Summary Levels
FAQs
Federal employee performance appraisal regulations
require that employees annually be assigned a summarizing
rating that describes their performance throughout the
entire year compared to the elements and standards
established in their performance plans. This summarizing
rating is called a rating of record and is described
using summary levels, which can be one of five levels
(Levels 1 through 5, with 1 being Unacceptable,
3 being Fully Successful or
equivalent, and 5 being Outstanding
or equivalent.) A few of the most frequently asked
questions about summary levels include:
?
|
Are
the performance rating, the rating of record, and
the summary level the same thing? |
| No, but they are
very similar. A performance rating is the
appraisal of the employee's performance compared
to the elements and standards established in the
performance plan. The rating of record is a
specific performance rating done at the end of
the appraisal period that includes the appraisal
of the elements and standards and also must
include the assignment of a summary level (Levels
1-5). Performance ratings done at times other
than the end of the appraisal period (such as at
the mid-year review, for promotion panels, or
similar situations) do not require a summary
level to be assigned, although one is permitted.
So, while the rating of record is often
associated only with the summary level that is
assigned as part of the process, it actually goes
beyond that and provides a written, or otherwise
recorded, record of the employee's performance on
all elements in the performance plan during the
applicable appraisal period. |
 
?
|
Must
an agency assign a summary level? |
| Yes. When the rating
of record is completed at the end of the
appraisal period, a summary level must be
assigned. The principal reason for this
requirement is that several other personnel
systems and actions rely on the rating of record
as a trigger or threshold (e.g., granting
within-grade increases, noncompetitive
promotions) or as an otherwise necessary input
(e.g., for granting additional service credit in
a reduction in force (RIF)). Agencies may use
between two (Levels 1 and 3) and five (Levels 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5) summary levels, or a specified
combination in between, as permitted by the
agency's performance appraisal system and
specified in the applicable appraisal program. |
?
|
When
can a summary level be assigned? |
| A summary level must
be assigned when the rating of record is prepared
at the end of the appraisal period. A summary
level can be determined at any time agencies deem
appropriate and specify in their appraisal
programs (e.g., performance rating, progress
review). However, the ways in which summary
levels are applied (e.g., granting within-grade
increases and additional service credit in a
reduction in force) are always in the context of
the rating of record. |
?
|
Can
one agency subcomponent use two summary levels
and others use three or more (up to five)? |
| Yes. So long as the
applicable agency performance appraisal system
provides for it, subcomponent programs may use
any pattern of summary levels permitted by
regulation. The Office of Personnel Management
cautions agencies and their subcomponents to
ensure that their applicable performance
appraisal programs explicitly state the pattern
used, including their numeric rating-level
designators and equivalent terms. The summary
level patterns allowed by regulation are:
| Pattern |
Summary
Level |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| A |
X |
|
X |
|
|
| B |
X |
|
X |
|
X |
| C |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
| D |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
| E |
X |
|
X |
X |
X |
| F |
X |
X |
X |
|
X |
| G |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| H |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
?
|
When
designing a method to assign the summary level,
do critical elements have to weigh more than
non-critical elements? |
| Only when
determining Unacceptable performance. The
appraisal regulations permit non-critical
elements to have a greater weight in determining
the final summary level for an employee when
assigning levels above Level 1. However,
if performance on any critical element is
appraised as Unacceptable, a Level 1
summary must be assigned and performance
on a non-critical element can not be used to
raise that summary above Level 1, no matter the
weight it might receive in other circumstances.
Also, any performance-based adverse action may be
based only on a determination that performance is
at the Unacceptable level on a critical
element. |
?
|
Does
an employee have to have a performance rating or
a rating of record of Unacceptable before a
performance-based action can be taken? |
| No, not at all. Both
a performance rating and a rating of record
involve the evaluation of an employee's
performance against all the elements and
standards in the performance plan. At any time
during the appraisal period, an agency can make
the determination that an employee's
performance is unacceptable on one or more
critical elements. This determination is
sufficient to begin the process that could lead
to a performance-based action if the employee's
performance fails to improve to an acceptable
level. |
?
|
Must
the rating of record be derived and the summary
level assigned only on the basis of appraisal of
elements and standards in the employee's
performance plan? |
| Yes. The statute at
section 4302(b)(3) of title 5, United States
Code, requires that employees be evaluated
against their performance standards. |
?
|
Can
an agency assign a summary level below
Level 3 (Fully Successful or
equivalent) if all an employee's critical
elements are appraised as Fully Successful or
better? |
| Yes, as long as it
does not result in assigning a Level 1 (Unacceptable)
summary. However, the Office of Personnel
Management advises agencies that use non-critical
elements to measure group or organizational
performance to stipulate that if all of a
non-supervisory General Schedule employee's
critical elements and individual-level
non-critical elements are appraised at least Fully
Successful, the summary rating of record must
be at least Level 3. This would prevent a
within-grade increase being withheld on the basis
of performance on a non-critical element measured
at the group or organizational level, where the
denial might not be upheld if appealed to the
Merit Systems Protection Board. |
?
