Human Resources Manual

HHS Instruction 430-6

Issue Date: February 26, 2008

[Material Transmitted:]{.underline}

###### Department of Health and Human Services Senior Executive Service and Organizational

Performance Management System, dated November 2007.

[Material Superseded:]{.underline}

HHS Instruction 430-6 -- Performance Management for Members of the
Senior Executive Service, 430-6 (dated 5/1/97)

[Background:]{.underline}

The instruction is deleted in its entirety as it has been superseded by
the Department of Health and Human Services Senior Executive Service and
Organizational Performance Management System, dated November 2007. The
Department of Health and Human Services Senior Executive Service and
Organizational Performance Management System is designed to produce
accountability for results for all HHS senior executives and is the
foundation for cascading performance expectations throughout every level
of the agency.

Antonia T. Harris

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources

> Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management

INSTRUCTION 430-6

![](media/image1.png){width="1.6527777777777777in"
height="1.6944444444444444in"}

**HHS Senior Executive Service and Organizational Performance Management
System**

**Table of Contents**

[[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1]{.smallcaps}](#executive-summary)

[Summary of Changes 1](#summary-of-changes)

[1. INTRODUCTION 1](#introduction)

[1.1 Purpose 1](#purpose)

[1.2 Authority and Coverage 1](#authority-and-coverage)

[1.3 Responsible Parties 1](#responsible-parties)

[1.4 SES and Organizational Performance Management System Overview
1](#ses-and-organizational-performance-management-system-overview)

[2. ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT 1](#organizational-assessment)

[2.1 OPDIV and STAFFDIV Organizational Self-Assessment Input
1](#opdiv-and-staffdiv-organizational-self-assessment-input)

[2.2 Independent Departmental Organizational Assessment Input
1](#independent-departmental-organizational-assessment-input)

[2.3 SCOPE Review 1](#scope-review)

[2.4 Final Determinations 1](#final-determinations)

[3. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
1](#individual-performance-appraisals)

[3.1 HHS SES Member Performance Plan
1](#hhs-ses-member-performance-plan)

[3.1.1 Plan Establishment 1](#plan-establishment)

[3.1.2 Mandatory Critical Elements 1](#mandatory-critical-elements)

[3.2 Individual Appraisal Performance Ratings
1](#__RefHeading___Toc174158559)

[3.2.1 Individual Critical Element Rating Criteria
1](#individual-critical-element-rating-criteria)

[3.2.2 Summary Rating Criteria 1](#summary-rating-criteria)

[3.3 Individual Appraisal Process 1](#individual-appraisal-process)

[3.3.1 Progress Reviews 1](#progress-reviews)

[3.3.2 Annual Review Self-Assessment 1](#annual-review-self-assessment)

[3.3.3 Initial Summary Rating 1](#initial-summary-rating)

[3.3.4 Higher-Level Review 1](#higher-level-review)

[3.3.5 Performance Review Board Review
1](#performance-review-board-review)

[3.3.6 OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head Review
1](#opdiv-and-staffdiv-head-review)

[3.3.7 SCOPE Review 1](#scope-review-1)

[3.3.8 Annual Summary Rating 1](#annual-summary-rating)

[3.3.9 Merit Systems Protection Board Appeals
1](#merit-systems-protection-board-appeals)

[3.4 Using Appraisal Results 1](#using-appraisal-results)

[3.4.1 Exceptional and Fully Successful Ratings
1](#exceptional-and-fully-successful-ratings)

[3.4.2 Minimally Satisfactory Ratings
1](#minimally-satisfactory-ratings)

[3.4.3 Unsatisfactory Ratings 1](#unsatisfactory-ratings)

[4. IMPLEMENTATION 1](#implementation)

[4.1 Training and Communication 1](#training-and-communication)

[4.2 Recordkeeping and Record Uses 1](#recordkeeping-and-record-uses)

[4.3 Monitoring and Evaluating the System
1](#monitoring-and-evaluating-the-system)

[5. DEFINITIONS 1](#definitions)

[ATTACHMENT A: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT TIMELINE
1](#attachment-a-organizational-assessment-timeline)

[ATTACHMENT B: INDIVIDUAL APPRAISAL TIMELINE
1](#attachment-b-individual-appraisal-timeline)

[ATTACHMENT C: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1](#attachment-c-organizational-assessment-form)

[ATTACHMENT D: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS SUMMARY FORM
1](#attachment-d-organizational-assessment-ratings-summary-form)

[ATTACHMENT E: OPM GUIDANCE 1](#attachment-e-opm-guidance)

#  {#section .unnumbered}

![](media/image2.png){width="0.6138888888888889in" height="0.625in"}

SES and Organizational Performance Management System (PMS)

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Enhancements                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Added Executive Summary and Section-by-Section Summary of Changes |
|                                                                       |
| -   Clarifies that the SCOPE will issue **overall** organizational    |
|     rating only. Eliminates "reconsideration process."                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Streamlined Organizational Assessment template                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Defines three critical elements weighted evenly with strong       |
|     emphasis on measurable, result-oriented indicators of success.    |
|     Meets OPM's requirement that at least 60% of the SES performance  |
|     plan focus on business results.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Establishes formula for deriving the initial summary rating in    |
|     the individual appraisal process.                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Guiding Principles                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The PMS is designed to produce accountability for results for every   |
| one of HHS's senior executives and is the foundation for cascading    |
| performance expectations through every level of the agency. The PMS:  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Streamlines, clarifies, and standardizes the SES performance      |
|     management process;                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Aligns the performance evaluation process with Departmental       |
|     priorities, with explicit links between the PMS and the HHS       |
|     mission, strategic plan, and human capital plan;                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Incorporates organizational performance results into decisions    |
|     about individual performance ratings and recognition;             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Makes meaningful distinctions in individual performance, based on |
|     objective, results-based metrics; and                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Secretary's Council on Performance Evaluation (SCOPE)**         |
|     provides oversight and accountability for the SES Performance     |
|     Management System at the Departmental level.  The SCOPE evaluates |
|     the performance of OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs through a formal          |
|     organizational assessment and assures that individual appraisals  |
|     overall are fair, credible, and broadly reflect organizational    |
|     performance. The SCOPE is composed of the Deputy Secretary, Chief |
|     of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Assistant Secretary for          |
|     Administration and Management, Assistant Secretary for Resources  |
|     and Technology, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,  |
|     and Secretary's Counselors.                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Organizational Assessment                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The PMS outlines a process for evaluating the performance of each HHS |
| OPDIV and STAFFDIV in achieving the Department's priorities. The      |
| organizational assessment:                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Solicits a self-assessment of results achieved by each OPDIV and  |
|     STAFFDIV;                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Incorporates independent input on organizational outcomes from    |
|     senior-level staff in the Office of the Secretary;                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Includes review and oversight by the Secretary's Council on       |
|     Performance Evaluation (SCOPE); and                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Results in a rating of Exceptional, Fully Successful, Minimally   |
|     Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory for each OPDIV and STAFFDIV.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Individual Performance (Planning, Monitoring, Appraising, and         |
| Recognition)                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The PMS delineates the steps that must occur in determining an        |
| individual SES member's performance rating and, when appropriate,     |
| recognition. The individual appraisal process:                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Describes and defines four differentiated performance levels      |
|     (Exceptional, Fully Successful, Minimally Satisfactory,           |
|     Unsatisfactory);                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Aligns individual performance plan critical elements with         |
|     Departmental priorities, and holds executives accountable for the |
|     rigorous assessment of subordinate's performance.                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Includes a self-assessment, supervisor's initial summary rating,  |
|     higher-level review, Performance Review Board review, SCOPE       |
|     review, and final annual summary rating issued by the Secretary   |
|     (or designee);                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Ensures that SES members' individual ratings and recognition are  |
|     broadly consistent with the organizational assessment of their    |
|     OPDIV or STAFFDIV;                                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   Requires that individuals be rated Exceptional on all critical    |
|     performance elements to receive an overall rating of Exceptional  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Rewards Exceptional and Fully Successful performance with         |
|     bonuses, pay increases, and/or awards; and                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Imposes consequences on less than Fully Successful performance    |
|     through training, reassignment, or removal from the SES.          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Implementation and Management of System

