Skip to Search Skip to Global Navigation Skip to Local Navigation Skip to Content
Handbook of Operating Procedures
Chapter 2 - Faculty and Academics
Previous Publication Date: April 23, 2021
Publication Date: December 8, 2021
Policy Reviewed Date: November 17, 2023
Policy Owner: VP for Academic Affairs

2.11 Annual Faculty Performance Appraisal for Merit Consideration


The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System (UT System) supports employee performance evaluation programs endorsed by the Governor's Office and requires a formal performance evaluation of all personnel, including administrators, faculty and staff, at each UT System institution. All Tenured, Tenure-Track and Fixed-Term-Track Faculty Members at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) will be evaluated annually for the purpose of merit review for annual budget consideration and preparation. The evaluations as well as faculty curriculum vitae and Annual Reports will be prepared using the annual Evaluation Guidelines posted on the Provost’s “Faculty Resources” website.


This policy provides for annual evaluation of faculty members as required in Regents’ Rule 30501, Employee Evaluations and Regents’ Rule 31102, Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. It is consistent with UTSA’s dedication to developing and maintaining excellent faculty. Performance evaluation is intended to enhance and protect, not diminish the important guarantees of tenure and academic freedom. The purpose of periodic evaluation is to provide guidance for continuing and meaningful faculty development; to assist faculty to enhance professional skills and goals; to refocus academic and professional efforts, when appropriate; to provide institutional support for enhancing faculty performance; and to ensure that faculty members are meeting their responsibilities to UTSA and the State of Texas. Performance evaluations comprise a critical component in ensuring that faculty members’ contributions to the strategic initiatives of UTSA are consistently evaluated on an annual basis. The goal of the annual review process is not one of ranking individuals. Instead the process should compare individual performance to standards established by their department. These evaluations provide a basis for awarding of merit and other recognition. The performance of Fixed-Term-Track Faculty Members will be appraised to ensure that they are meeting their department’s standards for their responsibilities.


This policy applies to all Tenured, Tenure-Track and Fixed-Term-Track faculty members engaged in teaching, research, and /or service with each of these performance categories evaluated in relation to a predetermined Workload Agreement (Agreement) for that year. In this way, campus-wide, all faculty members are expected to perform in a manner commensurate with the mission of UTSA.

The total workload is the sum of teaching workload plus the approved workload releases sanctioned by Regents Rule 31006, Academic Workload Requirements.



UTSA or UT System Policies or the Board of Regents' Rules and Regulations

  1. Board of Regents' Rule 30501, Employee Evaluations
  2. Board of Regents’ Rule 31006, Academic Workload Requirements
  3. Board of Regents' Rule 31102, Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
  4. UTSA HOP 2.10, Faculty Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
  5. UTSA HOP 2.22, Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
  6. UTSA HOP 2.14, Faculty Workload and Minimum Faculty Teaching Requirement
  7. UTSA HOP 2.25, Faculty Development Leave Program

Other Policies & Standards

  1. Texas Education Code Section 51.942, Performance Evaluation of Tenured Faculty


If you have any questions about HOP policy 2.11, Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation for Merit Consideration, contact the following office:

Academic Affairs


Annual Report: A report of the faculty member’s efforts in all relevant areas of performance during the year under review.

Department Review Committee:  Committee that conducts initial evaluation of faculty within the applicable department in accordance with the department’s performance expectations. Committee membership is to be determined by the departments as outlined in this policy.

Fixed-Term-Track Academic Titles: Titles in which tenure cannot be granted previously referred to as Non-Tenure Track.

Evaluation Guidelines:  Guidance provided by the Provost regarding the evaluation process as well as the preparation of faculty curriculum vitae and Annual Reports. The Evaluation Guidelines will be posted on the Provost’s “Faculty Resources” website.

Workload Distribution: Distribution of effort between teaching, research, and service.


