GAO PAY FOR PERFORMANCE State and International Public Sector Pay-For- Performance Systems _--.- _..-.._.” ._.. .._“.-_-.- --“.l ._- -.... “-“1-11 _. . .._. I ..-_ I . -_ ..--_ .-.- ----- General Government Division 13-239836 October 12, 1990 The Honorable Norman Dicks House of Representatives The Honorable Vie Fazio House of Representatives The Honorable Steny Hoyer House of Representatives This report responds in part to your request to examine the federal government’s pay-for- performance system. This system is known as the Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS).As you know, prior reports provided information on how PMRSwas operating and on how it was viewed by employees who were covered under the system and by federal agencies’ personnel directors. This report goes beyond the federal PMRSsystem and examines whether and to what extent state governments are operating pay-for-performance compensation systems. It also identifies some of the problems experienced by those systems and notes that such problems are similar to those experienced under PMRS.The report also presents some general information on the extent to which pay-for-performance systems are being used internationally. Copies of this report are being sent to the Chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Director of the Office of Personnel Management; the states that participated in this review; and other interested parties. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have any questions on this report, please call me on 2766074. Bernard L. Ungar Director, Federal Human Resource Management Issues , Executive Summary - This report was prepared as part of GAO'Sresponse to a request for pay- Purpose for-performance information from Congressmen Norman B. Dicks, Vie Fazio, and Steny H. Hoyer. It identifies those states that employ a pay- for-performance system, describes how these systems are structured and operated, and contains insights into how the systems are viewed by state officials and employees. The report also explores whether and to what extent pay-for-performance systems are being used internationally. The administration and Congress are giving consideration to expanding the government’s use of pay for performance and will also be deter- mining whether any changes are needed in the basic structure of the government’s current pay-for-performance system. GAObelieves the information contained in this report will aid in those deliberations. The Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS)is the fed- Background eral government’s pay-for-performance system. Applicable to about 130,000 grade 13 through 16 managers and supervisors, the system pri- marily relies on performance appraisals as the basis for pay and mone- tary reward decisions. Through an annual performance appraisal process, each PMRSemployee receives a summary rating reflecting one of five !evels of performance- fully successful, two levels above fully suc- cessful, and two below. Although the results of PMRShave been generally disappointing, Con- gress recently reauthorized the program through March 1991 with only minimal change. Congress decided to reauthorize PMRSin this manner because there was general support for the concept of pay for perform- ance but little agreement on how PMRScould be improved. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is currently evaluating the program through a contract with the National Research Council. To obtain the information for this report, GAOcontacted a total of 51 states and territories and visited 6 state governments that operated pay- for-performance systems. Additionally, to find information on the nature of and extent to which pay for performance was being used outside the United States, GAOperformed a literature review and spoke to various international personnel management officials. Although several states have adopted pay for performance, there is no Results in Brief clear consensus as to what constitutes an ideal pay-for-performance Page 2 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance ExeeutiveSummary system. State pay-for-performance systems varied with regard to funding, methods for rewarding employees whose performance justified additional compensation, the number of performance levels in use to assess employee performance, and the percentage of the work force cov- ered by pay for performance. Also, some state pay-for-performance pro- grams were not fully implemented because funding for such programs was not consistently provided. Countries other than the United States are also moving toward pay for performance. As of September 1988, 13 of the 24 countries affiliated with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (oEn)-a European-based research organization-either had or were proposing a performance-based pay system. Principal Findings There Is a General GAOidentified 23 states that use pay-for-performance systems. A review of the international literature on performance appraisal and pay-for- Movement Toward Pay for performance systems indicates that other countries are also moving Performance toward pay for performance in the public sector. As reported by OECD, 13 of its 24 member countries have implemented or are testing the pay- for-performance concept on an experimental basis. GAOfound that, just as in the federal government, there is no general consensus on how best to structure a pay-for-performance system. How- ever, the varying methods used by other public organizations to imple- ment pay for performance provide information that can be helpful in considering the future direction of PMRS.For example: 9 Under PMRS,persons who are eligible for a merit increase do not receive the full amount if it places their salary above the top of their pay range. Four states have compensated for this by allowing the denied salary amount to instead be paid as a bonus. (See p. 20.) l One of the criticisms of PMRShas been that rewards are too small to act as a motivator. For fiscal year 1988, the latest year for which data was available, the average bonus award amount for PMRSwas $1,149. State employees GAOinterviewed generally shared that view with regard to their own systems. In the eight states from which GAOwas able to obtain such information, award amounts ranged from a low of $400 to a high of $2,831 per employee. GAOalso found that some state programs were not Page 3 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance ExecutiveSummary always implemented. For the 3-year period ending in fiscal year 1989,7 of the 23 states did not fund their pay-for-performance system during one or more of these years. (See p. 22.) l PMRSrewards its employees by using a combination of salary increases and bonuses. Nineteen of the 23 states granted performance awards that were added to the employee’s base salary; 9 of the 19 also granted bonuses; but in 4 states, only bonuses were used. In one of these latter states, a personnel official said that the general rationale for only using bonuses was a belief that a salary increase could long outlive the per- formance that triggered it. He also pointed out that bonuses constitute one-time payments and, as a result, are less costly. (See p. 20.) . PMRSuses five rating levels to assess the performance of its employees and consideration has been given to reducing the number of rating levels to two (pass/fail). Twelve of the 23 states that had implemented per- formance-based systems used a 5-level system; but none employed 2 levels. One state official said that, in his opinion, two levels would not be sufficient to assess employee performance. He also said that because it was unlikely that many employees would fail, a two-level system would, in effect, make no distinctions at all. (See p. 19.) l As was the case under PMRS,all states required an assessment of employee performance, and most of the 23 states also based an employee’s performance reward amount directly on his/her rating. (See p. 17.) . PMRSis currently applicable to only a portion of the federal workforce- grade 13 through 15 managers and supervisors. Data compiled by GAO show that although none of the states has made pay for performance applicable to all of its employees, some states have included employees other than supervisors and managers. (See p. 15.) Because this report is informational in nature, GAOis not making any Recommendationsand recommendations. However, GAO'Sfindings clearly demonstrate that Comments whatever type of pay-for-performance system is adopted for federal employees, adequate funding is critical to meeting the system’s objec- tives and for achieving credibility among covered employees. GAOdiscussed the information presented in this report with personnel officials from the various states it visited. With the exception of a few minor technical corrections that were made, the officials agreed with the information GAOpresented. Page 4 GAO/GOD-91-1 Pay for Perfommnce Page IS GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance r Contents Executive Summary 2 Chapter 1 8 Introduction Studies Have Identified Problems With PMRS Objective, Scope, and Methodology 9 12 Chapter 2 15 Stat& Are Moving Several States Have Adopted Pay for Performance States’ Performance Appraisal Systems 15 17 Toward Pay for State Performance Award Payout Process 19 Performance States’ Pay-For-Performance Funding Levels Varied 22 Ratings Distributions 22 State Employees’ Views of Pay for Performance 23 Conclusions 24 - Chapter 3 26 Pay for Performance Performance Appraisal Pay-For-Performance Systems 26 26 in Other Countries Conclusions 29 Appendixes Appendix I: Letter Sent to State Personnel Agencies 32 Appendix II: Respondents to Our Letter 34 Appendix III: Additional Information on State Pay-For- 36 Performance Systems Appendix IV: Amounts Spent by States on Performance 48 Awards for Fiscal Years 1987 Through 1989 Appendix V: Major Contributors to This Report 49 Tables Table 1.1: Performance Increases Under PMRS 8 Table 2.1: State Pay for Performance (PFP) Background 16 Information and Employee Coverage Table 2.2: Components of States’ Performance Appraisal 18 Systems Table 2.3: Types of State Performance Awards 20 Table 2.4: Components of States’ Pay-For-Performance 21 Systems Table 3.1: 13 Countries That Either Have or Are Planning 25 a Pay-For-Performance System Table 3.2: Canadian Performance Award Increases by 29 Rating Level Page 0 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance Contents Table 111.1:Awards as a Percentage of Base Pay in Idaho, 39 Fiscal Year 1989 Table 111.2:Illinois Merit Increase Guidelines, Fiscal Year 41 1990 Table 111.3:South Carolina Employee Performance 44 Ratings by Fiscal Year Table 111.4:Utah Performance Appraisal Guidelines, 46 Fiscal Year 1989 Table 111.6:Utah Merit Increase Funding as a Percent of 46 Payroll, Fiscal Years 1979-1989 Table 111.6:Utah Merit Increase Guidelines, Fiscal Year 46 1989 Abbreviations EPAS Employee Performance Appraisal System GM General Merit GS General Schedule MPS Merit Pay System OFXD Organization For Economic Cooperation and Development OPM Office of Personnel Management PFP Pay for Performance PMRS Performance Management and Recognition System POPS Performance Oriented Pay System Page 7 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance Chapter 1 Introduction The Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRs) is the fed- eral government’s pay-for-performance system for approximately 130,000 grade 13 through 15 supervisors and managers.’ The system primarily relies on annual performance appraisals as the basis for pay and monetary reward decisions. Each PMRSemployee receives a sum- mary rating based on five levels of performance with the middle level considered to constitute fully successful performance. There are also two levels above fully successful and two levels below. The lowest cate- gory is for unacceptable performance. A rating of fully successful or higher entitles the employee to the full amount of any general pay (comparability) increase that is granted to the General Schedule (GS) workforce. A rating of at least fully successful also makes PMRSemployees eligible to earn merit increases in their rates of basic pay (advancement within the ranges for their pay grades) that, for the most part, meet or exceed the salary adjustments available to GS employees in the form of within-grade increases. As shown in table 1.1, the amount of a PMRS merit increase is determined by the employees’ summary ratings for the year and the employees’ position in the salary range for his/her grade. Table 1.1: Performance Increases Under PMRS Salary range Performance rating Lower third Middle third Upper third At maximum rate Level5 Full merit increase Full merit increase Full merit increase No merit increase Level 4 Full merit increase One-half merit increase One-half merit increase No merit increase Level 3 (fully successful) Full merit increase One-half merit increase One-third merit increase No merit increase A rating of at least fully successful also makes employees eligible to earn performance awards-one-time “bonus” payments that are not part of basic pay. Employees who rated two levels above fully suc- cessful are required under the PMRSlegislation to receive a performance award of at least 2 percent of their base salary. PMRSlegislation also requires that an agency’s total payout for performance awards not exceed a maximum of 1.5 percent of its aggregate PMRSsalaries. ‘PMRS was signed into law on November 8, 1984, as Title II of the Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-616,98 Stat. 3196,3207) and was recently reauthorized until March 3 1, 1991, by the Performance Management and Recognition System Reauthorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-103). Page8 GAO/GGD-Sl-1PayforPerPormance PMRSalso reduces or withholds pay increases for less than fully suc- cessful performance. Under PMRS, employees rated one level below fully successful receive one-half of any general pay increase and no merit increase, and employees rated two levels below fully successful receive neither. Additionally, Congress’s October 1, 1989, reauthorization of PMRS legisla- tion established new procedures requiring agencies to place each employee whose performance was below fully successful on a perform- ance improvement plan. If the employee does not improve his or her per- formance to a fully successful level or higher once the performance improvement plan has been completed, he/she may be reassigned, reduced in grade, or removed. We and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have reviewed stuales Have and reported on PMRS since its passage in November 1984. Essentially, Identified Problems these reviews have shown that the results of pay for performance under PMRS have been generally disappointing. With PMRS Results of OPM OPM is required by law to evaluate PMRS and has issued three annual Evaluations reports on the system.2 Although OPM’S evaluations reported that PMRS employees were better paid than they were under either the Merit Pay System or the General Schedule,3 it cited problems associated with per- ceptions of inequity, assessing employee performance levels, “labeling” employees, high percentages of employees receiving awards, low actual dollar awards, and the increased administrative burden placed upon supervisors. For example, OPM’S June 1989 annual report on PMRS made the following statements: l Although federal agencies showed wide variation in PMRS ratings, the performance rating distribution was inflated. 2Performance Management and Recognition System, OPM, June 1989, June 1988, and July 1987. 3The merit pay system-the system in effect prior to PMRS-was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Merit Pay fundamentally changed the manner in which most of the govern- ment’s GS-13through -16 supervisors and managers were compensated. Under this system, employees received a reduced annual salary adjustment and had to compete for pay increases from a fixed merit pay fund on the basis of how well they performed their jobs. Page 9 GAO/GGDz)l-1 Pay for Performance chapter 1 Introduction l Randomly selected and interviewed employees expressed a broad range of opinions on how effective PMRSwas in reaching its goals and objec- tives. Most employees supported the concept of pay for performance but were dissatisfied with its implementation under PMRS. Although OPMreports identified and reported on the continuing problems with the PMRSsystem, no changes or remedial actions were rec- ommended. Commenting on this issue, the Director of OPMsaid during congressional testimony on the reauthorization of PMRSin July 1989 that although essentially no one wanted to go back to the regular General Schedule for the PMRSpopulation, there was no consensus as to exactly how PMRSshould be changed. Also, OPMstated in its 1989 annual report on PMRSthat there was no indication that continuing the current system beyond September 1989, with only minimal changes, would cause serious short-term operational problems. However, OPM also said that it appeared that more substantial changes were essential for the long-term success of the pay-for-performance concept. OPMstated that it would continue to study the PMRSsystem and would also examine alternative pay-for-performance systems. In September 1989, OPMcommissioned a study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the state of performance appraisal technology and, in particular, to find out if there were effective performance appraisal systems in place in the public and private sectors that could serve as models for redesigning the federal pay-for-performance system.4 The underlying question to be addressed by the Council is whether a pay-for-performance or merit pay system would help promote excellence in the federal work force. According to the Council’s project leader, the scope of the work will involve a review and synthesis of the research literature on (1) performance appraisal, (2) compensation linked to performance appraisal, and (3) the organiza- tional variables potentially influencing the effectiveness of any pay-for- performance system. The period for completing the contract is 13 months, with a final report to be issued in December 1990. 4The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciencesto associate the broad community of sciences and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. The Academy is a private, nonprofit, self-governing corporation that was established in 1863 by congressional charter. Page 10 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Perf’ornmnce Chapter 1 Introduction GAO’s PMRSReviews We first reported on the implementation of PMRS in various federal agen- cies in January 1987.6 In that report, we pointed out that factors unre- lated to individual performance resulted in employees with the same grade and rating receiving significantly different award amounts. We also reported that although the PMRS legislation prohibits agencies from prescribing ratings distributions, various factors--including budgetary constraints -put pressure on agencies to influence the distribution of ratings. In May 1989, we again reported on PMRS.~ Despite 4 years of experience with the system, PMRSemployees and the SES members we spoke with raised most of the fundamental problems initially identified in our Jan- uary 1987 report. Also, in general, these individuals indicated that PMRS was not fully meeting its objective of motivating and rewarding employees. Nearly everyone we spoke with said that they believed that performance was not a major factor in determining who received per- formance awards and that awards were too small to act as motivators. Although most of the people we spoke with were unhappy with PMRS, they had few suggestions for improving the system. In the absence of concrete suggestions, we solicited comments on a number of reforms that had been suggested by various personnel management groups. We found that a proposal to adopt a satisfactory/unsatisfactory two-tier rating system was not supported by most of the employees. Also, most did not support using an awards panel to make performance award deci- sions as a substitute for basing award decisions on an individual’s per- formance appraisal. We also found that there was strong support for a proposal to increase the pay of managers and supervisors. In September 1989, we obtained the views of federal agency personnel directors and issued a fact sheet entitled Pay for Performance: Agency Personnel Directors’ Views (GAO/GGD-89-126~s). The problems we identi- fied in our prior work continued to surface. For example, about 80 per- cent of the personnel directors who responded to our letter said that, in general, the views of employees at their agencies agreed with the views we previously presented in our May 1989 briefing report. “Pay for Performance: Implementation of the Performance Management and Recognition System (GAO/GGD-87-28, Jan. 21,1987). “Pay for Performance: Interim Report on the Performance Management and Recognition System (GAO/O-89-69BR, May 18,198Q). Page 11 GAO/GGD-91-1 Pay for Perfornumce I r Chapter 1 Introduction In response to other questions in our letter, about 73 percent of the per- sonnel directors said that PMRSdid not meet or only partially met the goals their agencies wanted to achieve through a pay-for-performance system. Although the personnel directors expressed little agreement on how PMRSshould be changed, two suggestions frequently cited were (1) to give agencies more flexibility in designing pay-for-performance systems to fit their goals and culture and (2) to increase funding for performance awards. This assignment was done as part of our response to a request from Con- Objective, Scope,and gressmen Norman B. Dicks, Vie Fazio, and Steny H. Hoyer. Its overall Methodology objective was to identify and gather information on the design and oper- ations of state government pay-for-performance systems. Although there has been an increasing interest in the topic of reward systems for public employees, we were not able to find any recent survey information on state pay-for-performance systems and practices. Accordingly, we sought to fill this gap by identifying those states that use a pay-for-performance system; describing how these systems were