  The ASAM Office of Human Resources is responsible for implementing the
  PMS, including communication, training, monitoring, and evaluation. Key
  timeframes\* in the organizational and individual assessment processes
  are as follows:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------------------+-----------+---+------------------------+---------+
| Organizational     |           |   | Individual Performance |         |
| Performance        |           |   |                        |         |
+--------------------+-----------+---+------------------------+---------+
| OPDIV              | Late Sep. |   | Establish Plans for    | Mid --  |
| organizational     |           |   | Next Rating Period     | Late    |
| self-assessment    | Late      |   |                        | Oct.    |
| due                | Se        |   | Mid-year reviews       |         |
|                    | p.--Early |   |                        | April   |
| Independent OS     | Oct.      |   | Individual             |         |
| assessment         |           |   | Self-Assessments due   | Early   |
|                    | Early     |   |                        | Oct.    |
| SCOPE review &     | Oct.      |   | Supervisors' initial   |         |
| recommendations    |           |   | summary ratings        | Mid     |
|                    | Mid-Oct.  |   |                        | Oct.    |
| Final ratings      |           |   | Higher-level reviews   |         |
| determined by      | Mid-Oct.  |   |                        | Early   |
| Secretary          |           |   | OPDIV PRB reviews      | Nov.    |
|                    |           |   |                        |         |
| Communicate        |           |   | SCOPE review &         | Late    |
| results to OPDIV   |           |   | recommendations        | Oct.    |
|                    |           |   |                        |         |
|                    |           |   | Final summary ratings  | M       |
|                    |           |   | determined by          | id-Nov. |
|                    |           |   | Secretary              |         |
|                    |           |   |                        | End of  |
|                    |           |   | Communicate results to | Nov.    |
|                    |           |   | OPDIV                  |         |
|                    |           |   |                        | Early   |
|                    |           |   |                        | Dec.    |
+--------------------+-----------+---+------------------------+---------+

\*Actual dates will be communicated in annual close-out guidance issued
by ASAM.

# Summary of Changes

+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| **Section**       | **Edit**                  | *    | *    | **D   |
|                   |                           | *Old | *New | ate** |
|                   |                           | p    | p    |       |
|                   |                           | g.** | g.** |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [S                | Updated                   |      | 3    | Nov   |
| ection-by-Section |                           |      |      | 2007  |
| Summary of        |                           |      |      |       |
| Changes](         |                           |      |      |       |
| #_ATTACHMENT_F:_) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [2.3 SCOPE        | Updated Graphic on        |      | 9    | Nov   |
| Revie             | Members of the            |      |      | 2007  |
| w](#scope-review) | Secretary's Council on    |      |      |       |
|                   | Performance Evaluation    |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [Attachment C:    | Updated for FY2008        |      | 27   | Nov   |
| HHS End-of-Year   |                           |      | --   | 2007  |
| Organizational    |                           |      | 31   |       |
| Assessment        |                           |      |      |       |
| Form](            |                           |      |      |       |
| #_ATTACHMENT_C:_) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| Table of Contents | Updated                   | 1    | 1    | A     |
|                   |                           |      |      | ugust |
|                   |                           |      |      | 2007  |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [Executive        | New/Added                 |      | 2    | A     |
| Summary](#e       |                           |      |      | ugust |
| xecutive-summary) |                           |      |      | 2007  |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [S                | New/Added                 |      | 3    | A     |
| ection-by-Section |                           |      |      | ugust |
| Summary of        |                           |      |      | 2007  |
| Changes](         |                           |      |      |       |
| #_ATTACHMENT_F:_) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [1.3 Responsible  | Under "Secretary's        | 4    | 5    | A     |
| Parties](#res     | Council on performance    |      |      | ugust |
| ponsible-parties) | Evaluation (SCOPE)", last |      |      | 2007  |
|                   | sentence: deleted         |      |      |       |
|                   | reference to former       |      |      |       |
|                   | Departmental Performance  |      |      |       |
|                   | Recognition Panel         |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [1.4 SES and      | Under "d. Contain         | 5    | 7    | A     |
| Organizational    | balanced measures...,"    |      |      | ugust |
| Performance       | added language to expand  |      |      | 2007  |
| System            | and clarify meanings of   |      |      |       |
| Overv             | Employee Perspective and  |      |      |       |
| iew](#ses-and-org | Customer Perspective.     |      |      |       |
| anizational-perfo | Under "e. Hold executives |      |      |       |
| rmance-management | accountable for...,"      |      |      |       |
| -system-overview) | added language to expand  |      |      |       |
|                   | and clarify requirement.  |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
|                   | Under "Establishes        | 5    | 8    | A     |
|                   | assessment processes      |      |      | ugust |
|                   | that:...," added "g.      |      |      | 2007  |
|                   | Ensures ratings are not   |      |      |       |
|                   | given arbitrarily or on a |      |      |       |
|                   | rotational basis."        |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [2.2 Independent  | 3^rd^ paragraph updated   | 7    | 9    | A     |
| Departmental      | to reflect that           |      |      | ugust |
| Organizational    | Departmental input will   |      |      | 2007  |
| Assessment        | be appended to            |      |      |       |
| Input](#indepe    | organizational assessment |      |      |       |
| ndent-departmenta | form submitted by OPDIVs. |      |      |       |
| l-organizational- | Last sentence deleted     |      |      |       |
| assessment-input) | (referencing              |      |      |       |
|                   | reconsideration).         |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [2.4              | Heading: "Reconsideration | 9    | 10   | A     |
| Reconsideration   | Process and" deleted      |      |      | ugust |
| Process and Final |                           |      |      | 2007  |
| Det               | 1^st^ paragraph: deleted  |      |      |       |
| ermination](#fina |                           |      |      |       |
| l-determinations) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [3.1.1 Plan       | Added section heading.    | 10   | 11   | A     |
| E                 |                           |      |      | ugust |
| stablishment](#pl | Under "d. Explicit in     |      |      | 2007  |
| an-establishment) | holding SES members       |      |      |       |
|                   | accountable...," added    |      |      |       |
|                   | language to expand and    |      |      |       |
|                   | clarify requirement       |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [3.1.2 Mandatory  | Added new section         |      | 12   | A     |
| Critical          | heading. Establishes that |      |      | ugust |
| Eleme             | plans will comprise three |      |      | 2007  |
| nts](#mandatory-c | critical elements         |      |      |       |
| ritical-elements) | weighted evenly with      |      |      |       |
|                   | strong emphasis on        |      |      |       |
|                   | measurable,               |      |      |       |
|                   | result-oriented           |      |      |       |
|                   | indicators of success.    |      |      |       |
|                   | Meets OPM's requirement   |      |      |       |
|                   | that at least 60% of the  |      |      |       |
|                   | SES performance plan      |      |      |       |
|                   | focus on business         |      |      |       |
|                   | results.                  |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [3.2.1 Individual | Clarifies formula for     | 10   | 13   | A     |
| Critical Element  | deriving the initial      |      |      | ugust |
| Rating            | summary rating in the     |      |      | 2007  |
| Crit              | individual appraisal      |      |      |       |
| eria](#individual | process.                  |      |      |       |
| -critical-element |                           |      |      |       |
| -rating-criteria) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [3.3.2 Annual     | Clarifies that individual | 14   | 16   | A     |
| Review            | self-assessments are      |      |      | ugust |
| Self-Assessmen    | limited to four pages     |      |      | 2007  |
| t](#annual-review | total.                    |      |      |       |
| -self-assessment) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [Attachment C:    | Streamlined.              | 26   | 27   | A     |
| HHS End-of-Year   |                           | --   | --   | ugust |
| Organizational    |                           | 48   | 31   | 2007  |
| Assessment        |                           |      |      |       |
| Form](            |                           |      |      |       |
| #_ATTACHMENT_C:_) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+
| [Attachment D:    | Updated to delete         | 50   | 32   | A     |
| Organizational    | references to             | --   | --   | ugust |
| Assessment        | "Reconsideration"         | 52   | 34   | 2007  |
| Ratings Summary   |                           |      |      |       |
| Form](            |                           |      |      |       |
| #_ATTACHMENT_D:_) |                           |      |      |       |
+-------------------+---------------------------+------+------+-------+

# 1. INTRODUCTION

## 1.1 Purpose

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has developed the
Senior Executive Service (SES) and Organizational Performance Management
System to produce accountability for business results for every one of
HHS's senior executives. True excellence is rewarded, mediocre
performance carries real consequences, and poor performers are removed
from the SES. Ultimately, the System places the greatest emphasis where
it belongs: on achieving results that benefit the American people.
Evidence of measurable, citizen-centered outcomes takes precedence over
bureaucratic process and "time served."

The System fulfills several of the President's Management Agenda
Standards for Success for the Strategic Management of Human Capital
initiative. The SES Performance Management process is fully aligned with
HHS's overall Strategic Plan, and is integrated with the HHS Strategic
Human Capital Management Plan (SHCMP). In its details, the System
implements performance and awards systems for all SES members that
effectively link to agency mission, hold executives accountable for
business results, differentiate between various levels of performance,
and provide consequences based on performance.