  1. Faculty Member:
    1. Negotiates Workload Agreement with the department chair which is compliant with Regents’ Rule 31006, prior to the evaluation year in an annual Workload Agreement process.
    2. Submits the information required by Regents Rule 31102 Section 5.1(d), curriculum vita and applicable Annual Report information that addresses outcomes agreed to in the annual Workload Agreement for that year, following the Evaluation Guidelines by department deadline.
    3. Meets with the department chair to discuss evaluation and acknowledge receipt of evaluation by procedures established by the provost.
    4. Provides optional written response regarding the evaluation, if desired (no later than college deadline).
  2. Department Review Committee
    1. Evaluates faculty performance
    2. Provides written evaluation of faculty performance to the department chair.
  3. Department Chair
    1. Charges department faculty with developing department-specific expectations for faculty contributions to UTSA’s teaching, research, and service missions.
    2. Consults with Department Review Committee regarding faculty member's performance.
    3. Completes annual evaluation based on the Workload Agreement criteria, as outlined in the department’s evaluation guidelines by college deadline and submit to the Dean, along with a copy of the Department Review Committee’s report.
    4. Meets with each faculty member in person to review evaluation by college deadline.
    5. Certifies to Academic Affairs through the dean that the faculty member's evaluation is complete.
    6. Utilizes the department’s evaluation guidelines in making a recommendation concerning the award of merit to any faculty member.
  4. College Dean
    1. Reviews annual evaluation of Department Review Committee and department chair by University deadline, and amend if appropriate.
    2. Considers performance during the year under evaluation of any presidential releases per Regents’ Rule 31006 before providing releases for the upcoming year.
  5. Academic Affairs
    1. Provides University deadline.


  1. The standards and criteria for evaluation within each department should be developed by consensus of department faculty according to departmental policy or bylaws, in accordance with college policy or bylaws. These criteria will be reflected in the annual Workload Agreement. To the extent possible, criteria for annual evaluation should closely correspond to standards and expectations associated with promotion and tenure.  The following criteria, as well as additional criteria as specified in the department guidelines, will be included in any evaluation tool developed by the department:
    1. Teaching at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including mentoring and instructional innovation, development, and improvement.
    2. Research, creative activities and other scholarly efforts appropriate to the faculty member's academic discipline.
    3. Advising, counseling and other student services.
    4. Administrative and committee service in the department, college, University or other organizational unit.
    5. Public service to the community, state and nation and service to the profession.
    6. Special recognition, such as fellowships, grants, honors, and election to office in scholarly or professional organizations.
  2. Departments play a key role in identifying metrics that represent appropriate performance expectation guidelines. Departmental guidelines defining appropriate contribution will vary by discipline and are best developed initially at the department level. The department chair charges department faculty with developing department-specific performance expectation guidelines for faculty contributions to UTSA’s teaching, research, and service mission. Any reduction in teaching load described by the policy must comply with the criteria of Regents’ Rule 31006. These guidelines will be adopted by a vote of the department tenured and tenure-track faculty. The performance expectation guidelines must conform to the workload policy established by the college and must be approved by the dean of the college. These guidelines will also maintain an appropriate balance of emphasis on teaching, research, and service of faculty.

    Each faculty member negotiates their Workload Agreement with the department chair prior to the evaluation year in an annual workload distribution process. Provision of any course releases for the upcoming year should also be considered in light of the completed year’s performance outcomes for previous releases provided. The resulting Workload Agreement signed by the faculty member, the department chair and the dean, specifies workload percentages and performance expectations. Workload Agreements can cover multiple years, but they should be renegotiated annually in view of evolving circumstances. There may be cases in which workload distribution requires adjustment during the year and these adjustments should be taken into consideration for evaluations. Workload distributions can vary both within and across the departments. However, all departments should maintain ambitious performance expectation guidelines characteristic of a research university regardless of these variances.

    Performance expectations will vary in accordance with the Workload Agreement.  Department guidelines should specify which activities are included in each of the three areas of effort and should also specify expectations for each area of effort as a function of workload distributions.  Department guidelines should outline goals and/ or identify aspirant departments for the purpose of moving forward. As with other aspects of department guidelines, identification of goals and/or potential aspirant departments should occur through general department consensus.

