315 ADVANCEMENT
I. POLICY
II.
SALARY ACTIONS RELATED TO ACADEMIC DEGREE ATTAINMENT
III.
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF CE ADVISORS AND CE SPECIALISTS
IV.
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF ACADEMIC COORDINATORS/ADMINISTRATORS
V. OUTREACH/DIVERSITY COMMITMENT
VI.
PERFORMANCE LEVEL FOR PROMOTION AND ACCELERATION OF CE ADVISORS AND CE SPECIALISTS
VII. PROCEDURES
VIII. REFERENCES
There are four types of academic advancements: by merit increase, by promotion, by acceleration or by correction of an inequity. The first three types of advancements are based on the performance criteria described in Section III below, and on the availability of funds. A promotion or merit increase is not automatic after the normally stated number of years of service at each step.
For Division academic appointees in the CE Advisor or non-campus CE Specialist series, promotions are advancements in rank from Assistant to Associate and from Associate to Full title. For purposes of review, advancement from Full Title, Step V to Step VI is treated as a promotion. For Academic Coordinators and Academic Administrators, promotions are advancements from step to step (for example, from Academic Coordinator, Step II to Academic Coordinator, Step III). Promotions are milestones in a person's career with CE. Promotion reviews require detailed justification and specific supporting documentation. In assessing an individual's performance for the purpose of promotion, ad hoc committee reviews are required.
For Division academic appointees in the CE Advisor or CE Specialist series, merits are step advancements within each rank (advancement to Full Title, Steps VI, is reviewed as noted above).
For Cooperative Extension academic employees, accelerations may be requested for merit or promotion. The advancement request occurs earlier than the normal merit/promotion schedule, but it does not usually exceed the equivalence of one full step (two years at the Assistant and Associate level, three years at Full Title level). See also section III., E., below.
All evaluations of academic personnel for merit or promotion purposes are to be kept strictly confidential. In the review process for salary advancement, reviews and recommendations from various sources are required. Authority for approving advancements rests with the Associate Vice President. Depending on the individual's location and position, and on the type of action being considered, reviews are conducted and/or recommendations are made by the appropriate County Director, SSPP Director, or the Director-Research and Extension Center System; by the appropriate Regional Director, the appropriate Program Leader, or the Assistant Vice President-Programs; an ad hoc review committee, and the Director of Affirmative Action.
II. SALARY ACTIONS RELATED TO ACADEMIC DEGREE ATTAINMENT
Individual professional improvement is encouraged through sabbatical leaves and other professionally related study opportunities. Attainment of advanced academic degree may be rewarded with an appropriate salary advancement with the following stipulations:
- Degree attainment occurs during employment with Cooperative Extension.
- The degree is related to the advisor's program.
- Justification for advancement is submitted as part of the normal merit/promotion/acceleration process.
The attainment of an academic degree, in itself, does not automatically result in a salary advancement.
III. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE
OF CE ADVISORS AND CE
SPECIALISTS
The following criteria (as described below) shall be used in assessing the performance of an individual in the CE Advisor or CE Specialist series:
- Performance in extending knowledge and information
- Performance in applied research and creative activity
- Professional competence and activity
- University and public service
Documented accomplishments in, and commitment to, diversity and outreach goals in program delivery shall be used to help evaluate performance in each of the four criteria.
CE's ultimate job is education. This means working with people (1) to help them to understand their current situations and the potential for change in those situations, and (2) to design and implement strategies that will lead them to use research-based knowledge to improve their situations by adopting specific practices and technologies. In carrying out this responsibility, an academic appointee must demonstrate effective teaching. The results of this teaching will be manifested in changed attitudes and new skills and practices on the part of the appointee's clientele, and ultimately in social and economic benefits to individuals, families, and communities. In judging educational effectiveness, it is necessary to consider the appointee's:
- Command of his or her subject or specialty.
- Educational rationale, methods, and tools.
- Program management and organizational skills.
- Enthusiasm and creativity.
- Program evaluation activities and program results.
Every Division educator must maintain subject matter competence in his or her discipline. The content of all educational programs must be current, accurate, and pertinent to the needs of the program participants. Methods and tools must be selected to optimize the learning of the targeted audience, whether that audience consists of an individual or of large groups. Cost effectiveness should also be considered. Media may include publications, articles in popular and trade magazines, newspapers, and professional journals; radio and television programming; visual media productions; computer software; and new technologies as they are developed. Methods may include independent learning programs, field tours, symposia, workshops, and short courses. Program results or impacts must be documented.
Experimentation and the acquisition of knowledge are vital to an effective Division program. Creative and original thinking is fundamental to the analysis of problems and finding solutions. In general, academics are expected to proceed from an identifiable base of research information. All academic appointees are expected to use the process of scientific inquiry and to analyze program results. The following are considered evidence of an effective Division program:
- Applied Research. An effective research program is sound and balanced. Its objective is to solve major problems and to provide technology transfer or adaptation. It is characterized by quality and quantity of research effort; proper use of available resources; preparation of sound plans; the application of statistical analysis to test the validity of results, where appropriate; quality and quantity of research reports; contributions of research efforts to an industry or to the various public agencies; and cooperation and coordination with researchers in CE, the Agricultural Experiment Station, and other research agencies.