The SES and Organizational Performance Management System is one
component of HHS's overarching SHCMP. The System is designed to help HHS
achieve the key SHCMP goal of implementing a performance management
system that connects expectations to mission and links performance
ratings with measurable outcomes. Combined with the "cascading" of SES
performance plans to all non-SES HHS employees, the system helps ensure
that performance expectations throughout the entire agency are aligned
with the HHS mission and oriented toward achieving results.

## 1.2 Authority and Coverage

***Authority:*** Title 5 United States Code, Section 4312, requires that
each agency establish one or more performance appraisal systems that
hold senior executives accountable for their individual and
organizational performance in order to improve the overall performance
of Government. It is HHS policy to provide SES members with a
performance appraisal system that meets all requirements in law and
regulation. This document constitutes HHS policies for planning,
monitoring, appraising, and recognizing the performance of members of
the SES. References for these policies include 5 U.S.C. 4311-4314 (SES
Performance Appraisals); 5 U.S.C. 5382 (SES Pay); 5 C.F.R. Part 430,
Subpart C and D (Managing SES Performance); 5 C.F.R. Part 359 (Removal
from SES); 5 C.F.R. Part 451 (Awards); and 5 C.F.R. Part 534, Subpart D
(Pay and Performance Awards under SES).

***Coverage:*** These guidelines apply to all HHS SES members: career,
limited term, limited emergency, non-career appointees, and Presidential
appointees who (without a break in service) have elected to retain SES
benefits. Only career SES members and Presidential appointees who
(without a break in service) have elected to retain SES benefits are
eligible for performance bonuses under this system.

Operating Division (OPDIV) and Staff Division (STAFFDIV) Heads who are
not SES members are not by regulation required to be covered by this
performance system. The Secretary has determined that OPDIV and STAFFDIV
Heads who are not SES members will establish performance plans in
accordance with the SES performance system for the purpose of guiding
the cascading of performance requirements throughout their
organizations. The Secretary and the Secretary's Council on Performance
Evaluation will assess OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head performance using the
same criteria as described in the SES performance system. However, an
annual summary rating is not required.

Nothing in this Plan shall be construed in a manner that is inconsistent
with the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. (as amended). For
the purpose of this document, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
shall be considered a STAFFDIV and the Inspector General shall be
considered the STAFFDIV Head. The OIG will follow Departmental policy
and guidance in determining ratings and recognition. However, to
maintain statutory independence, the Inspector General oversees and
administers the HHS SES and Organizational Performance Management system
for the OIG, using its own Performance Review Board and approval
process.

[]{.mark}

The Inspector General is not covered by the SES performance system.
However, the Secretary and the Inspector General have agreed that the
Inspector General will establish performance goals for the OIG in
accordance with the SES performance system. OIG performance goals will
guide the cascading of performance requirements to OIG's SES members.

## 1.3 Responsible Parties

**Secretary:** Ensures oversight of the SES and Organizational
Performance Management System. Serves as the final authority on annual
summary ratings and recognition (this responsibility may be delegated).
Sets overall priorities for the Department, which are the basis for the
performance requirements that cascade from OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads to
all SES members and subordinate non-SES staff.

**Deputy Secretary:** As lead management official, provides oversight of
the SES and Organizational Performance Management System. Responsible
for the effective and equitable operation of the System. Serves on the
Secretary's Council on Performance Evaluation.

**Secretary's Council on Performance Evaluation (SCOPE)**: Provides
oversight and accountability for the SES and Organizational Performance
Management System at the Departmental level. Evaluates the performance
of OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs through a formal organizational assessment.
Ensures that the aggregate results of the appraisal process throughout
the Department are consistent with HHS SES and Organizational
Performance Management System policies. Assures that the distribution of
pay adjustments, performance bonuses, and levels of pay are based on the
results of the appraisal process and accurately reflect organizational
performance.

**Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management:** By delegation
from the Secretary, exercises human resources authorities for all
personnel administration, personnel management, and labor management
relations activities. Serves as the Administrative Chair for the
Secretary's Council on Performance Evaluation. Serves as the Chair for
the Office of the Secretary's Performance Review Board (this
responsibility may be delegated).

**OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads:** Cascade mission-related performance
requirements for SES members, based on Departmental objectives. Select
OPDIV Performance Review Board members. Recommend annual summary ratings
and pay adjustments and performance awards for SES members to the SCOPE.

**Performance Review Board (PRB)**: Reviews and evaluates the initial
summary rating, the senior executive's response, and the higher-level
reviewing official's comments (if applicable) on the initial summary
rating. Makes a written recommendation to the OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head
for each senior executive's annual summary rating and any performance
recognition. Assures that pay adjustments, performance bonuses, and
levels of pay based on the results of the appraisal process accurately
reflect and recognize individual performance and contribution to the
agency's performance.

**Higher-Level Reviewer:** At an SES member's request, reviews the
initial summary rating assigned by the rating official and makes a
written recommendation to the PRB.

**Rating Official:** Works cooperatively with subordinate SES members to
develop individual performance plans. Establishes performance
requirements based on Departmental objectives and informs the employee
of the critical elements. Conducts progress reviews. Provides
performance improvement assistance to subordinates. Appraises
performance and prepares initial summary ratings, including appropriate
narrative justification.

**Senior Executive Service Member:** Develops performance plan in
cooperation with Rating Official. Works to achieve established
performance requirements. Participates in progress reviews. Keeps Rating
Official informed of progress toward assigned performance requirements.
Prepares self-assessment of performance.

**Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources:** Develops policy and
guidance on SES performance management, including performance plan
development, appraisal procedures, and performance recognition. Provides
support to the Human Resources Centers relative to the SES and
Organizational Performance Management System. Records final individual
performance rating and recognition decisions and forwards documents to
the servicing personnel offices. Provides required performance rating
and recognition documentation to the Office of Personnel Management.
Manages the SES and Organizational Performance Management System
certification process.

**Human Resources Centers:** Coordinate and/or support activities of the
Performance Review Board. Ensure technical adequacy of performance
appraisal and performance recognition documentation. Submit performance
appraisal and recognition documentation to the Department\'s Office of
Human Resources. Process, distribute, and maintain copies of all
required records for annual summary ratings.

**Inspector General:** Oversees the SES performance management program
as it pertains to OIG executives and serves as the final authority for
OIG SES ratings and recognition. Coordinates the OIG organizational
assessment process and issues performance guidelines based on that
assessment. Certifies that the results of the appraisal process make
meaningful distinctions based on relative performance. Assures that pay
adjustments, cash awards, and levels of pay based on the results of the
appraisal process accurately reflect and recognize individual
performance and contribution to the agency's performance.

## 1.4 SES and Organizational Performance Management System Overview

The HHS SES and Organizational Performance Management System:

> Requires individual performance plans that:

a.  Are developed collaboratively between the rating official and the
    SES member;

b.  Align performance requirements with Departmental objectives;

c.  Include demonstrable, measurable, results-oriented performance
    requirements;

d.  Contain balanced measures that include employee and customer
    perspectives and feedback, as follows:

    1.  [Employee Perspective]{.underline}: Employee perspective focuses
        on internal dynamics that establish the working environment and
        drive key organizational human capital programs, including
        employee development and retention. Meaningful dialogue must
        take place between the supervisor and employee regarding
        performance goals. This will improve the employee's
        understanding of the Department's goals and positively affect
        his or her engagement and overall performance.

    2.  [Customer Perspective]{.underline}: Customer perspective
        considers the organization's performance through the eyes of its
        customers, so that the organization retains a careful focus on
        the customer needs and satisfaction. Senior executives must
        determine who their customers are and what these customers
        expect from them in the context of the Department's mission and
        goals.

e.  Hold executives accountable for the rigorous appraisal of
    subordinate employee performance and make meaningful distinctions in
    performance ratings of subordinate employees. The executive ensures
    that performance plans for subordinate employees are aligned with
    the organization's and Department's goals and objectives and
    employees are appraised realistically against clear, measurable
    standards of performance; and

f.  At a minimum, define each individual critical element at the Fully
    Successful level.

Establishes assessment processes that:

a.  Focus on results-oriented measures;

b.  Incorporate organizational performance results into decisions about
    individual performance ratings and recognition;

c.  Use performance data to adjust pay, reward, reassign, develop and
    remove senior executives or make other performance decisions;

d.  Make meaningful distinctions in individual performance by setting
    distinct, specific percentages for each rating level for pay
    adjustments;

e.  Include strong oversight to ensure that results are fair and
    credible;

f.  Require annual performance appraisals and progress reviews; and

g.  Ensures ratings are not given arbitrarily or on a rotational basis.

# 

# 2. ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT

The purpose of the organizational assessment is twofold:

a.  Ensures accountability at the organizational level for the
    achievement of Departmental objectives; and

b.  Provides a basis for ensuring that individual SES performance
    ratings reflect organizational performance. (A full description of
    the individual SES performance assessment process is included in
    [section 3.3](#individual-appraisal-process).)