structured and operated; finding out how these systems were viewed by state employees; and, to the extent possible, comparing these state sys- tems to PMRS.It was our view that such information might be useful in assisting Congress and OPMin considering possible modifications and improvements to PMRS.Additionally, as agreed with the requesters, we expanded our work to include gathering information on whether and to what extent pay for performance was being used internationally. To identify those state governments that used a pay-for-performance system,7 we sent a letter of inquiry to a total of 51 states and territories requesting information on various aspects of pay for performance. Spe- cifically, we requested information on l whether the state operated a pay-for-performance system for its employees; . the structure of the performance appraisal portion of the system; l the process used to determine who gets awards, bonuses, and base pay increases; and 7For purposes of our study, we defined a pay-for-performance system as a system that discriminates between satisfactory and other higher performance levels by rewarding employees differently. The reward may be an adjustment to base pay, a one-time bonus payment, or some combination of these. Page 12 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance ./ Chapter1 Introduction . the source of funds and the funding levels for the performance-based pay system. We received a total of 44 responses to our letter of inquiry. Appendix I contains the letter we sent to state personnel directors and appendix II contains a list of states that responded. To further develop our information on state experiences with pay for performance, we made field visits to a judgmentally selected sample of states that had pay-for-performance systems. These were Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. With the exception of Tennessee- which terminated its pay-for-performance system in 1988 because of problems, such as a lack of adequate program funding-the sampled states represented a mix of pay-for-performance systems. The systems varied in terms of appraisal rating levels, employee coverage, and degree of supervisory control over performance-based pay awards. Our field visits involved gathering information from a total of 20 state personnel officials and 75 managers, supervisors, and other employees to get their perspectives and views on how well their pay-for-performance systems were meeting their needs and the needs of their state organizations. The managers, supervisors, and other employees were from various organizational levels within state government and were selected for our field interviews, in most cases, by state personnel officials. Because of the judgmental nature of employee selection, their views cannot be assumed to be representative of all state employees and supervisors nor of all employees and supervi- sors in the state locations or agencies we visited. We gathered and examined available statistical information related to each state’s pay-for-performance system, such as employees’ summary performance ratings, performance award amounts, and general pay increases. We did not verify the accuracy of the statistical data provided to us by the various state employees and officials. Also, we did not examine the basis for the state officials’ views or the validity of the statements they made. Nevertheless, we believe that the testimonial and documentary information we received provided us with a more informed perspective than we had initially on the pay-for-performance practices in operation at the state level. To identify information on whether and to what extent pay for perform- ance was used internationally, we reviewed pertinent literature, including international publications, professional journals, and other media articles. We also spoke with officials of the U.S. Department of Page13 GAO/GGDsl-1Payfor Performance I chapter 1 Introduction State; OPM;the National Academy of Sciences; the Federal Manager’s Association; Professional Managers’ Association; the International Public Management Association; and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),a European-based research organ- ization, to gather information on the use of overseas performance-based compensation systems. Lastly, we spoke to Canadian and corresponded with United Kingdom personnel management officials familiar with their countries’ public sector pay compensation systems. The information gathered on the pay-for-performance systems used by other countries was limited. We had difficulty obtaining sufficient detail on the pay arrangements that applied to public sector employees of these countries. Also, the literature indicated differences in the style of public sector management and the role of public servants from country to country. However, we were able to identify a recent study by the OECD on general trends in pay for performance among its member countries. We also gathered some detailed information on pay for performance in both the United Kingdom and Canada. We highlighted these two coun- tries because of the availability of pay-for-performance information. We gave state personnel officials from the various states we visited an opportunity to review the facts we presented in this report. They gener- ally agreed with the information presented and we made the technical changes they suggested. We did our field work between August 1989 and January 1990 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Page 14 GAO/GGDfJl-1 Pay for Performance StatesAre Moving Toward Pay for Perfomance Twenty-three states indicated that they had a system in which the pay awarded to certain employees was based on demonstrated performance. The rewards included adjustments to base pay, one-time bonus pay- ments, or some combination of these. The types of state pay-for-performance systems in place varied in levels of funding, methods for rewarding employees whose performance justi- fied additional compensation, the number of performance levels in use to assess employee performance, and the percentage of the work force covered by pay for performance. In addition, as indicated in this chapter and highlighted in the case summaries included in appendix III, some of the problems reported about the federal PMRSprogram were also expressed to us at the state level. On the basis of the information provided by those 44 states and territo- Several States Have ries that responded to our letter of inquiry, we identified 23 states that Adopted Pay for use pay-for-performance systems. Most states (14 of 23) had imple- Performance mented their systems within the last 10 years. At least three other respondents-Virginia, Montana, and Missouri-indicated that they were either in the process of studying or actually implementing a state pay-for-performance system. For example, Virginia officials said that in anticipation of a move toward pay for performance, the state had devel- oped new position descriptions for all its employees and implemented a new performance evaluation process to support a closer link between pay and performance. After completing our fieldwork, we were advised that Virginia’s system-“The Incentive Pay Plan”-was implemented in July 1990, with performance awards based upon the new appraisal system scheduled to begin in December 199 1. As table 2.1 indicates, not all state employees are covered under state pay-for-performance systems. For example, in Maryland, only about 400 of the state’s approximately 96,000 employees are covered. Page15 GAO/GGDSl-1Payfor Performance Chapter2 StateaAre MovingTowardPay for Performanm Table 2.1: State Pay for Pertormance (PFP) Background Information and Employees covered Employee Coverage Year PFP Total state Employees Managers or State implemented employees under PFP supervisors Other Alabama 1987 8i,379 33,000 Yes Yes Arizona 1973 53,228 33.000 Yes Yes Arkansas 1986 46,846 19,200 Yes Yes California 1984 366,056 27,7008 Yes No Connecticut 1979 65,790 2,500 Yes No Florida 1968 156,883 98,476 Yes Yes- Idaho 1979 14,400 9,366 Yes Yes Illinois 1978 159,839 10,944 Yes Yes ___. Indiana 1983 102,363 37,070 Yes Yes Iowa 1977 59,723 3,000 Yes Yes Kentucky 1986 74,344 35,700 Yes Yes __- Maryland 1989 96,191 400 Yesb No Massachusetts 1987 104.930 3,600 Yes No Michigan 1980 158,249 400c Yes Yes Minnesota 1985 79,597 900 Yes No Mississippi 1985 50,256 27,000 Yes Yes Nebraska 1987 34,724 14,500 Yes Yes New York 1981 304,628 14,000 Yes No Oregon 1981 59,650 l,lOOd Yes No South Carolina 1970 83.040 56.853 Yes Yes South Dakota 1986 15,995 9,000 Yes Yes lJtah 1969 34,531 13,631 Yes Yes Wisconsin 1969 88,208 9,275 Yes Yes %r 1984, California established a performance-based bonus system for 2,700 managers. In 1987, a sim- ilar bonus system was added for 25,000 supervisors. bMaryland’s pay-for-performance system applies only to senior executives ‘In 1980, Michigan established a performance-based pay system for 400 senior executives. In 1988, the state established an incentive system for 50 pension plan investors employed by the Michigan Depart- ment of Treasury. dOregon does not have a statewide pay-for-performance system, but it has two state departments that use such a system. Our survey showed that the categories of employees most likely to be covered were managers, supervisors, professionals, technicals, and cleri- cals. The employee groups most often not covered by pay for perform- ance generally included educators, hourly workers, elected officials, and law enforcement personnel. Page10 GAO/GGD-91-1 Payfor Performance chaptl?trz SW.WArelUOVillgTOWRFdpllg for Perlormtunm A review of the literature on performance management indicates that a States’ Performance major objective of a performance appraisal system is to provide a sys- Appraisal Systems tematic and uniform method to evaluate an employee’s job performance. Additionally, a performance appraisal system should be used to l help employees understand their responsibilities and their relationship to organizational goals; . advise employees of the level of performance expected of them; l provide periodic feedback to employees on how well they are meeting expectations and coach them in improving performance; l help employees set career goals; . provide a basis for personnel actions, such as training, promotions, and pay; ami . recognize and help to deal with performance problems, Employee performance appraisal systems were utilized within all 23 of the state governments that reported having a pay-for-performance system. Many of the above employee evaluation system objectives were typically cited in information we obtained that described the perform- ance appraisal systems in place. All but two of the reporting states required the establishment of per- formance standards to measure employees’ actual job experience. We found that in many of the reporting states, work standards for an employee were jointly developed by the employee and the supervisor and formally agreed upon. For example, in Arizona, the evaluation por- tion of the pay-for-performance system -the Employee Performance Appraisal System (EPAs)-consisted of performance factors, each of which is