  3. Once approved, the department performance expectation guidelines will be sent to all faculty members and will be posted in the department's "common" folder for future access.
  4. All faculty members will complete an Annual Report for the period of September 1 to August 31. Fixed-Term-Track faculty members will complete the sections of the Annual Report related to activities to which they are assigned. Annual Reports must be completed in accordance with the Department’s performance expectation guidelines and Academic Affair’s Evaluation Guidelines.   
    1. The information required to complete the Annual Report must be submitted to the Department Review Committee by the timelines established by each department or college, provided these timelines do not conflict with those established by the University.
    2. The faculty member must present the following information in or along with the Annual Report:
      1. Updated vita;
      2. Self-assessment commentary and any other information deemed relevant for each category of faculty activity applicable to the individual, in the sections provided in the Annual Report (Teaching, Research or Creative Activity, Service, and Consulting); and
      3. The faculty members' signature certifying the correctness of the information provided.
    3. The following applies to faculty with the circumstances described below:
      1. Faculty on approved leave:
        1. A faculty member participating in the Faculty Development Leave Program is required to provide the information described in section D(2) above. Such faculty are eligible for merit as specified in HOP policy 2.25, Faculty Development Leave Program.
        2. For other types of leave, expectations for annual performance will be established by the faculty member and department chair, with approval by the dean, and in compliance with existing HOP policies and any applicable local, state, or federal laws.
        3. A faculty member who has missed time due to FMLA leave shall be reviewed only on the basis of actual time worked, without penalty for time on FMLA leave.
      2. Faculty who have joint appointments in at least two academic units:
        1. In each case the faculty member will have a majority or "home" department for administrative purposes.
        2. The respective department chairs will engage in a joint review and each evaluation will be weighted according to the percentage of assignmnet in each department.
        3. The department chair of the “home” department will be responsible for the final evaluation of the faculty member and recommendations concerning merit with any merit payments to be distributed based on percentage assignment.  
      3. Faculty with administrative or managerial appointments in addition to department appointments should be evaluated for merit in the Annual Report, as outlined in the department evaluation guidelines, according to standards established by the department chair, dean and unit manager (if other than department chair or dean). The department review committee will evaluate the areas of research and teaching. The faculty member’s administrative or managerial supervisor will conduct the final review, including evaluation in the area of service.
  5. The Department Review Committee will review all submitted Annual Reports, evaluate each faculty member, provide a recommended rating for the faculty member in each area of effort and provide a justification for that rating based upon departmental performance expectation guidelines.  If a faculty member does not submit an Annual Report, the Department Review Committee will obtain readily accessible materials to conduct its review.
  6. Each faculty member will be evaluated and assigned a rating for each area of a faculty member’s expected effort using the evaluation rating categories of “Exceeds expectations”, “Meets expectations”, “Fails to meet expectations”, and “Unsatisfactory” as outlined in Regent’s Rule 31102.  Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. Table 1 provides a description of the four evaluation rating categories. Department guidelines should specify which activities are included in each of the three areas of effort and should also specify expectations for each area of effort as a function of workload distributions. Departments may create their own rating system for the evaluation process so long as the final outcome of the evaluation results in classifying performance in each of the areas of research, teaching, and service within one of the four evaluation rating categories indicated in Table 1. Departments should use the range of scores shown in Table 1. Scores should be rounded up to the nearest quarter of a point.

    Table 1
    Evaluation Rating Categories for Faculty Member's Performance on Individual Areas of Research, Teaching, and Service

Evaluation Rating Category


Will be assigned a score of:

Exceeds expectations

Activities in area cumulatively exceed expectations and reflect a clear and significant level of accomplishment beyond what is normal for an individual with a given faculty rank in the department, unit, and discipline as outlined in the department guidelines.

3.5 to 5

Meets expectations

Activities in area cumulatively meet expectations and reflect standard levels of performance for the department, unit, and discipline as specified in department guidelines.

2.0 to 3.499

Fails to meet expectations

Activities in area cumulatively do not meet expectations. This rating indicates a failure beyond what can be considered the normal range of year-to-year variation in performance, but of a character that appears to be subject to correction.

1.0 to 1.999


Activities in area cumulatively are considered unsatisfactory; and indicate a failure to meet expectations as outlined in department guidelines for the faculty member’s campus, unit, rank, and contractual obligations; and doing so in a way that reflects disregard of previous advice or other efforts to provide correction or assistance, and/or involve professional misconduct or dereliction of duty or incompetence.

0 to .999

The Department Review Committee score for each area being reviewed (teaching, research, and services) will be combined to form the weighted average performance score. The weighting for each area of effort will be determined by the faculty member's workload distribution for the year under review.

For instance, in the case of a faculty member with a “balanced” workload distribution, the weighted overall performance score will be determined by multiplying the score for research by 0.4, the score for teaching by 0.4, and the score for service by 0.2 and summing the results.  In this example, if the faculty member receives a score of 5 for research and 3.4 for both teaching and service, this individual would receive an overall score of 4.040.  By comparing the overall score for each faculty member to the ranges shown in Table 1, the Department Review Committee will recommend an overall evaluation rating category for each faculty member.  In the example above, the overall score of 4.040 corresponds to an overall evaluation of “exceeds expectations”.