![](media/image3.wmf){width="2.8819444444444446in"
height="2.9347222222222222in"}

The organizational assessment process consists of four basic elements,
described in the sections that follow:

> 2.1 OPDIV and STAFFDIV organizational self-assessment input
>
> 2.2 Independent Departmental organizational assessment input
>
> 2.3 SCOPE review
>
> 2.4 Final determination of overall organizational rating

Please see [Attachment A (p. 24)](#_ATTACHMENT_A:__ORGANIZATIONAL_ASSES)
for a general timeline of events in the organizational assessment
process.

## 2.1 OPDIV and STAFFDIV Organizational Self-Assessment Input

Each OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head, their equivalent, or their designee will
submit a self-assessment of their organization's performance to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources at the end of the annual
performance period. The purpose of the organizational self-assessment is
to describe business results achieved during the performance period.
OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs will not assign organizational ratings (e.g.,
"Exceptional," "Fully Successful," etc.) to themselves. Performance on
measures related to the President's Management Agenda initiatives, the
Government Performance and Results Act, and the Performance and
Accountability Report should be included in the self-assessment when
relevant.

[Attachment C (p. 26)](#_ATTACHMENT_C:__ORGANIZATIONAL_ASSES) provides a
template that OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs will use to prepare their
self-assessment submissions. In conducting the organizational
self-assessment, OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs will insert information into the
section of the form titled "End of Year Results." Organizational
self-assessment submissions will include specific examples of business
results that demonstrate how the organization performed on each critical
element. OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs should pay particular attention to
describing measurable achievements in program performance, including
improvements in customer and employee satisfaction and demonstrated
flexibility and adaptability in dealing with and responding productively
to changing priorities, unanticipated resource shortages and externally
driven deadlines.

The OPDIV or STAFFDIV organizational self-assessment will be one source
of information used by the SCOPE in its deliberation process. The second
key source of information for the SCOPE is the independent Departmental
organizational assessment, described below.

## 2.2 Independent Departmental Organizational Assessment Input

In addition to the organizational self-assessment prepared by each OPDIV
and STAFFDIV, an independent organizational assessment of each OPDIV and
STAFFDIV will be conducted at the Departmental level. The purpose of the
independent Departmental organizational assessment is to provide the
SCOPE with a second source of information on which to base its ratings
determinations. Like the OPDIV and STAFFDIV self-assessment, the
independent Departmental organizational assessment will be
results-based.

Participants in the independent Departmental organizational assessment
will be senior-level staff within the Office of the Secretary with
specific knowledge of the issues involved. The Assistant Secretaries for
Administration and Management, Resources and Technology, and Planning
and Evaluation will select the appropriate staff to conduct the
assessment.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources will forward the
annual assessment forms, containing OPDIV and STAFFDIV self-assessments,
to the appropriate individuals or organizational units within the
Department for their input. The independent Departmental organizational
assessment input, focusing on specific business results achieved, will
be appended to the OPDIV and STAFFDIV organizational assessment forms
and forwarded to the SCOPE. OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs will not have an
opportunity to review or appeal information provided in the independent
Departmental organizational assessment.

## 2.3 SCOPE Review

The SCOPE will assess and rate the performance of each OPDIV and
STAFFDIV on an annual basis. Organizational assessments will evaluate
specific results achieved. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human
Resources will forward OPDIV and STAFFDIV assessment forms, including
self-assessment information and Departmental input, to the SCOPE
Administrative Chair (the Assistant Secretary for Administration and
Management) and to all SCOPE members for review. Each member of the
SCOPE will review the information submitted for each OPDIV and STAFFDIV,
and the full SCOPE will convene to produce consensus recommended
organizational assessment ratings for each OPDIV and STAFFDIV. When
necessary to gain a fuller understanding of the issues involved, the
SCOPE may also request input from other sources within the Department
before recommending organizational assessment ratings.

## 2.4 Final Determinations

The SCOPE will rate each OPDIV and STAFFDIV overall. The overall
organizational assessment rating will be based on a comprehensive
assessment of the OPDIV or STAFFDIV's performance on the critical
elements. In determining overall ratings, the SCOPE will ensure that
organizational assessments reflect meaningful distinctions among higher-
and lower-performing organizations. The SCOPE will rate each OPDIV and
STAFFDIV overall as Exceptional, Fully Successful, Minimally
Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory for the performance period. The rating
criteria are as follows:

> *[Exceptional:]{.underline}* The organization exceeded performance
> expectations. Measurable improvements in program performance exceeded
> defined goals, as measured by appropriate assessment tools. Staff
> productivity and customer and employee satisfaction improved beyond
> expectations, and the organization demonstrated flexibility and
> adaptability in dealing with and responding productively to changing
> priorities, unanticipated resource shortages and externally driven
> deadlines. Executives consistently demonstrated the highest level of
> integrity and accountability in achieving Departmental objectives.
> Beneficial organizational change occurred as a result of exceptional
> management practices, operating procedures or program implementation,
> and had impact beyond the immediate organization.
>
> *[Fully Successful:]{.underline}* The organization met performance
> expectations. All program objectives were met, as measured by
> appropriate assessment tools. Employee satisfaction indicates a
> positive organizational climate, customers are satisfied with program
> results, and operational challenges were successfully resolved without
> Departmental or outside intervention. SES members consistently
> demonstrated high levels of integrity and accountability in achieving
> Departmental objectives. The organization used available performance
> information to identify opportunities to improve business results and
> include employee and customer perspectives.
>
> *[Minimally Satisfactory:]{.underline}* The organization had
> difficulties in meeting expectations, as measured by appropriate
> assessment tools. Actions taken by the executive leadership were
> sometimes inappropriate or marginally effective and did not
> significantly contribute to positive results achieved. Improvement in
> the areas of program performance, employee productivity, morale,
> organizational effectiveness and/or customer satisfaction is needed.
>
> *[Unsatisfactory:]{.underline}* The organization failed to meet
> expectations, as measured by appropriate assessment tools. Repeated
> observations of organizational performance indicated negative
> consequences in key outcomes (e.g., quality, timeliness, business
> results, customer satisfaction, morale, etc.).

At the conclusion of its deliberations, the SCOPE will complete each
OPDIV and STAFFDIV assessment form [(Attachment C, p.
26)](#_ATTACHMENT_C:__ORGANIZATIONAL_ASSES) to include any justification
and/or comments and the recommended overall organizational rating. The
SCOPE Administrative Chair or designee will complete and sign the
Organizational Assessment Ratings Summary Form [(Attachment D, p.
34)](#_ATTACHMENT_D:__ORGANIZATIONAL_ASSES), noting the "SCOPE Panel
Recommendation" for each OPDIV and STAFFDIV, and will forward both the
summary form and the backup documentation to the Deputy Secretary (or
designee) for communication of the results to OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads.
There is no further appeals process. The completed documentation will be
returned to the Office of Human Resources for appropriate dissemination
and storage.

# 

# 3. INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

## 3.1 HHS SES Member Performance Plan

### *3.1.1 Plan Establishment*

In consultation with his/her supervisor, each SES member develops an
annual performance plan that contains critical elements and performance
requirements derived from the Department's strategic goals. The plan
links measurable outcomes to the organization's goals and objectives and
focuses primarily on achieving results: over 60% of the critical
elements in the plan must set measurable targets for accomplishing
specific business outcomes. All SES member individual performance plans
must have the following characteristics:

a.  Aligned to show clear links between organizational strategic goals
    and individual performance requirements;

b.  Focused predominantly on business results, containing clear outcomes
    and specific, measurable indicators that will be used to assess
    performance;

c.  Balanced to include both employee and customer perspectives (see
    section
    [1.4d.](#ses-and-organizational-performance-management-system-overview));
    and

d.  Explicit in holding SES members accountable for rigorous, timely
    appraisal of their subordinates (see section
    [1.4e](#ses-and-organizational-performance-management-system-overview).).
    SES members must ensure that subordinate employees' performance is:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Aligned with the organization's and Department's goals and
    objectives;

2.  Appraised realistically against clear, measurable standards of
    performance;

3.  Recognized with performance awards that are commensurate with the
    level of performance, responsibility, and progress made towards the
    goals and objectives of the Department or correction action taken to
    improve the employee's performance.

Before an SES position may be created, the appointing authority must
develop a proposed SES performance plan for the position that outlines
goals, objectives, and measurable result targets. Written SES
performance plans will normally be finalized within 30 days of the
beginning of the appraisal period or within 30 days of an appointment,
reassignment, transfer or other action that requires development of a
new plan. Supervisors may modify SES performance plans whenever a change
in assigned individual and/or organizational responsibilities and goals
is so significant that the established performance objectives are no
longer adequate. The supervisor must document modifications on the
performance plan and communicate them to the SES member.