weighted according to its degree of importance to the job. Prior to the performance appraisal period, the rater and the employee jointly selected performance factors applicable to the work being performed. The rater, with input from the employee, then determined the weight of each performance factor, and this was formally recorded on employee performance documentation forms. The performance factors included the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to complete employee tasks and included such factors as work habits, policy and procedures, inter- personal relationships, and communications skills. With one exception, all the reporting states indicated that they annually conducted employee performance appraisal reviews. Also, we found that most states used a fixed date, either the anniversary date of a person’s employment or an evaluation date for all employees, for con- ducting the annual performance evaluation. Table 2.2 summarizes some Page 17 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Perfommnce / , cllaplmr 2 &at.aeAreMovingTowardPay for Performance of the major components of the 23 state performance appraisal systems we surveyed. More details on the particular components of the appraisal systems for the six pay-for-performance states we visited are included in appendix III. Table 2.2: Components of States’ Performance Appraisal Systems Standard- Interim setting Ratings ratings state required Frequency Date’ requiredb Alabama Yes Annual Anniversarv No Arizona Yes Annual Fixed Yes Arkansas -- Yes Annual Anniversary No California Yes Annual Fixed Yes Connecticut Yes Annual Fixed Yes Florida Yes Annual Anniversary No k%ho NoC Annual Fixed No Illinois NoC Annual Anniversary No Indiana Yes Annual Anniversary No Iowa Yes Annual Anniversary No __ Kentucky Yes Annual Fixed Yes Maryland Yes Annual Fixed No Massachusetts Yes Annual Fixed Yes Michiaan Yes Annual Fixed Yes Minnesota Yes Annual Fixed No Mississippi Yes Annual Anniversary Yes Nebraska Yes Annual Fixed No New York Yes Annual Fixed Yes Oregon Yes Annual Fixed No S.Carolina Yes Annual Anniversary No z Dakota Yes Semiannual Fixed No Utah -- Yes Annual Fixed No -- Wisconsin Yes Annual Fixed No aA fixed date rating period means all employees are rated at the same time during the year. This differs from rating periods, which are usually based upon some employee anniversary date, such as date of last promotion or employment start date. bin many of the states, interim ratings are required for new employees hired for a probationary period CThese two state employee performance appraisal systems require ratings based on employees’ accomplishments toward preestablished work objectives rather than performance standards. Page 18 GAO/GGDsl-1 Pay for Performance chapter 2 StateaAre Mom TowardPay for Performance States Primarily Use a Because one of the PMW reform proposals being considered during 1989 Five-Tier Rating Appraisal by Congress involved the implementation of a two-tier rating system instead of the five-tier system that was being used, we inquired as to the System number of rating levels that were being used by the states. We found that 12 of the 23 surveyed states used a five-tier rating system. The next most favored system was three rating levels, with 7 of the 23 states favoring such a system. Of the remaining four states, two used four rating levels, one used six rating levels, and one used an eight rating level system. None of the surveyed states employed a two-tier rating system. In commenting on a two-tier rating system, one state personnel official told us that while it might be difficult at times to draw distinctions among performance levels under a five-tier system, the simple “pass or fail” rating provided for under a two-tier system does not contain suffi- cient information on the level of employee performance. Also, the offi- cial indicated that, in all likelihood, few employees would be rated “unsatisfactory”; thus, the two-tier rating system would, in effect, make no distinctions at all. The results of a 1989 performance management survey of over 3,000 U.S. private and public organizations by the Wyatt Company-a private personnel management consulting firm-also showed that a five-tier rating system is the one that is most prevalently used. Wyatt reported that 67 percent of the organizations it surveyed used five performance rating levels within the organizations’ performance management systems. In reporting this information, the Wyatt Company also stated that there were some problems and challenges associated with using any number of performance levels effectively. It said that the levels must be clearly defined and that the ratings process must be carefully monitored to ensure that ratings are not interpreted and granted inconsistently. Of the 23 states we surveyed, all contained a payout system for per- State Performance formance awards in which the amount of pay awarded to an employee Award Payout Process varied depending on the employee’s performance. The basis for these award payouts varied among the responding states. Most of the 23 Y states directly linked the performance award amount to the employee’s performance rating. Some states provided a mechanism to accelerate new employees’ wages toward the market rate by providing a shorter Page19 GAO/GGDOl-1 Pay for Performance cbaptm 2 States Are Moving Toward Pay for Perfommnce performance evaluation period, such as 6 months, for new employees as opposed to a l-year period for senior employees. Also, a number of states applied a matrix payout system when an employee’s pay position within a particular pay range and performance level together deter- mined the amount of the performance award. For example, in Idaho, an employee at the lower end of the pay range was eligible for a larger percentage increase in base pay than an employee at the higher end of the pay range, even though both employees may have demonstrated equally commendable performance. PMRS rewards its employees by using a combination of base pay increases and bonus performance awards. Table 2.3 summarizes the various pay-for-performance award combinations used by the 23 states we surveyed. Table 2.3: Types of State Performance Awards Number Type of performance award of states Base oav and bonus I 1 5 Base oav onlv 10 Base pay with bonuses paid to employees at pay range maximum 40 Bonus only 4 Total 23 aOne of these states also pays bonuses for the portion of any award that exceeds 3.5 percent of an employee’s base salary. As pointed out in table 2.3, four states exclusively used a one-time lump- sum bonus under their performance award payout process. A state per- sonnel official from one of the four states told us that the general ratio- nale for the lump-sum option was the belief that a base salary increment could long outlive the performance that triggered it, and that work and performance are time-bound. The official said that conceptually, true pay for performance should be given in the form of lump-sum bonuses separate from salary and tied into a specific time period of performance. The official also pointed out that granting performance awards in the form of bonuses would be less costly to the state government than the alternative of increasing the base salary. Table 2.4 summarizes the available information on the payout processes used by the reporting states. Page 20 GAO/GGDol-1 Pay for Performance Chapter 2 StatesAreMovingTowardPay for Performance Table 2.4: Component8 of Statea’ Pay For-Performance Sydems Award type and range State Base pay Bonus Comments Alabama O-IO% None Arizona Bonuses for those at pay range O-7.5% 2.5-5% maximum. Arkansas 2.5-5.5% none California Panel sometimes used for award none decision. Connecticut Bonuses are given to managers at pay range maximum and those who O-3.5% 3.5-8% receive awards above 35%. Florida Bonuses for those at pay range 3-5% 3-5% maximum. Idaho O-10% o-$1,000 Illinois O-8% none Indiana O-4% none Iowa O-IO% Kentucky No funds have ever been appropriated by state legislature for none O-$50 performance awards. Marvland O-6% none Panel is used for award decision, Massachusetts Bonuses are limited to 15 percent of none 53,000 eliaible manaaers. Michigan Bonus based, in part, on group 4-7% none performance. Minnesota O-5% none Mississippi Legislature has not funded pay for O-3% none performance since 1986. Nebraska O-7.5% O-7.5% New York Bonuses only available for those at O-33%8 $400-3,000 pay range maximum. Oregon __I- O-IO% none South Carolina O-3% none South Dakota none 1.75% Bonuses are capped at $500. Utah O-6% O-$2,000 Wisconsin 2-10% $100-1 .ooo aNew York’s base salary award is not a percentage of base pay. It is a percentage of the salary range amount for a particular salary grade. For FY 1988, the maximum amount that could be earned was $5,500. Using information from state personnel officials and state funding docu- mentation we received, we determined that the pay-setting process for these 23 states typically involved 4 separate state organizations-the state personnel department or agency, the state budget office, the state governor’s office, and the state legislature. Page 21 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance I chapter 2 States Are Moving Toward Pay for Perfommnce Although generally limited, funding information we gathered from the States’ Pay-For- states shows some variance as to whether and at what amounts states Performance Funding were funding their pay-for-performance systems. For example, for the Levels Varied three l-year performance award periods from fiscal years 1987 through 1989,7 of the 23 states did not spend any money for one or more of those periods on their pay-for-performance systems1 Further, one state had never spent any money for its pay-for-performance system even though the system had been established by legislation passed in 1986. In addition, during the same 3-year period, 19 of the 23 states, including 4 of the 6 states we visited, spent some funds for general salary increases (cost of living increases) in addition to the pay-for- performance awards. These general salary increases generally ranged between 3 and 5 percent of an employee’s base salary. We also found that the amount of employees’ performance awards varied among the responding states. Although the funding information we gathered on state performance award payouts was limited, we identi- fied some data on the range of performance award amounts granted to state employees. We found that the average annual performance award amount for the eight states from which we were able to obtain data ranged from a low of about $400 to a high of $2,831 per employee. The available state information we received on overall state funding levels and average performance award amounts is summarized and included in appendix IV. According to an OPMofficial, for fiscal year 1988, the latest year for which data was available, the average performance award amount under the federal PMRSprogram was $1,149. Data on the number of state employees receiving performance awards were generally not available. However, for one state we found that about 72 percent of eligible employees received an