|
Why
does the Office of Personnel Management require
programs to include the Level 1
("Unacceptable") summary? |
| The law at chapter
43 of title 5, United States Code, clearly
intends that through their appraisal systems
and programs, agencies will be able to identify
and deal with employees whose performance is
unacceptable. Permitting agency programs to
eliminate the use of the designation Unacceptable
would violate the intent of this law. Statute
defines unacceptable performance as failure to
meet established performance standards in one or
more critical elements. Regulation defines a
critical element as having such importance that
unacceptable performance on a critical element
results in a determination that overall
performance is unacceptable. Therefore, Level 1
is reserved to designate unacceptable overall
performance. |
?
|
Why
does the Office of Personnel Management require
higher-level management review of a Level 1
(Unacceptable) rating of record? |
| An Unacceptable
rating of record bars granting step increases,
may result in a performance-based adverse action,
and removes retention rights in a reduction in
force. For these reasons, there must be an extra
measure of assurance that a Level 1 rating of
record has been properly assigned. The
requirement for higher-level review of a rating
of record that could have significant
consequences for the employee is a prudent
measure of protection for employees. |
?
|
Is
higher-level review required for ratings of
record above Level 1? |
| Higher-level review
of ratings of record above Level 1 is not a
Governmentwide requirement. However, many
agencies may decide that higher-level review is a
good practice and provides a measure of fairness.
In establishing how ratings of record will be
derived, agencies must ensure that equity or
fairness issues are addressed so that the results
of the process are credible and accepted. Here
again, employee involvement in developing program
procedures can help promote such acceptance. |
?
|
Why
doesn't the Office of Personnel Management allow
an agency to use Level 2 as the "pass"
level in a program with two summary levels? |
| The Level 2 summary
rating was never contemplated to signify anything
but marginal performance. There has always been a
presumption that a "pass" would merit
the employees their within-grade increases and
full retention rights in a reduction in force.
Regulations require a Level 3 (Fully
Successful or equivalent) rating of record to
reach the acceptable level of competence
determination needed for a within-grade increase
and to receive all retention rights in a
reduction in force. There have been no compelling
arguments for lowering the threshold for those
personnel actions and those rights to marginal,
rather than fully successful, performance. |
?
|
Who
can determine the rating of record? Who can sign
ratings of record? |
| The regulations are
silent on these issues. Generally, ratings of
record should be based on the input from an
individual or individuals who are in the best
position to assess performance. Agency programs
will identify who prepares the rating of record
and whose signature may appear on official
documentation. |
?
|
Can
a rating of record ever be given at a time other
than the end of the appraisal period? |
| Yes. The regulations
define a rating of record as the performance
rating completed at the end of the appraisal
period that reflects performance over the entire
period, or an off-cycle rating of record given
when a within-grade increase (WGI) decision is
not consistent with the employee's most recent
rating of record and a more current rating of
record must be prepared. These are the only times
that a rating of record can be issued. |
?
|
Why
don't the regulations use the labels
"Pass" and "Fail" more
explicitly? |
Because the term
"unacceptable performance" is defined
in statute and has specific statutory
authorizations associated with it (i.e., to take
performance-based actions), the regulations
implementing those statutes use Unacceptable,
rather than Fail:
- to describe performance that fails to
meet the established performance standard
for a critical element, and
- for a Level 1 rating of record.
Likewise, because of these statutory and
regulatory references, agencies are expected to
use Unacceptable. However, programs that
insist on using the term "Fail" may do
so provided the following conditions are met:
- The program description includes a clear
statement of equivalency to establish
that its use of the term "Fail"
has the meaning and effect of Unacceptable
as used in law and regulation.
- All employees covered by the program
receive clear information concerning the
performance standard(s) that must be met,
that failure to meet would lead to
appraisal and/or rating as
"Fail", and the possible
consequences of that determination.
Technically, there's no reason why the term
"Pass" cannot be used to describe
performance that is not unacceptable.
|
?
|
May
an agency use assessments and measures other than
ratings of record to make personnel decisions? |
Yes. Agencies may
use any procedures they deem appropriate for
considering performance when granting awards and
taking other personnel actions, with the
following exceptions:
- assigning additional service credit in a
reduction in force, which requires that
ratings of record be used to assign
additional service credit, and
- within-grade increases for General
Schedule employees and prevailing rate
system employees, which are tied to
ratings of record and performance ratings
respectively.
|
|