### *3.1.2 Mandatory Critical Elements*

Each SES performance plan has three critical elements, which are
weighted equally:

1.  **[EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP RESULTS]{.underline}** -- Lead in a
    proactive, customer-responsive manner consistent with Agency vision
    and values, and will take a leadership role in advocating for and
    advancing the priorities of the Secretary.

2.  **[MANAGEMENT RESULTS]{.underline}** -- Accountable for achieving
    key management results that contribute to the Department. Management
    achievements will demonstrate measurable business results that are
    directly aligned with and meet the requirements of the following:

    a.  President's Management Agenda Green Standards for Success

    b.  Proud-To-Be goals

    c.  FY Departmental Objectives

    d.  HHS Strategic Plan

3.  **[PROGRAM RESULTS]{.underline}** -- Accountable for achieving key
    program results that contribute to the success of the Department.
    Program achievements must demonstrate measurable business results on
    program goals that represent a significant budgetary investment
    and/or have been identified as a high priority.

**Management and Programs Results focus specifically on the achievement
of business results which equates to over 66% weight of the plans.**

[]{#_3.2__Individual_Appraisal_Performan .anchor}

## 3.2 Individual Appraisal Performance Ratings

### 

### *3.2.1 Individual Critical Element Rating Criteria*

During the annual individual appraisal process (described in sections
[3.3.1](#progress-reviews) to
[3.3.9](#merit-systems-protection-board-appeals) below), a written
summary rating of each SES member's performance is determined. The
summary rating is based on a comparison of the SES member's actual
performance with the critical elements contained in his/her individual
performance plan.

OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs are instructed to ensure each critical element is
rated against four levels for rating performance, as follows:

> *[Exceptional:]{.underline}* The SES member performed as a model of
> excellence. Indicators of performance at this level include measurable
> improvements in program performance that exceed defined goals, as
> described in the performance plan and as measured by
>
> appropriate assessment tools. The SES member exceeded expectations in
> increasing staff productivity, improving employee and customer
> satisfaction, and demonstrating flexibility and adaptability in
> dealing with and responding productively to changing priorities,
> unanticipated resource shortages and externally driven deadlines.
> Appraisals of subordinates exceeded Departmental norms for rigor,
> including exceptional timeliness, detailed linkages between
> performance requirements and organizational goals, and proactive and
> frequent use of training and development. The SES member consistently
> demonstrated the highest level of integrity and accountability in
> achieving HHS program and management goals, with contributions that
> had impact beyond his/her immediate purview. The SES member exerted a
> major positive influence on management practices, operating
> procedures, or program implementation, which contributed substantially
> to organizational change, growth, and recognition. **[At least 75% of
> the sub elements under each critical element are rated at Exceptional
> for critical element to be rated Exceptional. No elements are rated
> below Fully Successful. (For example, if Element 2. Management Results
> has 8 sub elements, at least 6 must to be rated Exceptional for the
> overall assessment of the element to be Exceptional).]{.underline}**
>
> *[Fully Successful:]{.underline}* All program objectives were met, as
> described in the annual performance plan and measured by appropriate
> assessment tools. Employee satisfaction indicates a positive
> organizational climate, customers are satisfied with program results,
> and the SES member successfully resolved operational challenges
> without higher-level intervention. Appraisals of subordinates met
> Departmental norms for rigor, including timeliness, alignment between
> performance requirements and organizational goals, and the use of
> training and development. The SES member consistently demonstrated
> integrity and accountability in achieving HHS program and management
> goals, and took follow-up actions based on performance information
> available to him/her. Opportunities were seized to improve business
> results and include employee and customer perspectives. **[At least
> 75% of the sub elements under each critical element are rated at Fully
> Successful for Critical element to be rated Fully Successful. No sub
> elements are rated below Minimally Successful.]{.underline}**
>
> *[Minimally Satisfactory:]{.underline}* The executive had difficulties
> in meeting expectations. Actions taken by the executive were sometimes
> inappropriate or marginally effective and did not significantly
> contribute to any positive results achieved. While working
> relationships may be generally sound, the executive's impact on
> program performance, employee productivity, morale, organizational
> effectiveness and customer satisfaction needs improvement, as
> described in the annual performance plan and as measured by
> appropriate assessment tools. Appraisals of subordinates were late,
> lacked rigor, failed to show linkages between performance requirements
> and organizational goals, and/or made little use of training and
> development. Immediate improvement is essential. [**More than 25% of
> the sub elements are rated** **Minimally Successful and no sub
> elements are rated Unsatisfactory.\
> **]{.underline}
>
> *[Unsatisfactory:]{.underline}* The executive failed to meet
> expectations. Repeated observations of performance indicated negative
> consequences in key outcomes (e.g., quality, timeliness, business
> results, customer satisfaction, morale, etc.), as described in the
> annual performance plan and as measured by appropriate assessment
> tools. Performance is grounds for reassigning or removing the
> executive from the SES. **[Any sub element is rated
> Unsatisfactory.]{.underline}**

### *3.2.2 Summary Rating Criteria*

Once ratings have been determined for each of the critical elements in
the Performance Plan, an overall summary rating will be assigned for the
SES member. To ensure that only those SES members whose performance
exceeds normal expectations are rated at levels above Fully Successful,
overall annual summary ratings must adhere to the following criteria:

> *[Exceptional:]{.underline}* All critical elements are rated
> Exceptional.
>
> *[Fully Successful:]{.underline}* All critical elements are rated at
> least Fully Successful, and criteria for Exceptional are not met.
>
> *[Minimally Satisfactory:]{.underline}* One or more critical elements
> is rated Minimally Satisfactory.
>
> *[Unsatisfactory:]{.underline}* One or more critical elements is rated
> Unsatisfactory.

Overall summary ratings must take into account the results of the
organizational assessment of the OPDIV or STAFFDIV for which the SES
member works (see [section 2](#section-1) for a description of the HHS
organizational assessment process). Although there may be exceptions in
individual cases, SES appraisals within each OPDIV or STAFFDIV must be
broadly consistent with the formal organizational assessment of that
OPDIV or STAFFDIV's performance. Although HHS officials may not
prescribe a distribution of rating levels for employees, the Department
may review standards and ratings for strictness of application to ensure
that ratings and recognition are in compliance with Departmental policy.
In addition, the Department may establish limits on and criteria for
performance recognition, including the value of awards and amounts of
pay increases.

## 3.3 Individual Appraisal Process

The SES performance appraisal cycle begins on October 1^st^ and
concludes on September 30^th^ of the following year. An individual
performance period begins when the executive is given a written
performance plan signed and dated by the supervisor, and must have a
duration of at least 90 days. If, at the end of the regular appraisal
period, a new SES member has not served for at least 90 days, the
appraisal period must be extended until the SES member has had an
opportunity to serve under the plan for at least 90 days. After the
completion of the extended appraisal period the supervisor will issue a
performance rating, which must go through the PRB review and established
approval processes (described in sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.9 below). An SES
member's appraisal period may be terminated and his/her performance
rated at any time after the 90-day minimum period, provided there is an
adequate basis on which to appraise and rate his/her performance.

Appraisals will not be prepared for executives within 120 days after the
beginning of a new President's term of office.

The individual appraisal process includes the following elements,
described in the sections
below:![](media/image4.wmf){width="2.832638888888889in"
height="3.3194444444444446in"}

> 3.3.1 Progress reviews
>
> 3.3.2 Annual review self-assessment
>
> 3.3.3 Initial summary rating
>
> 3.3.4 Higher-level review
>
> 3.3.5 Performance Review Board review
>
> 3.3.6 OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head review
>
> 3.3.7 SCOPE review
>
> 3.3.8 Final annual summary rating
>
> 3.3.9 Merit Systems Protection Board appeals

Please see [Attachment B (p. 25)](#_attachment_b:__individual_appraisal)
for a general timeline of events in the individual appraisal process.

### *3.3.1 Progress Reviews*

Supervisors must hold a progress review for each SES member for whom
they are responsible at least once during each appraisal period. At a
minimum, SES members must be informed about how well they are performing
against the critical elements contained in their individual performance
plan. A progress review does not result in an initial summary rating
(described in [section 3.3.3](#initial-summary-rating) below). However,
because progress reviews are intended to provide SES members with
interim feedback on their performance, supervisors may refer to the
ratings scale described in [section
3.3.2](#annual-review-self-assessment) to indicate subjective mid-year
trends.