average performance award of $1,200, which represented about a 2.6 percent increase in average salary base. In our prior work on PMRS, we reported a concern that management pres- Ratings Distributions sure and quotas were influencing performance ratings and awards. For the six states we visited, we asked management and employees about the use of forced ratings distributions for employees. State personnel ‘Different states funded their pay-for-performance systems in different ways. Some established pay- for-performance budgets that were considered and approved by the state’s legislature. In other states, no separate budget was set aside for their pay-for-performance systems, and costs have to be absorbed through vacancies and savings from other operations. Page 22 GAO/GGDBl-1 Pay for Performance chaptm 2 Stata Are Moving Toward Pay for Performance officials we spoke with said their state personnel agencies did not pre- scribe rating distributions but acknowledged that a number of factors, including budgetary constraints and the desire to give substantial per- formance awards for quality performance, exerted influence on ratings distributions. The officials generally viewed the issue of forced ratings distributions as a basic dilemma associated with having to distribute among employees a finite amount of money in amounts significant enough to reward exceptional performance without damaging the morale of those who did not receive such awards. They indicated that these issues were often considered to be part of the individual state agency’s responsibility for managing its performance award budget. We identified two examples that demonstrate how states were handling this issue. First, in Illinois, in order to assure equity in performance awards among state agencies, an average performance award increase guideline was established by the state personnel agency (see app. III, p. 38). Under this guideline, base salary increase ranges were set for each performance rating category. Each state agency was required to control its performance award increases during the year to assure that the guideline was being followed. Similarly, in New York, the state per- sonnel agency instituted a requirement that state agencies pay perform- ance increases to no more than 40 percent of the eligible employees. In general, 63 of the 75 state employees we interviewed believed that State Employees’ although pay for performance was a means for rewarding exceptional Views of Pay for employees, inadequate or inconsistent state funding sometimes hindered Performance or undermined the system’s goals. For example, Mississippi did not appropriate funds to award performance increases for fiscal years 1987 through 1990. A fiscal year 1989 Mississippi state legislative report cited the negative impact experienced by state agencies due to this lack of funding. Some of the reported results were as follows: l Performance appraisal systems lost their effectiveness when funding was not provided. Employee morale and incentive to excel suffered. . Pay for performance must be funded every year or the state will not be competitive in attracting and retaining highly qualified technicians, medical personnel, and other professionals. Also, some state employees we interviewed said that, at times, perform- ance increases were perceived to be too small to be an incentive for improved performance. For example, a manager from one state told us that she had difficulty motivating her supervisory employees when, due Page 23 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance Chapter 2 States Are Moving Toward Pay for Performance to tight state budgets, employees could at best receive a 4-percent increase in salary. She pointed out that, at the same time, unionized state employees were receiving an 8 percent salary increase. The current experience in state government compensation practices sug- Conclusions gests a trend toward the adoption of pay-for-performance-based com- pensation systems. Since 1980, 14 states have adopted such systems and another 3 states are in the process of designing or implementing a pay- for-performance system for their employees. This represents a change from the more traditional step-based pay plans that based employee advancement primarily upon longevity of service. Some state pay-for-performance systems we reviewed were operated differently from the federal PMRS.For example, under PMRS,employees who are at or near the maximum rate of their salary range cannot receive a merit increase that would cause their salaries to exceed the maximum rate for their grade; but we identified four state pay-for-per- formance systems that have compensated for this situation by allowing employees at the top end of their pay range to instead receive a lump- sum bonus. Just as at the federal level, however, there was no clear consensus among our surveyed states as to what constitutes an ideal pay-for-per- formance system. States varied in the number of performance levels they used to assess employee performance and the percentage of the work force they covered by state pay-for-performance systems. Further, some of the problems reported about PMRSwere also concerns at the state level. For example, most state employees we interviewed believed that although pay for performance was a means of rewarding excep- tional employees’ performance, overall weaknesses, such as inadequate or inconsistent state funding, sometimes hindered or undermined the system’s goals. Also some employees we interviewed told us that per- formance increases were sometimes perceived to be too small to be an incentive for improving performance. Page 24 GAO/GGD-91-1 Pay for Performance Chapter 3 Pay for Performancein Other Countries A 1988 report on public sector pay by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)indicated that other countries are moving toward pay-for-performance systems as part of a more general movement towards flexible pay structures in the public service. Although Canada and the United States were the first countries to intro- duce performance related pay for public servants, several other coun- tries have recently implemented, pilot tested, or planned a pay-for- performance system. Table 3.1 lists 13 countries OECDidentified as either having or proposing a pay-for-performance system. Table 3.1: 13 Countries That Either Have or Are Plannlng a Pay-For-Performance Country Current or proposed system System Australia Performance-related pay system for senior executive service and middle management grades. Canada Performance-related pay ranges for senior civil servants. Performance bonus for senior civil servants. Denmark Flexible fixino of salaries in central administration aoencies. Finland Experimental system for performance-related pay in the Customs Department, the State Computer Center, and the Department of Roads and Waterwavs. France Performance bonuses for civil servants. Ireland Performance-related pay ranges for senior civil servants. Italy Experimental productivity bonus in the Ministry of Defence and the Audit Office. Japan Performance allowance for National Public Employees. The Netherlands Flexible salary system for central civil service, including performance bonuses. New Zealand Performance-based pay for senior managers. Spain New salary system for civil servants, including a productivity complement. Sweden Performance-based pay. increases for senior staff in state business agencies. United Kingdom A variety of performance-related pay components used throughout civil service. According to OECD,most of its 24 member countries operate performance Performance appraisal systems of some type in the public service. These countries Appraisal use performance appraisal systems for a variety of reasons. Most are designed to improve communication and performance; however, a few are also designed to directly link pay to performance. In general, according to the OECDreport, while there are variations in approaches to appraisal, the primary emphasis is on employee accountability, perform- ance review, and improving performance in the current job, as opposed to assessing potential or promotability. Appraisal is becoming integrated Page 26 GAO/GGD-91-1 Pay for Performance I Chapter 3 Pay for Performance in Other Countries with other aspects of performance management, particularly the setting of work goals and standards, linking individual targets to organizational goals, and measures for performance improvement. Some OECDmember countries, require that staff be assessed annually in writing, although in other countries appraisal is less formal or is con- ducted at longer intervals. In a few countries there is no provision for some form of regular appraisal. The direction in which appraisal sys- tems are moving in OECDcountries is expressed in the following excerpt from an 0EcD report: “The increasing concern with accountability and achievement of results has led to a major emphasis on the use of appraisal to improve performance in the current job, and this is considered to be the main purpose of an increasing number of systems. This trend is reflected in the use of appraisal systems to set individual performance objectives, and to evaluate achievements in relation to these objectives, There has been a corresponding shift away from appraisal criteria based on character traits, such as judgment, determination, and initiative, to criteria designed to reflect job content and results achieved.” Pay-For-Performance employees covered and in the appraisal and payout components of their Systems pay systems. Thus, it is not possible to draw precise comparisons among those OECDcountries with pay-for-performance systems. In this section, we have presented a few common pay-for-performance features and, for Canada and the United Kingdom, provided separate, more detailed descriptions of their systems. These two countries were selected due to the availability of information describing their systems. Canada intro- duced its pay-for-performance system in the 1960s whereas the United Kingdom introduced its system in 1985. According to OECD, pay-for-performance systems often exclude the highest positions in the public service and political appointees because of the difficulty of finding an appropriate person to assess performance for these positions. Also, the systems apply primarily to managerial staff, particularly senior managers, although in several countries cov- erage extends down to lower levels. Another pay-for-performance fea- ture found among member countries is the use of lump-sum bonuses as a type of performance-linked pay award. They are normally awarded once a year and have to be re-earned each year. Bonuses may be expressed as a percentage of basic salary or a cash amount. The size of bonuses varies widely between systems, as does the method of selecting employees for awards. Page 26 GAO/GGD-91-1 Pay for Performance Chapter 3 Pay for Performance in Other Countries A review of the OECDreport indicates that member countries’ perform- ance appraisal systems are subject to the same types of problems associ- ated with PMns-insufficient performance standards, rating subjectivity, rating inflation, and