- Creative Activity. An effective program is characterized by the development, implementation and evaluation of the creative adaptation of scientific knowledge or research information to solve specific problems. Creative program development, management, administration, and efforts to reach new audiences are included where they clearly involve an attempt to solve a problem that was not previously solvable, or to solve it in a way not previously accepted within conventional disciplinary practice. Creativity involves the origination of new ideas or practices.
Competence in the subject matter or demonstrated skills appropriate to the discipline are fundamental to individual success, and to the success and progress of the Division as a whole. An employee's professional activities in his or her discipline are evidence of achievement and leadership. In evaluating professional competence, the following factors should be taken into account:
- Knowledge of the subject matter or specialty and the ability to apply this knowledge in practice.
- 2. Evidence of achievement and recognition by colleagues and clientele for providing leadership in the field (including awards, honors, fellowships, and grants).
- Articles published in professional and trade journals.
- Consulting services to other agencies and editorial board services.
- Active membership in disciplinary societies and professional associations, or other activities indicative of professional standing and leadership.
Services to the University, the Division, and CE are an important part of an academic appointee's responsibilities. Significant contributions to community, state, and national affairs will also be considered as evidence for advancement. Examples of activities in University and public service include, but are not limited to:
- Membership and leadership on Division, departmental, or University committees, work groups, or task forces.
- Participation in significant activities and events outside the University.
- Membership on community boards and advisory groups, and other significant community activities.
- Student and career counseling representing the University to the public.
Activity reported in this category must be related to subject matter or disciplinary responsibilities as defined in the appointee's position description.
The following criteria apply to acceleration requests:
- The individual's total performance relative to other academic appointees at the same rank and step should be considered.
- Accomplishments since the last salary action will be the focus of the evaluation.
- Productivity and progress in all four of the criteria for advancement should be greater than would normally be expected for the individual's rank and step, and there should be evidence of exceptional achievement in at least one of the following categories:
- Performance in extending knowledge and information in a specialty area;
- Performance in applied research and creative activity;
- Professional competence and activity; and
- University and public service
- Equity and fairness are major goals in administering all advancement actions.
IV. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE
OF ACADEMIC
COORDINATORS/ADMINISTRATORS
The following criteria shall be used in assessing the performance of an individual in the Academic Coordinator or Academic Administrator series:
- Administrative performance.
- Professional competence and activity.
- University and public service.
- Administrative experience.
- Professional competence and activity.
- University and public services.
See APM-370 and APM-375 for additional information on these series.
V. OUTREACH/DIVERSITY COMMITMENT
Significant outreach/diversity efforts are an integral part of every academic appointee's responsibilities in both program and personnel areas:
Potential program audiences must be identified and compared to the gender/ethnic distributions of actual program participants. Outreach/diversity efforts made to encourage program participation by underserved groups should be considered in terms of activities and results. CE Specialists are expected to carry out specific activities in support of county staff in all aspects of this responsibility.
Evidence of significant efforts should include application of relevant personnel policies and equal opportunity concepts, and contribution to improving underutilization as identified in the Division's Affirmative Action Personnel Plan.
VI. PERFORMANCE LEVEL FOR PROMOTION AND
ACCELERATION OF CE ADVISORS
AND CE SPECIALISTS
Assistant rank is an entry level for academic appointees. For advancement within this rank, appointees must demonstrate the ability to assess needs, set priorities, and plan, organize, implement, and evaluate extension programs. Skills in the area of applied research and creative activity should also be demonstrated. Appointees must also possess good communication skills and show an ability to interact well with colleagues and clientele. Entry level appointees must be receptive to innovative ideas and methodologies in order to build a productive career in Cooperative Extension. Efforts that reflect dedication to continual professional improvement and a position commitment to outreach/diversity must be clearly demonstrated. At the assistant level, all four academic criteria for advancement need not be equally developed; emphasis will be on the areas of extending knowledge and information and applied research and creative activity.
Associate rank is reserved for appointees who demonstrate significant potential for a productive career within Cooperative Extension. They must demonstrate an ability to set program priorities, make long range program planning decisions, and interact well with colleagues and clientele. They must demonstrate initiative and leadership in program development and delivery. The program must be clearly moving toward balance among the four academic criteria for advancement and show evidence of outreach/diversity commitment and efforts.
Full Title rank is reserved for academic appointees who are successfully making positive contributions to their discipline and whose program shows evidence of growth, depth, growing clientele and colleague respect, professional improvement, and outreach/diversity efforts and accomplishments. Candidates considered for promotion from the Associate to Full Title rank must have developed an excellent program, incorporating the four advancement criteria and outreach/diversity efforts. Program accomplishments must show excellence in developing and conducting extension educational programs. This should include authorship of peer-reviewed publications and county or statewide publications that are designed for clientele use. Candidates for advancement to Full Title rank are expected to have demonstrated long-range planning leadership within their program area.