As a result of a progress review, the supervisor and the SES member
should share a common understanding of current performance, expectations
for the remainder of the performance period, and new actions (if any)
that will be initiated. There is no prescribed format for progress
reviews. However, supervisors must provide written documentation as an
attachment to the executive performance plan if they judge that an SES
member's performance on any critical element is less than Fully
Successful. This documentation must include a written narrative that
clearly states progress to date, deficiencies, and steps to be taken to
achieve Fully Successful performance. The supervisor must provide advice
and assistance on how to improve performance.

If either the supervisor or the SES member believes that modifications
to previously established elements or performance requirements are
warranted, such modifications must be discussed and recorded during the
progress review process. The SES member and supervisor each sign a copy
of any documentation that results from the progress review, including
any narratives or modifications, acknowledging that the progress review
was conducted.

### 

### *3.3.2 Annual Review Self-Assessment*

Each SES member will prepare a self-assessment, not to exceed four
pages, describing his/her individual overall performance, including
metrics, for the appraisal period. The narrative assessment must not
exceed four pages and should be limited to listing measurable
performance results. The self-assessment occurs prior to the
supervisor's assignment of an initial summary rating.

### *3.3.3 Initial Summary Rating* 

The SES member's immediate supervisor -- referred to as the rating
official -- is responsible for determining an initial summary rating.
The rating official will consider the SES member's self-assessment, as
well as input from previous supervisors or others, where applicable. The
rating official first arrives at a rating for each critical element in
the Performance Plan, using the criteria in [section
3.2.1](#individual-critical-element-rating-criteria) above. The rating
for each critical element must be accompanied by written documentation.
Then, the rating official assigns an initial summary rating for the SES
member's performance, using the criteria outlined in [section
3.2.2](#summary-rating-criteria) above.

The rating official must ensure that the initial summary rating for the
individual SES member takes into account the final organizational
assessment rating (see [section 2](#section-1)) of the OPDIV or
STAFFDIV. Although there may be exceptions in individual cases, SES
appraisals within each OPDIV or STAFFDIV must be broadly consistent with
the OPDIV or STAFFDIV's organizational assessment.

The rating official must share the initial summary rating with the SES
member in writing, and must meet with the SES member to discuss the
rating and, if applicable, any needed improvement assistance. At this
time, the rating official must advise the SES member of his/her right to
respond to the rating and request a higher-level review (see [section
3.3.4](#higher-level-review)). If the SES member does not request a
higher level review, the rating official transmits the initial summary
rating to the OPDIV or STAFFDIV Performance Review Board.

### *3.3.4 Higher-Level Review*

If the SES member disagrees with the initial summary rating received,
he/she may request a higher-level review. All requests for higher-level
review will be in writing, and must occur within five working days of
the issuance of the initial summary rating. The higher-level review will
be conducted by the next higher-level official above the rating
official. If the SES member reports directly to the Secretary or an
OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head, the executive may not request a higher-level
review, but may provide a written response to the rating to be
considered by the PRB.

The purpose of the higher-level review is to provide another source of
information to the PRB, in addition to the executive's self-assessment
and the rating official's initial summary rating. The higher-level
official may not change the rating official's initial summary rating,
but may recommend a different rating to the PRB. In recommending a
rating to the PRB, the higher-level reviewer will use the same standard
rating scale and criteria used by the rating official (described in
[section 3.2](#_3.2__Individual_Appraisal_Performan) above). Copies of
the higher-level reviewer's findings and recommendations will be
provided to the SES member, the rating official, and the PRB.

### *3.3.5 Performance Review Board Review*

Each OPDIV will establish one or more PRBs to make recommendations on
the performance of its SES members. Individual HHS STAFFDIVs will not
establish separate PRBs, except for the Office of the Inspector General.
The Office of the Secretary (OS) will establish a single PRB responsible
for all STAFFDIVs (except OIG), with the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management (or designee) as the OS PRB Chair.

OPDIVs generally have discretion to establish their own procedures for
creating and operating PRBs, including determining the length of time a
member may serve. However, all HHS PRBs must conform to the following
broad requirements:

a.  Each PRB will have three or more members who are appointed by the
    OPDIV Head.

b.  PRB members must be appointed in such a manner as to assure
    consistency, stability, and objectivity in appraising performance.
    To achieve this objective, OPDIVs may include members from other
    OPDIVs, from both headquarters and the field, and from different
    functional disciplines.

c.  PRB membership should be representative of the OPDIV's SES workforce
    and include minorities and women.

d.  PRBs may include all types of Federal executives (e.g., non-career
    appointees, Commissioned Corps or military officers, as well as
    career appointees) from both within and outside the Department.

e.  When appraising career appointees, or recommending performance
    awards for career appointees, more than one-half of the members of a
    PRB must be SES career appointees.

f.  PRB appointments must be published in the *Federal Register* prior
    to the PRB acting on any appraisal. OPDIVs may appoint individuals
    to a standing PRB roster, publish their names in the *Federal
    Register*, and then compose specific PRBs from this roster.

The function of the PRB is to make a written recommendation to the OPDIV
Head on each SES member's performance rating. The PRB will also make
written recommendations on performance bonuses, pay adjustments,
reassignments, and removals (see [section 3.4](#using-appraisal-results)
below). The rating official will submit the SES member's
self-assessment, the initial summary rating, and (when applicable) the
SES member's response and the higher-level reviewer's comments to the
PRB. The PRB will review these documents, along with the final
organizational assessment of the OPDIV (or, in the case of OS, of the
appropriate STAFFDIV). The PRB must align SES ratings with OPDIV or
STAFFDIV performance and ensure equity and consistency across the OPDIV
or STAFFDIV.

Individual PRB members must absent themselves from discussions and
action involving themselves, in order to avoid a conflict of interest.
Members must be excluded from actions involving their own supervisors
and may be excluded from those involving their subordinates. A majority
of remaining Board members must be SES career appointees when acting on
a career appointee's appraisal or performance bonus recommendation.

After its review, the PRB will make recommendations to the OPDIV or
STAFFDIV Head on a proposed annual summary rating for each executive and
any follow-up action that may be required, such as a bonus, further
training, or reassignment (see [section 3.4](#using-appraisal-results)
for more detail on follow-up actions). In proposing an annual summary
rating, PRBs will use the same rating scale and criteria used by the
rating official to assign an initial summary rating (described in
[section 3.2](#_3.2__Individual_Appraisal_Performan) above).

### 

### *3.3.6 OPDIV and STAFFDIV Head Review*

After considering the PRB's recommendations, the OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head
will recommend, in writing, an annual summary rating of the executive's
performance and any proposed follow-up actions. In proposing the annual
summary rating, the OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head will use the standard rating
scale and criteria (see [section
3.2](#_3.2__Individual_Appraisal_Performan)) and will take into account
the results of the organizational assessment. Proposed follow-up
actions, such as bonuses, further training, or reassignment, will follow
the guidelines in [section 3.4](#using-appraisal-results) below. The
OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head will submit the recommended annual summary rating
and follow-up action, along with the results of the PRB review, to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources for transmittal to the
SCOPE.

### *3.3.7 SCOPE Review*

The SCOPE serves as the key oversight body in the SES and Organizational
Performance Management System, with responsibility for ensuring that the
System produces results that are credible, consistent, and equitable
across HHS. The SCOPE's role in the organizational assessment process is
described in [section 2](#section-1) of this document. In the individual
SES appraisal process, the role of the SCOPE is to:

a.  Ensure consistency in performance ratings, bonuses, and pay
    increases for SES members across the Department;

b.  Make meaningful distinctions in performance ratings and recognition;
    and

c.  Ensure that ratings and recognition have been recommended in
    accordance with the Department's SES Performance Management Plan and
    OPM's performance-based pay criteria.

Members of the SCOPE will review all summary ratings and follow-up
actions recommended by the OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads. Consistent with its
oversight role in the process, the SCOPE will focus its review on a
broad examination of the degree to which OPDIV and STAFFDIV
recommendations on SES members overall reflect final organizational
assessment ratings. Where the general distribution of SES member ratings
is inconsistent with the organizational assessment, the SCOPE may
require that the OPDIV PRB reconsider its recommendations.

In all of its deliberations, the SCOPE will be guided by the same rating
scale and criteria used by the PRBs and ratings officials (see [section
3.2](#_3.2__Individual_Appraisal_Performan)). Sources of information
available to the SCOPE include the organizational assessment, SES
member's self-assessment, rating official's initial summary rating,
higher-level review (if applicable), PRB recommendations, and OPDIV and
STAFFDIV Head recommendations.

Upon completing its review, the SCOPE Administrative Chairperson will
submit final annual summary rating recommendations to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, for transmittal to the
Secretary (or the Secretary's designee).