a high administrative burden. For example, in the United Kingdom, a 1985 evaluation of the performance bonus system identified employee dissatisfaction with the system due to a lack of clarity in the system’s criteria and procedures for distributing perform- ance awards. Feelings of inequity were generated by the fact that the number and size of bonuses varied considerably from one department to another, and there was a perception that employees in more visible posi- tions were more likely to get bonuses. The imposition of a ZO-percent quota on the proportion of staff who could qualify for bonuses led to a widespread attitude that the bonuses were not worth competing for since only a small proportion could receive them. The more recent performance-related pay systems, such as those used in the United Kingdom and Denmark, have sought to overcome these problems by linking rewards to performance appraisal outcomes, aban- doning explicit quotas, and providing for more significant rewards. However, inadequate funding has hindered the operation of several pay- for-performance systems. The United Kingdom’s The United Kingdom is progressively extending pay for performance Pay-For-Performance throughout its public service after having piloted a pay-for-performance system for senior managers in 1985. After an internal evaluation of the System pilot program in 1987, the system was revised and pay for performance has been gradually expanded to include other groups of employees. According to OECD,as of April 1990, virtually all nonindustrial civil ser- vants are covered. Pay for performance has also spread in other areas of the public sector, including the National Health Service, public utili- ties, and local government. The United Kingdom’s system provides for step increases based on satis- factory performance and additional step increases for outstanding per- formance. In the United Kingdom system, employee performance is assessed annually using a five-level performance rating system. The five levels are outstanding, significantly above requirements, fully meets normal requirements, not fully up to requirements, and unacceptable. The appraisal system requires supervisors and employees to establish work objectives and performance standards upon which performance is rated. Page 27 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance Chapter 3 Pay for Performance in Other Countries The collective bargaining agreement establishes pay scales, divided into steps, for each covered pay grade. Each scale has a pay maximum but also has at least four steps above the maximum. These four steps are used to reward outstanding performers who have reached the normal pay maximum. Employees below the range maximum who receive an outstanding performance rating may receive an extra step increase. Employees at or above the pay range maximum are eligible for a step increase after one outstanding rating, three consecutive significantly above requirements ratings, or five consecutive fully meets normal requirements ratings. Also, there is a limit (generally 25 percent) on the number of staff that can receive step increases at any one time. Canada’s Pay-For- Canada has had some type of pay for performance since the 1960s. It Performance System instituted a bonus program, in addition to existing performance-linked base salary increases, for senior managers in 1981, but the bonus system was not funded until 1985. In 1988, the system covered 4,537 man- agers-about 2 percent of total employees in the Canadian federal public service. The Treasury Board of Canada is the central agency with oversight responsibility for the pay-for-performance system. Perform- ance appraisals are required annually at most government agencies. Employee performance is assessed using a five-level performance rating scale: outstanding, superior, fully satisfactory, satisfactory, and unsatis- factory. No more than 30 percent of employees can receive the top two ratings (outstanding and superior). The Canadian appraisal system provides for both assessment of objec- tives achieved and a brief assessment of the employee’s qualifications, including professional or technical competence, knowledge, skills and abilities, and responsiveness to the needs of other employees and of the public. Managers are appraised against a broad range of criteria relating to factors such as management of staff and other resources, communica- tion with staff and the public, policy formulation, and negotiating ability. Individual agencies establish a set of performance elements under which supervisors and employees set work objectives and per- formance standards. The Canadian pay-for-performance system for managerial employees was suspended for several years due to lack of funding, and even when it did operate, the rewards paid were often small. Since 1985, however, the system has been altered and funds have been made available for it to operate as intended. Page 28 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance Chapter 3 Pay fer Performance in Other Countries There are no automatic pay increments under the Canadian pay-for-per- formance system. Salary increases for a given individual are determined solely on the basis of merit, Employees who are below the pay range maximum and who receive performance ratings at the fully satisfactory level and above can receive base salary increases of 0 to 10 percent. Performance award increase amounts vary by rating level as indicated in table 3.2. Table 3.2: Canadian Performance Award Increases by Rating Level Rating level Increase as a percent of base salary Outstandina 7 to 10% Superior 5 to 7 Fully satisfactory 3 to 5 Less than fullv satisfactorv 0 Canada’s pay-for-performance system also provides performance awards in the form of bonuses for staff who have reached the top of their salary scale. Employees who are at their salary range maximums and have performance ratings of fully satisfactory or above are eligible for performance bonuses of up to 10 percent. Individual bonus amounts are governed by the following guidelines: l Those who receive a rating of outstanding are eligible for a bonus of up to 10 percent of their base salary. . Those who receive a rating of superior are eligible for a bonus of up to 7 percent of their base salary. l Those who receive a rating of fully satisfactory are eligible for a bonus of up to 5 percent of their base salary. The Canadian pay-for-performance system controls the allocation of employee performance awards (base pay and bonus awards) through the use of quotas for the distribution of ratings. The number of employees assessed as “outstanding” should not exceed 5 percent of an agency’s staff in any one year, and the number rated “superior” should not exceed 25 percent. Also, it is expected that approximately 65 per- cent of the staff will be rated as fully satisfactory and may be eligible for base pay increases of 3 to 5 percent of base pay. Conclusions are testing pay for performance concepts on an experimental basis. These countries are moving toward pay for performance as part of a Page 29 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance Chapter 3 Pay for Performance in Other C4mntries more general movement towards flexible pay structures in the public service. Much like our analysis of the states’ systems, our analysis of other coun- tries shows that OECDcountries’ pay-for-performance systems also vary in the groups of employees covered and in the appraisal and payout components of their pay systems. Further, these countries’ pay-for-per- formance systems are subject to the same types of problems associated with the federal PMRS-such as insufficient performance standards and inadequate funding of performance awards for employees. Despite these problem areas, performance-based pay overseas represents a new way for many countries to attempt to motivate staff and make them more accountable for achieving results. Page 30 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance Page 31 GAO/GGDOl-1 Pay for Performance 4 , Appendix I I Letter Sent to State PersonnelAgencies ’ GAO United States General Accounting Washington. OPflce D.C. 20548 General Government Division August 16, 1989 Dear The U.S. General Accounting Office, an evaluation arm of the Congress, is studying performance management systems. We are particularly interested in pay-for-performance system5 --frequently called merit pay systems--that are designed to reward and motivate outstanding employees. During our most recent studies of the federal government's pay-for-performance system for managers and supervisors, we found that the system was not functioning as well as intended. As part of our search for solutions, we are gathering information on how various state governments' pay-for-performance systems are designed and operated. We would appreciate your help in this effort. We ask that you write to tell us whether your state operates a pay-for- performance system. If your state does operate a pay-for- performance system, we would like a brief explanation of the system and copies of any documents that explain the specific feature5 of your performance management system as well as any studies made of it in recent years. To assist us in another area of our work, we would also like a description of the procedures your state uses to identify poor performers and to help them improve their performance. If your state does have a pay-for-performance system, we would appreciate having the name of a person to contact for more information. Among other things, we would be interested in discussing the following questions: -- When was it started and what number and categories of employees does it cover? -- Who is responsible for preparing and reviewing performance appraisals, how many rating levels does the appraisal system have, and what adjectives are used to describe these levels? Page 32 GAO/GGDI)I-1 Pay for Performance Appendix I Letter Sent to State Personnel Agencies -- what is the process used to determine who gets awards, bonuses, and base pay increases--for example, supervisory judgment, automatic payout based on ratings, or judgments of a “review panel”? If a review panel is used, how is it comprised? -- what is the structure of awards, bonuses, and base pay increases, including the minimum and maximum dollar amounts and/or percentage of base pay provided for under law or regulations? -- For the most recent year for which data are available, how many and what percentage of eligible employees received bonuses, awards, and base pay increases, and what were the range and average amounts in dollars and percentages of base pay? -- What are employees’ perceptions on the extent to which the system effectively rewards and motivates them, and whether they view the system as fair? We would appreciate receiving your response as soon as possible. The return address is: Bernard L. Ungar Director, Federal Human Resource Management Issues Room 3858A U.S. General Accounting Off ice 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548. If you have any questions, please contact Deborah Parker or Norman Stubenhofer on (202) 215-6557. Thank you for your time and contribution