  1. The Department Review Committee's recommended evaluation of a faculty member shall be utilized by the department chair as the basis for the completion of the initial evaluation process. The department chair may refine the Department Review Committee’s evaluation by amending portions with which he/she disagrees and/or amplifying where appropriate.
    1. The chair's written annual evaluation will be provided in the Annual Report, as outlined in the Evaluation Guidelines.
    2. The department chair has the discretion to adjust an individual faculty member’s evaluation rating category and/or score in any or all of the three areas of effort.  If the department chair makes such an adjustment, the department chair will provide a report to the faculty member, the committee, and dean outlining the basis for this variance from the Department Review Committee’s recommendation.
    3. The department chair should give the Department Review Committee’s recommendation great weight and any adjustment to the Department Review Committee’s recommendation should be based on the department performance expectation guidelines as well as the descriptions of the evaluation rating categories in Table 1.
  2. The department chair will meet individually with each faculty member subsequent to the evaluation period to review a draft of the initial annual evaluation. If the faculty member feels that the chair or review committee has incorrectly interpreted or overlooked information in the faculty member’s annual report, the faculty member may discuss this with the chair and provide additional information to the chair. Information provided to the chair during this discussion process does not become part of the annual report or personnel file. If the faculty member wishes to incorporate this information in the personnel file, the faculty member may provide this information in an (optional) formal response following the chair’s final evaluation decision, as described in I below.
  3. Following the department chair’s final evaluation decision chair, the faculty member has the option to provide a written response to the chair’s annual evaluation. The faculty member’s response will be included in the faculty member’s personnel file.
  4. The completed performance evaluations will be reviewed by the dean for consistency with college standards and for consistency across and within departments in the college.
  5. The dean may amend the faculty member’s final annual evaluation.  However, the Department Review Committee’s recommendation should be given significant weight and the dean must clearly articulate in writing the basis for any disagreement with the Department Review Committee’s recommendation. 
  6. The dean will provide the faculty member with a written copy of the final annual evaluation.
  7. The University's grievance policy, outlined in HOP policy 2.34, Faculty Grievance Procedure is applicable to the annual review process.
  8. The University will archive the Annual Reports, evaluations and faculty development plans in those cases in which a plan has been established, according to the communicated schedule, using the method specified by Academic Affairs.
  9. All materials related to a faculty performance evaluation will remain confidential to the extent permitted by the Texas Public Information Act, Texas Government Code Section 552.102.
  10. Annual Performance Evaluation Outcomes
    1. The outcome of each faculty member's performance evaluation will be used to determined the amount of merit awarded to the faculty member.
    2. Only faculty members receiving an overall result of "Meets expectations" or greater are eligible for merit. the evaluation outcome may also be used as the basis for nomination for awards or other forms of performance recognition.
    3. If the annual performance evaluation raises concerns about the faculty member’s performance in one or more areas, as indicated by “Fails to meet expectations” in one or more categories, this may indicate that the faculty member could benefit from additional support, such as teaching effectiveness assistance, counseling, or mentoring in research issues or service expectations. The faculty member’s progress in response to the additional support will be monitored through the annual evaluation process.
    4. An evaluation of “Unsatisfactory” in any category indicates that the faculty member would benefit from additional support and the department chair shall work with the faculty member to negotiate a strategy for developmental improvement to include institutional support (e.g. teaching effectiveness assistance, mentoring in research, service opportunities). Alternatively, the department chair may work with the faculty member to negotiate a realignment of the workload distribution (the percentage effort devoted to teaching, research, and service) to reduced responsibility for a performance area of concern. After the faculty member and department chair have agreed upon a strategy for developmental improvement or a realignment of workload distribution, a written description of the strategy or realignment of the faculty member’s workload distribution will be submitted to the dean for approval. The faculty member’s progress in response to the additional support or adjustments in assigned duties will be monitored through the annual evaluations process.
    5. A tenured faculty member whose overall performance is "Unsatisfactory" for two consecutive annual reviews may additionally be reviewed under the procedures described in HOP policy 2.22, Comprehensive Periodic Evaluation for Tenured Faculty (CPE). The decision to undertake a CPE outside of the normal time-frame of six years will be made by the provost in consultation with the dean of the college.
  11. The preferred order for the actions described above is reflected in the following chart. Variations to the specified order should be allowed only when extenuating circumstances are demonstrated:


    Responsible Party

    Faculty completes annual report for previous academic year (September 1 – August 31)


    Committee completes recommendations for evaluation of faculty performance

    Department review committee

    Chair’s Initial Evaluation of faculty performance completed.
    Evaluation interviews held with faculty, written evaluations given to faculty in advance of interview


    Final performance appraisals submitted to college


    Optional faculty statement appended to performance appraisal

    Faculty member

    All college faculty evaluations reviewed


    Optional amendment to performance appraisal;
    Copy of amendment sent to faculty member


    Chair meets individually with faculty to review and agree on the next Workload Distribution Agreement

    Chair, Faculty

  12. Protection of Individual Rights
    Nothing in this institutional evaluation policy is intended to infringe on the tenure system, academic freedom, due process or other protected rights, nor to establish new term-tenure systems or to require faculty to re-establish their credentials for tenure.




Link to online reporting system - Digital Measures



XIII. Dates Approved/Amended