### *3.3.8 Annual Summary Rating*

The Secretary (or designee) determines the final annual summary rating
for each executive, and retains the authority to change the rating
recommended by the SCOPE. The annual summary rating issued to the SES
member by the Secretary is considered the official annual summary
rating. OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs will communicate the results of their
rating and recognition decisions to their SES members, and are
encouraged to recognize their top performers publicly.

### *3.3.9 Merit Systems Protection Board Appeals*

An SES member may not appeal the final annual summary rating or the lack
(or amount) of a pay increase or performance recognition. As described
in [section 3.3.4](#higher-level-review), SES members have the right to
respond in writing to the initial summary rating made by the rating
official. This response is reviewed by a higher-level reviewer, and
becomes a part of the appraisal materials that are reviewed by the PRB,
the OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head, and the SCOPE. A career appointee may,
however, file a complaint with the Office of the Special Counsel of the
Merit Systems Protection Board on any aspect of the rating process that
the individual believes involve a prohibited personnel practice or
pursue EEO counseling for an alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act.

## 3.4 Using Appraisal Results

An SES member's final annual summary rating serves as the basis for a
number of possible follow-up actions, including performance bonuses, pay
increases, awards, pay reductions, increased training, reassignment, or
removal from the SES. The SES and Organizational Performance Management
System assures a clear and direct linkage between performance and pay.
SES member pay rates or pay adjustments, as well as the overall
distribution of recognition awards across HHS, reflect meaningful
distinctions among individual performance levels determined during the
appraisal process. SES members who demonstrate the highest levels of
individual performance -- and make the greatest contributions to
organizational performance -- must receive the highest rates of basic
pay or pay adjustments. SES members who demonstrate low levels of
performance must experience consequences that can range from pay
reductions to increased training to removal from the SES.

Decisions on appropriate follow-up actions are made simultaneously with
the rating process described in [section
3.3](#individual-appraisal-process) above. Based on the ratings they
assign, PRBs propose a follow-up action (e.g., pay increase,
reassignment, etc.) for each SES member. These recommendations are
reviewed by OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads (who may make changes) and are
submitted to the SCOPE with the performance rating recommendations. The
SCOPE is responsible for reviewing all follow-up actions
Department-wide, and for proposing such actions to the Secretary along
with the recommended annual summary ratings. SCOPE recommendations will
focus on ensuring equity and consistency across HHS. Final decisions on
follow-up action are made by the Secretary (or designee) and are
transmitted to OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads for implementation.

### *3.4.1 Exceptional and Fully Successful Ratings* 

Executives whose annual summary rating is Exceptional or Fully
Successful may be considered for performance bonuses and/or pay
increases. (Note that only career SES members and Presidential
appointees who, without a break in service, have elected to retain SES
benefits are eligible for bonuses. SES members on a non-career,
limited-term or limited emergency appointment are not eligible.)
Individual appraisal results and the extent of the SES member's
contributions in assisting the organization to meet HHS goals constitute
the primary factors considered by PRBs and the SCOPE when proposing
recognition for high performers. Performance bonuses and pay increases
are calculated based on a percentage of base pay, and maximum
percentages are set by the Secretary on an annual basis. PRBs have
discretion to set individual bonus and/or pay increase levels that
reflect meaningful distinctions among individual SES members'
performance. Across HHS, however, all recognition decisions must adhere
to the following requirements:

a.  In percentage terms, no Fully Successful SES member may receive a
    higher performance bonus or pay increase than any Exceptional SES
    member.

b.  All Exceptional SES members must be considered for performance
    bonuses and pay increases before any Fully Successful SES member is
    considered for a performance bonus or pay increase.

### *3.4.2 Minimally Satisfactory Ratings*

Follow-up actions will also be considered -- and in some cases required
-- for SES members whose annual summary rating is Minimally
Satisfactory. Action may be taken during the appraisal period (e.g.,
after a progress review), at the end of the appraisal period, or both.

During the appraisal period, if the rating official determines that an
SES member's performance on one or more critical elements is Minimally
Satisfactory, that determination must be documented through a progress
review. Written notification of the findings must be provided to the SES
member and a performance improvement plan must be developed to assist
the SES member in achieving Fully Successful performance. Assistance may
include, but is not limited to, formal training, on-the-job training,
counseling, and closer supervision. If one or more critical elements
continue to be rated at the Minimally Satisfactory level at the end of
the appraisal period, the determination must be documented and
consideration must be given to a reassignment action.

If an SES member was found to be Fully Successful or Exceptional during
a progress review, but is then rated Minimally Satisfactory on the
annual summary rating, he or she must be provided assistance. The SES
member and his/her supervisor must develop a performance improvement
plan for the next appraisal period, designed to raise performance to
Fully Successful. Documentation must include identification of the
element(s) and performance requirement(s) involved and a narrative
description of the performance deficiency in comparison to the
requirement(s).

An SES member who receives less than a Fully Successful annual summary
rating twice in any three-year period must be removed from the SES.

### *3.4.3 Unsatisfactory Ratings*

If, at the end of an appraisal period, performance on one or more
elements is determined to be Unsatisfactory, the determination must be
documented in writing and the SES member must be reassigned or
transferred within the SES or removed from the SES. An executive who
receives two Unsatisfactory annual summary ratings in any five-year
period must be removed from the SES.

# 4. IMPLEMENTATION

## 4.1 Training and Communication

Training in developing performance plans, conducting progress reviews,
and using appraisals as a key factor in making other management
decisions will be provided to SES members covered under the SES and
Organizational Performance Management System and to senior staff who
manage the SES members. Training will be designed to ensure that the
performance management process operates effectively. The Office of Human
Resources will coordinate training activities based on Department-wide
needs. Individual OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs may develop and conduct training
to supplement that which is provided at the Department level.

## 4.2 Recordkeeping and Record Uses

As part of monitoring performance, supervisors may make notes on
significant instances of performance so that they will not be forgotten.
Such notes will not be required by or under the control of the
Department or any of its components, and are not subject to the Privacy
Act or accessible under the Freedom of Information Act, as long as they
remain solely for the personal use of the supervisor, are not provided
to any other person, are not used for any other purposes, and are
retained or discarded at the supervisor\'s sole discretion. If the
supervisor bases a performance appraisal in part or in full on specific
information from such notes, however, that information will be recorded
on or attached to the official appraisal form. Information on or
attached to the form will be subject to the Privacy Act.

The retention, maintenance, accessibility, and disposal of performance
records as well as supervisors' copies will be in accordance with Office
of Personnel Management regulations. Performance records must be
retained for five years and transferred with the SES member's Official
Personnel Folder when the SES member transfers to a new organization in
HHS or to another agency. When an executive leaves HHS, all appropriate
performance-related documents five years old or less, including the
current SES performance plan and an interim rating, shall be forwarded
in the Employee Performance File along with the executive's Official
Personnel File to the SES member's new agency.

When an employee in the SES accepts a Presidential appointment, the
employee's

performance file shall be retained as long as the employee remains
employed under that Presidential appointment. If the individual does not
return to the SES when the

appointment ends, the employee's Employee Performance File shall be
destroyed in

accordance with HHS procedures. Where any performance-related document
is needed in connection with ongoing, quasi-judicial, or judicial
proceeding, it may be retained for as long as necessary beyond the
established retention schedule.

## 4.3 Monitoring and Evaluating the System

The Office of Human Resources has responsibility for the ongoing review
of the operation of the SES and Organizational Performance Management
System throughout the Department and for implementing program
improvements. Details on the monitoring and evaluation of the System
will be contained in the HHS Human Capital Accountability Plan.

# 5. DEFINITIONS

***Appointing authority:*** The Department or OPDIV/STAFFDIV Head, or
other official with authority to make appointments in the Senior
Executive Service.

***Appraisal period:*** The established period of time for which an SES
member's performance will be appraised and rated. The appraisal period
begins each October 1^st^ and ends the following September 30^th^.

***Balanced measures:*** An approach to performance measurement that
balances organization results with the perspectives of distinct groups,
including customers and employees.

***Critical element***: A key component of an SES member's work that
contributes to organizational goals and business results. A critical
element is of sufficient importance that performance below Fully
Successful requires remedial action and may be the basis for a reduction
in pay, reassignment, or removal from the SES. All critical elements in
the performance plan are defined at the fully successful level.

***Higher-Level Reviewing Official:*** The next higher-level official
above the rating official in the organization.

***Minimum Appraisal Period:*** The minimum amount of time a senior
executive must have served in a position under an established
performance plan in order for an appraisal to be completed. HHS has
established a minimum appraisal period of 90 days.

***Organizational Assessment:*** An annual review and assessment of
OPDIV and STAFFDIV performance against established performance
requirements, designed to evaluate success in achieving Departmental
strategic goals and objectives.