At least three years of service in the preceding step are expected before advancement to Full Title, Step VI. This advancement will be granted only if evidence documents a balanced and outstanding program, showing significant and continuous growth in the four academic criteria for advancement: Extending knowledge and information, Applied research and creative activity, Professional competence and activity, and University and public service. There must also be evidence that the candidate's influence and recognition within their discipline have grown. Efforts that reflect a positive commitment to outreach/diversity must be demonstrated.
Full Title, Steps VII, VIII and IX are reserved for persons who have made exceptional contributions to major program area, resulting in significant benefits to the people of California and contributing favorably to the prestige of the University of California and Cooperative Extension. Advancement into these steps usually will not occur without at least three years of service in the previous step. Candidates must provide evidence of continuing superior performance and professional stature in their field. They must also demonstrate peer leadership, originality, and ability to work effectively with others. Advancement to Step IX is reserved for persons of the highest distinction whose work has been nationally recognized and acclaimed. Individuals should show strong evidence of having developed a well-balanced program with outstanding performance in all four of the academic criteria for advancement. Efforts that reflect a positive commitment to outreach/diversity must also be demonstrated. Strong evidence must be provided to show a wide scope of recognition from peers and clients and a highly meritorious record of public and university service.
- Merits. Advisors wishing to be considered for a merit increase shall prepare a merit Program Review dossier. This dossier should follow guidelines set out in Guidelines for Preparing the Program Review Dossier.
For advancements from Full Title, Step VI to Step VII, from Step VII to Step VIII, and from Step VIII to IX, the merit Program Review Dossier must also include letters of evaluation and publications.
- Promotions/Accelerations. Advisors wishing to be considered for a promotion or acceleration shall prepare a promotion or acceleration Program Review dossier. This dossier should follow guidelines set out in Guidelines for preparing the Program Review Dossier.
For all CE Advisors, the County Director and the Regional Director are responsible for writing a merit or promotion evaluation. The County Director will write the evaluation based on the Advisor's Program Review merit or promotion dossier, personal knowledge of the candidate, and for promotions, letters from peers. For CE Advisors in SSPP, the same review process is followed; however, it is coordinated with the SSPP Director, unless other coordination procedures are set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
For CE Specialists not assigned to campus departments, the SSPP Director, or the appropriate supervisor, is responsible for writing the merit or promotion evaluation.
For Academic Coordinators and Administrators, the immediate supervisor is responsible for preparing writing the merit or promotion evaluation.
All recommendations for merit increases or promotions are forwarded to the Coordinator of Academic Personnel for coordination of the review process.
Merit actions may have mentoring peer committee review at the request of the candidate, the immediate supervisor or the next administrative level. These mentoring review committees are appointed by the Assistant Vice President-Programs with the advice of the Division's Assembly Council Personnel Committee.
Ad hoc review committees, consisting of academic appointees in CE and, for Specialists, the Agricultural Experiment Station, are used for promotions and accelerations. These committees are appointed by the Assistant Vice President-Programs with the advice of the Assembly Council Personnel Committee. Committees appointed to review County Directors shall consist of a majority of County Directors, whenever possible. In cases where the County Director also has program responsibilities, an expanded committee shall be appointed to include subject matter expertise. Equal opportunity/outreach/diversity principles and commitment are considered along with subject matter expertise in the appointment of ad hoc review committees. Reports of the ad hoc committees are sent to the Coordinator of Academic Personnel. Recommendations for merits, promotions, and accelerations are reviewed by the Assistant Vice President-Programs, the Regional Directors, the Program Leaders, and the DAA, and final recommendations are made to the Associate Vice President for approval.
An appeal of the denial of a salary action is sent directly to the Vice President for his/her review. The appeal must be in writing, must state the basis for the appeal, and must be received by the Vice President no later than thirty calendar days from the date upon which the candidate was notified of the denial of the salary action. The Vice President may appoint Ad Hoc committees to consider the appeal. The Vice President's decision on the appeal is final. For appeals of salary actions which allege violations of the policies listed in Administrative Handbook 350, II., B., 8., the formal appeal procedures in Section 350 may be elected by the candidate following the Vice President's final decision.
After the appointee has completed the normal time period at each step, he or she may choose to defer the option to seek advancement. This is done by giving written notice to the appropriate Regional Director, SSPP Director, or other supervisor. In no case, may there be more than two deferrals at any step. The option to advance or defer occurs annually, once the employee becomes eligible. For example, an Advisor at Associate, Step II, who has been at that rank and step for two years, may choose to defer upon first becoming eligible for advancement, and may choose to defer again the following year; but in the next year, he or she is required to seek advancement. If advancement is denied, the normal time in step may be extended for one cycle before the appointee is again required to seek advancement. For example, if an Advisor at Associate, Step II seeks and is denied advancement and has already deferred twice at that rank and step, he or she is required to go forward for advancement two years after the denial.
All promotion and acceleration recommendations are recorded on Form P-101. All merit recommendations are prepared on Form P-100.
VIII. REFERENCES
See Guidelines for Preparing the Program Review Dossier for additional information on advancement procedures.
November 2001
Return to Series 300 Academic Personnel
-<>-