Review of 2022-2023 evaluation

• When setting goals, the committee looked to priorities identified by Brent because there was no prior evaluation identifying areas of relative strength and weakness
• Committee also looked to Strategic Action Plan to identify Community priorities
• Committee set three goals
  • Increasing staff diversity
    • Evidence was provided about actions taken towards this goal, but it was not possible to really evaluate whether the steps taken had a positive affect on achieving the goal
      • This can be especially difficult with goals related to diversity (or anything where outcome depends on inputs that are outside HOS control)
  • Increasing transparency of leadership
    • Evidence was presented that addressed this goal
  • Evaluating admin team
    • This goal is very straightforward
    • Progress towards this goal was limited

Discussion of Potential New Goals:

• Consider revisiting prior goals, but revised to better articulate how the committee will evaluate progress
  • Goal 1
    • Could revisit to try to collect more meaningful evidence and data needed to assess progress
    • Diversity is currently a focus of the board and that should be considered if setting a goal around diversity

• Goal 2 
  • Rather than revisit the transparency goal, consider having a different communication goal
  • Improved communication serves multiple SAP goals but a communication goal might work better if it is crafted more with an eye for progress would be evaluated, rather than at the high level of SAP goals

• Goal 3
  • Could revisit since the evaluations had not yet happened, but it is a very one-dimensional goal

• Before next meeting folks should look at SAP and think about goals that might work well for this year

Discussion of ways to improve evaluation process this year

• Keep number of goals small
• Consider revisiting prior goals, but revised to better articulate how the committee will evaluate progress
• Consider separating out the evaluation effort/action steps and evaluation of outcomes
• For example, if there is a goal that involves applying for grants, could separately ask for documentation about how many applications were submitted and information about whether any grants were received

Evaluation Process Review:

Review of Timeline:

• Evaluation process is intended to begin towards the end of the year with a self-assessment by the HOS and then the same admin team and board complete the same survey.
  • The survey is broad and is not the primary source of information for the evaluation, more context
  • Last year committee spent a lot of effort on survey
  • Little for committee to do with survey this year - other than review results in spring

• The primary material for evaluating Brent is the evidence provided by Brent in response to the goals set by the committee
  • The committee does not seek out information beyond the evidence provided by Brent
• Formulation of next year’s goals is supposed to be the last step of the annual evaluation process

Discussion of providing support in addition to evaluation

• Evaluation process was focus of committee last year, but committee also has support in its name
  • Providing support could be a way for committee to follow progress related to prior goals without including the goal in the evaluation
• Discussion of establishing regular schedule of meetings, perhaps monthly, between committee members and Brent

Closing Items:

Next meeting 10/2 - at that meeting will work on goals for this year and schedule of meetings with Brent