***Performance Appraisal*:** The review and evaluation of an SES
member's performance against established critical elements and
performance requirements.

***Performance Management System:*** The framework of policies and
practices established for planning, monitoring, developing, evaluating,
and rewarding both individual and organizational performance and for
using resulting performance information in making personnel decisions.

***Performance Plan***: The written summary of work the SES member is
expected to accomplish during the appraisal period and the requirements
against which performance will be evaluated, including metrics. The plan
includes executive leadership responsibilities and specific and
measurable expectations that link to goals established in strategic
planning initiatives. In addition, the plan must include specific
measurable targets linked to agency goals and objectives.

***Performance Requirement:*** A statement of the performance expected
to meet the Fully Successful level for a critical element. A performance
requirement may include, but is not limited to, factors such as quality,
quantity, timeliness, specific metrics, and manner of performance.

***Performance Review Board (PRB):*** An OPDIV board that makes
recommendations to the appointing authority on SES performance ratings
and recognition.

***Progress Review:*** A mid-year review of the SES member's progress in
meeting performance requirements. At a minimum, one progress review is
required each year and must be documented on the performance plan.
Communication about program objectives and an executive's progress
toward achieving performance goals in the attainment of those objectives
should be an ongoing process between supervisors and subordinate
executives.

***Rating Official***: An SES member's immediate supervisor, responsible
for informing the executive of the critical elements of his/her
position, establishing performance requirements, appraising performance,
and determining the initial summary rating.

***Ratings:***

> *[Initial Summary Rating:]{.underline}* The overall rating the rating
> official derives from appraising the SES member's performance during
> the appraisal period.
>
> *[Annual Summary Rating:]{.underline}* The overall rating level that
> the Secretary or designee assigns at the end of the appraisal period.
> This is the official rating.
>
> *[Critical Element Rating:]{.underline}* Ratings assigned to each
> individual critical element.

[]{.mark}

***Secretary's Council on Performance Evaluation (SCOPE):*** The
Department-wide entity responsible for providing oversight to ensure
that the SES and Organizational Performance Management System produces
results that are credible, equitable, and consistent across HHS. The
SCOPE includes the Deputy Secretary, Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of
Staff, Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology, Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, and Secretary's Counselors. The Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management serves as the administrative chair of the
SCOPE, responsible for recordkeeping and reporting functions.

***Self-Assessment***: A brief written summary that the SES member
prepares describing his/her accomplishments during the appraisal year.
The summary is based on a comparison of actual performance with the
critical elements and performance requirements, including metrics, in
his/her performance plan.

# ATTACHMENT A: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT TIMELINE

Note: this timeline contains approximate timeframes for key milestones
in the organizational assessment process. Specific deadline dates will
be determined on an annual basis, and will be disseminated by the Office
for Human Resources as soon as they are established.

# 

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs submit organizational          | Late Sept.     |
| self-assessment to OHR                              |                |
|                                                     | Late           |
| Independent Departmental organizational assessment  | Sept.--Early   |
| occurs                                              | Oct.           |
|                                                     |                |
| SCOPE meets to consider organizational assessments  | Early Oct.     |
|                                                     |                |
| Final ratings determined by the Secretary           | Mid-Oct.       |
|                                                     |                |
| Communicate SCOPE results to OPDIV                  | Mid-Oct.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

# ATTACHMENT B: INDIVIDUAL APPRAISAL TIMELINE

Note: this timeline contains approximate timeframes for key milestones
in the individual appraisal process. Specific deadline dates will be
determined on an annual basis, and will be disseminated by the Office
for Human Resources as soon as they are established.

***Preparing New Performance Plans (Upcoming Performance Cycle)***

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| SES Performance Plans drafted                       | Early Sept.    |
|                                                     |                |
| OPDIV and STAFFDIV Heads share plans with           | Mid to Late    |
| subordinates and                                    | Sept.          |
|                                                     |                |
| establish framework to cascade performance goals    | Late Oct.      |
| throughout OPDIV                                    |                |
|                                                     |                |
| All SES Performance Plans established               |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

***Appraising Individual Performance (Current Performance Cycle)***

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Mid-year progress reviews completed and documented  | April 30       |
|                                                     |                |
| Individual Self-Assessments due to immediate        | Sept. 30       |
| supervisor                                          |                |
|                                                     | Early to Mid   |
| Managers meet with subordinate SES members to       | Oct.           |
| determine                                           |                |
|                                                     | Mid to Late    |
| initial summary ratings                             | Oct.           |
|                                                     |                |
| All higher-level reviews requested are completed    | Mid to Late    |
|                                                     | Oct.           |
| OPDIV Performance Review Boards meet                |                |
|                                                     | Early Nov.     |
| OPDIV Heads review/transmit recommended annual      |                |
| summary ratings                                     | Mid-Nov.       |
|                                                     |                |
| Departmental SCOPE meets                            | End of Nov.    |
|                                                     |                |
| Secretary or designee finalizes annual summary      | Early Dec.     |
| ratings/recognition                                 |                |
|                                                     | Early Dec.     |
| OHR notifies OPDIVs and STAFFDIVs and HRCs of final |                |
| decisions                                           |                |
|                                                     |                |
| HRCs begin processing SES pay and bonus actions     |                |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

# ATTACHMENT C: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM

![](media/image5.png){width="0.7527777777777778in"
height="0.7527777777777778in"}

**HHS END-OF-YEAR ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT**

**FY \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

  ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------
  **OPDIV or STAFFDIV Head:**               

  **OPDIV or STAFFDIV:**                    

  **Prior Year Organizational Assessment    
  Rating:**                                 
  ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Organizations demonstrate leadership in a proactive,                  |
| customer-responsive manner consistent with Agency vision and values,  |
| and take a leadership role in advocating for and advancing the        |
| priorities of the Secretary. **Organizational self-assessment         |
| narrative for Executive Leadership must not exceed space on page 1 of |
| this form.**                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **MANAGEMENT RESULTS**                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Describe organizational performance that reflects SES members and     |
| subordinate staff are accountable for achieving key management        |
| results that contribute to the success of the Department. Describe    |
| significant management improvements that show increases in            |
| productivity, cost reductions, improvements in timeliness,            |
| enhancements to quality, and/or improvements to customer              |
| satisfaction. Management achievements should demonstrate measurable   |
| business results that are directly aligned with, and meet the         |
| requirements of the HHS Strategic Plan, Annual Plan, approved budget, |
| OPDIV/STAFFDIV goals and objectives. In addition, accomplishments in  |
| this area contribute to the President's Management Agenda Green       |
| Standards for Success/Proud-to-Be goals, as negotiated by HHS with    |
| OMB and OPM. **Organizational self-assessment narrative for           |
| Management Results must not exceed two pages total.**                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **1. Support HHS' Achievements in the President's Management Agenda
  (PMA)**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **2. HHS-wide Human Resources**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **3. HHS-wide Acquisition**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **4. HHS-wide EEO/Diversity Management**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **5. HHS-wide Information Systems and Technology**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **6. HHS-wide Budget/Finance**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **7. Public Affairs**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **8. Congressional Affairs**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **9. Additional Management Performance Requirements (as appropriate)**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **PROGRAM RESULTS**                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Organizations are accountable for achieving key program results that  |
| contribute to the success of the Department. Narrative                |
| self-assessment should describe specific measurable business results  |
| on program goals that represent a significant budgetary investment    |
| and/or have been identified as a high priority by the Secretary, and  |
| align with the HHS Strategic Plan. Describe program and               |
| organizational successes in terms of measurable results achieved Also |
| describe organizational challenges and flashpoints. **Organizational  |
| self-assessment narrative for Program Results must not exceed three   |
| pages total.**                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[OPDIV or STAFFDIV Input]{.underline}

# 

# 

# ATTACHMENT D: ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS SUMMARY FORM

**ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS SUMMARY FORM**

**OPERATING DIVISIONS**

**[Administration for Children and Families]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Administration on Aging]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Food and Drug Administration]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Health Resources and Services Administration]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Indian Health Service]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[National Institutes of Health]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**SCOPE Administrative Chair (or designee):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Signature

**ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT RATINGS SUMMARY FORM**

**STAFF DIVISIONS**

**[Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Assistant Secretary for Resources and Technology]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Assistant Secretary for Legislation]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Departmental Appeals Board]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Intergovernmental Affairs]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office for Civil Rights]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of Disability]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of Global Health Affairs]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of the General Counsel]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**[Office of Public Health and Science]{.underline}**

SCOPE Panel Recommendation Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Final Rating Assigned Exceptional Fully Successful Minimally
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

**SCOPE Administrative Chair (or designee):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Signature

# ATTACHMENT E: OPM GUIDANCE

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="8.710416666666667in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.348611111111111in"
height="1.2493055555555554in"}