to our effort. Sincerely, Bernard L. Ungar Dir% tar, Federal Human Resource Management Issues Page 33 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance Appendix II Respondentsto Our Letter 1. Alabama 2. Arizona 3. Arkansas 4. California 6. Colorado 6. Connecticut 7. Delaware 8. District of Columbia 9. Georgia 10. Guam 11. Hawaii 12. Idaho 13. Illinois 14. Indiana 16. Iowa 16. Kansas 17. Kentucky 18. Louisiana 19. Maine 20. Maryland 2 1. Massachusetts 22. Michigan 23. Minnesota 24. Mississippi 25. Missouri 26. Montana 27. Nebraska 28. Nevada 29. New Mexico 30. New York 3 1. North Carolina 32. North Dakota 33. Ohio 34. Oklahoma 35. Oregon 36. Pennsylvania 37. Rhode Island 38. South Dakota 39. Utah 40. Virginia 4 1. Washington 42. West Virginia Page 34 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance Appendix II Respondents to Oar Letter 43. Wisconsin 44. Wyoming Page 35 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance ADDendix III Additional Information on State Pay-For- PerformanceSystems To further develop our information on state experiences with pay for performance, we visited 6 of the 23 states that reported having a pay- for-performance system. These states were Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illi- nois, South Carolina, and Utah. The following information summarizes by state the type of pay-for-performance systems in use, the available statistical information on the systems, and state employees’ views on how the systems are operating. Arizona first implemented its pay-for-performance system in January Arizona 1986. The system, entitled “Performance-Oriented Pay System” (pops), replaced a standard governmental pay and merit system for state employees. The new pay system recognized and rewarded employees for performance rather than longevity of service. Under pops, employees are awarded salary increases ranging from 1.2 percent to 7.5 percent of their base salary. In addition, agencies can grant l-year special perform- ance awards to those exceptional employees at the top of their salary range. In order to administer the pops program, performance standards and other job-related criteria were established in each agency to measure employees’ performance. The appraisal component of the system was a management-by-objectives process entitled the “Performance Planning and Evaluation System.” According to a state personnel official, how- ever, the Performance Planning and Evaluation System was dropped in 1987 and replaced by a simpler and more uniform rating system with an automated processing capability, called the Employee Performance Appraisal System (EPAS). The change occurred due to concerns that the old system was too subjective and involved too much paperwork. About 33,000 (62 percent) of Arizona’s employees are covered by its pay-for-performance system. Generally, state legislative and judiciary, university, and public safety employees are not covered by the system. The Arizona Department of Administration oversees the system through the development of policies and procedures that address such personnel issues as awarding performance increases and annual performance assessment requirements. Performance Appraisal Arizona’s EPAS consists of performance factors, each of which is weighted according to its degree of importance to the job. Initially, 26 System u factors were available for use, but in 1988 the number was changed to 13 to simplify the process. Of the 13 possible factors, 3 are mandatory- Page 36 GAO/GG;DI)l-1 Pay for Performance Appendix III AdditIonal Information on State Pay-For- Performance Systems work habits, relationships with people, and policy and procedures. With the employee, the supervisor selects the applicable performance factors and weights. According to a state personnel department official, most supervisors use from three to six factors. A numerical rating is determined for each performance factor based on the employee’s performance appraisal documentation. Each perform- ance factor is rated using a rating scale that contains four categories of performance, each of which is divided into two numerical scales- exceeds standard (7 and S), standard (5 and 6), below standard (3 and 4), and unacceptable (1 and 2). A final cumulative numeric score or rating is generated by computer for each employee and is the basis for a performance award for the employee. Thus, the employee’s pay is directly linked to the performance rating or appraisal. ~~. Award Process Arizona’s performance award payout process allows state agencies to reward different levels of contributions by employees by providing base pay increases ranging from 1.2 percent to 7.5 percent. In addition, agen- cies could grant l-year special performance awards to those exceptional employees at the top of their salary range. These awards are made on a lump-sum basis and must be within 2.5 percent to 5.0 percent of the employee’s base salary. According to an Arizona Department of Admin- istration official, agencies are granted a great deal of flexibility in granting performance awards. For example, the criteria for receiving special performance awards can either be the same or different from the criteria for regular base salary increases. Employee Views Overall, six of the eight employees we interviewed were satisfied with the pay-for-performance system and its administration by state govern- ment. They indicated that certain refinements, such as changing the biannual appraisal requirement to annual, were improvements to the system. Some of the employees thought that more money should be appropriated for the program, that higher increases should be awarded, and that subjectivity and favoritism still existed in the evaluation pro- cess at times. 1 Idaho has had a pay-for-performance system since 1979. The goals and Idaho y objectives of the system are to recognize different degrees of employee performance with differing salary rewards and to provide such increases solely on the basis of merit. However, until recently, Idaho’s Page 37 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance . Appendix III Additional InformatIon on State Pay-For Performance Syetmw state legislature has not appropriated money specifically for its merit program. In 1989, the state legislature appropriated a S-percent (of salary budget) increase for merit pay. Employee performance awards are in the form of salary increases and bonuses. Idaho has 9,366 state employees (about 65 percent of the state work force) covered by the state merit pay system. The Idaho Personnel Commission has overall responsibility for over- seeing the state merit pay system. However, each state department establishes its own procedures for merit pay administration within the general principles set forth by the Commission. Most state agencies within the Idaho pay-for-performance system use a five-level rating system for employee performance evaluations. The five levels are supe- rior, very good, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory. Employees are evaluated once a year on their anniversary date, and there are no required interim reviews. Performance Appraisal Idaho personnel law specifies that an employee’s immediate supervisor System is responsible for preparing the employee’s performance evaluation. The performance evaluation process is individually structured by each state department or agency. The Personnel Commission makes available a standard appraisal form for this purpose; however, departments may revise or use their own appraisal forms. According to Idaho Personnel Commission officials, each department has sufficient flexibility for designing its performance appraisal process. For example, some state agencies use four rating levels rather than the five levels suggested by the Commission. Performance Award The Idaho State Legislature is the funding source for pay-for-perform- Payout Process ante money. The funding for performance-based salary increases, which has to be appropriated each year by the legislature, was not provided until 1989. In that year, the State Legislature appropriated about $19 million for merit increases to be awarded, in increments of 2.5 percent, to employees rated satisfactory or above. Also, employees at their salary maximum are eligible to receive a bonus award of up to $1,000 per year. Different state agencies implemented the performance award process in different ways in 1989. Some chose to award all eligible employees a 5 percent merit increase in order to make awards to as many employees as possible. Other agencies, such as the Idaho Personnel Commission, chose Page 38 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance . Appendix IJI AddMonal Information on State Pay-Fop Performance Synte1118 to make merit awards based on a combination of performance appraisals and employee position within the step pay range. (See table III. 1.) Table 111.1:Award8 a8 a Percentego of Baee Pay in Idaho, Fircal Year 1989 Pay Steps Ratins A to c D to H I to M Superior 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% Very Good 7.5 5.0 2.5 Satisfactorv 5.0 2.5% 2.5% The state personnel director estimated that for fiscal year 1989 about 72 percent of eligible employees received merit increases. The average annual performance-based pay award was about $1,000, representing about a 2.6 percent increase. No information was available for the amount spent on bonuses. Employee Views Nine of 12 state employees we interviewed thought that the overall strength of Idaho’s pay-for-performance system was that it offered a means for rewarding exceptional performers. However, the employees also thought that merit pay funding levels were either inadequate or inconsistently provided. Illinois’ pay-for-performance system-the Merit Compensation Illinois System-has been in operation since 1978. The system covers approxi- mately 11,000 employees in professional, supervisory, or managerial positions not subject to collective bargaining. It features an annual per- formance evaluation that requires managers to give an overall rating based on attainment of pre-established objectives. Employees’ anniver- sary dates are used as the basis for timing the appraisal process and annual performance increases. Illinois uses four rating levels under the performance appraisal portion of its pay-for-performance system. The Illinois Department of Central Management Services oversees the Merit Compensation System and, each year, issues a merit compensation plan to be followed by participating agencies. Under this plan, perform- ance awards or base salary increases vary in amount, depending on the employees’ level of performance and position in the state salary range. To assure equity among state agencies, an average salary increase Page 39 GAO/GGBSl-1 Pay for Performance -F Appendix Ill Additional Information on State Pay-Fop Performance Systems guideline is assigned to each agency. Each agency must control its per- formance awards during the year to assure that the guideline is followed. The Illinois Department of Central Management Services suggests that performance plans be updated quarterly but does not require formal interim ratings. In general, implementation of the performance appraisal system is decentralized to the state agencies and departments. Although the state personnel department does not prescribe rating distributions, a personnel official told us that some state agencies have told raters not to give superior performance ratings because of budget constraints. Performance Appraisal Illinois used a management-by-objectives performance appraisal system with four rating levels- significantly surpasses, fully accomplishes, System marginally accomplishes, and unacceptable.’ State merit compensation employees are rated on each objective included in their employee per- formance plan, but there is no set formula to calculate an overall sum- mary rating. Instead, managers subjectively weigh the importance of each objective in determining the summary rating. Performance Award At the beginning of the fiscal year, Illinois’ Department of Central Man- Process agement Services publishes suggested salary increase ranges for each rating level. The Department bases its suggested increase ranges on market pay data, the state budget situation, and the size of union con- tract increases. These centralized payout guidelines were adopted to ensure some degree of consistency in performance awards among state agencies. For fiscal year 1990, the Illinois Department of Central Man- agement Services provided state agencies with merit increase guidelines or goals for the range of individual performance award amounts (expressed as a percentage of base salary) to be granted at each per- formance rating level. Additionally, the personnel department asked that all agencies maintain approximately a 4-percent average merit com- pensation increase during fiscal year 1990. ‘Effective July 1, 1990, Illinois changed its number of rating levels to five-superior, exceeds expec- tations, meets expectations, needs improvement, and unacceptable. Page 40 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance . Appendix III Mdttional Information on State Pay-For- Performance Systema Table 111.2:llllnois Merit Increase Chidelines, Fiscal Year 1990 Rating Increase as a percent of base salary Significantly surpasses 5to8% Fully accomplishes 2 to 5 Marainallv accomdishes 0 to 2 Unacceptable Merit Compensation employees do not receive general cost-of-living increases; all available funds are used for the performance-linked increases. Performance award increases are paid to employees on their anniversary dates rather than at one specific date every year. Having ratings and payouts spread out throughout the year spreads out the per- formance assessment work load. In addition to base pay performance awards, Illinois awards “intermittent increases” to employees for out- standing performance. Intermittent increases are permanent base salary increases that can be awarded to an employee for outstanding perform- ance at a time other than the employee’s anniversary date. Agencies awarded 384 intermittent increases in fiscal year 1989 totaling $44,000. - ~.~ Employee Views All six of the state employees we interviewed said that the size of indi- vidual performance awards (4 percent of average base pay increases) under the state’s pay-for-performance system was too small to motivate employees to perform better. Further, three of the six employees believed that, due to the limited funding available for performance awards, some supervisors rated their employees similarly so that all employees received the same performance award amount. The employees said that they believed this practice undermined the principle of merit pay. Florida always been funded. The goals and objectives of Florida’s merit pay system are to recognize different degrees of performance with differing salary rewards and, when funded, to provide salary increases on the basis of merit. Florida uses a three-tier rating system under the perform- ance appraisal portion of its merit pay system. Statewide appraisal guidelines issued by the Florida Department of Administration, the agency that oversees the merit pay system, require that each employee at least annually receive a performance appraisal based on standards defined and identified as being part of the requirements of their position. Page 41 GAO/GGD91-1 Pay for Performance Appendix III Additional Information on State Pay-Fop Performance Syetmm Florida’s merit pay system covers about 98,000 career service employees. Essentially, all state employees except those who are elected or appointed are covered. Merit funding was not appropriated for fiscal year 1990 by the state legislature. Merit funding was available in fiscal years 1986 through 1989, when the Florida legislature appropriated 1.6 percent of the total base salary paid to career service employees. Performance Appraisal Florida’s performance appraisal guidelines require that supervisors and System employees meet at least annually, at the end of the employee’s appraisal period, to assess performance in relation to the performance standards that have been set for the position. For career service employees, the performance appraisal period is based on the employee’s anniversary date. Employees are rated using a three-level rating scale. The three levels are exceeds performance standards, achieves performance stan- dards, and below performance standards. A Florida Department of Administration analyst told us that the state has no overall policy that sets the distribution of performance ratings. In practice, however, most employees are rated as achieving perform- ance standards. Performance Award According to an Administration official, over the last few years, merit Process funds were either not appropriated or the funding levels were particu- larly small. Although the Florida legislature did not appropriate funds for merit pay for fiscal year 1990, the occupations of Professional Health Care, Law Enforcement, and Security Services (Correctional Officers) did receive appropriations for longevity-based increases. State instructions for merit pay for fiscal years 1986 through 1989 required that only those employees currently rated “Exceeds Perform- ance Standards” were eligible for merit pay increases. Each state agency head is responsible for developing the specific criteria for determining which employees should receive merit increases, determining the per- centage increase to be given, and informing all employees of the selec- tion criteria. State employees at or above the maximum of the salary range were granted either a lump-sum bonus or an increase to their base rate of pay, depending on the specific instructions for that fiscal year. According to a Department of Administration official, statistical infor- mation on merit payouts for previously funded fiscal years was not readily available. Page 42 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance Appendix III Addkloml Information on State Pay-For- Performance System13 Employee Views According to responses from 26 state employees we interviewed about the overall strengths of Florida’s program, 12 said that the program pro- vided a means for rewarding exceptional employees, 9 said that it pro- vided hope for rewarding good performers, and only 5 said that it offered a way for employees to move through the pay range. Regarding overall weaknesses of Florida’s program, 15 of 25 employees said that funding was inadequate, 6 said that funding was inconsistent, 6 said that ratings were inconsistent, and 5 said that favoritism existed in the award selection process. South Carolina has had a merit pay program since 1971. However, offi- South Carolina cials said that, since 1982, the South Carolina Legislature has not shown a strong commitment to the merit pay program. During this 7-year period, merit increases were authorized in only 2 fiscal years at an average merit increase of 2 percent and 1 percent of the state salary base. The goals and objectives of South Carolina’s pay-for-performance pro- gram-the Employee Performance Management System-are to recog- nize different degrees of performance with differing salary rewards and to provide salary increases solely on the basis of merit. The program is centrally administered by the Human Resource Management Division of state government and covers about 57,000 state employees. Unclassified employees, such as teachers, college professors, and executive compen- sation employees are not covered by the state’s pay-for-performance system. Performance Appraisal Employees are rated annually on the their employment anniversary dates. The state does not require or suggest interim performance reviews. According to a state compensation official, the employee has a role in setting expectations at the beginning of the performance appraisal period. South Carolina does not use performance standards. Normally, the employee and the supervisor jointly write the employee’s position description, which lists the duties the employee is performing or has been assigned. South Carolina has four performance levels. These levels are substantially exceeds performance requirements, exceeds per- formance requirements, meets performance requirements, and below performance requirements. According to a state compensation official, South Carolina does not have a policy on forced rating distributions. However, according to personnel Page 43 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance Additional Infomadon on State Pay-For- Performance System13 officials from one state department, quotas on the number of employees who could be rated as exceeding performance requirements were set by the department in order to manage merit funds. Although complete data on employee performance ratings were not readily available, the information we were able to obtain on the distribu- tion of employee performance ratings for fiscal years 1984 through 1989 is shown below. Table 111.3:South Carolina Employee Performance Rating8 by FIBCal Year Number of employees rated at each level Rating 1989 1988 1987 1988 1985 1984 Below requirements 4 4 3 5 7 8 Meets requirements 31,845 32,289 -37,710 30,735 30,887 27,633 Exceeds requirements 7,321 6,556 6,166 5,997 6,798 4,249 - Substantially exceeds requirements 119 a Note: Table reflects data as of June 30 each year. %ubstantially exceeds level was added to appraisal system in July 1989. Performance Award The South Carolina Legislature, which is the funding authority for merit Process pay funds, has not appropriated funds for a merit increase since fiscal year 1988. In that year, the merit increase was 1 percent. State per- sonnel guidelines at that time provided for agencies to award increases in amounts up to 3 percent, provided that in the aggregate, all increases average 1 percent of base salary. Although the state legislature did not consistently fund the merit pay program in recent years, state employees continued to receive annual cost-of-living increases. In the last 2 years the cost-of-living increases were 4 percent a year. In addition to these increases, during fiscal year 1989, the state gave out $12 million in bonus funding at an average of $366 per employee. This bonus was not related to performance and was provided to state employees. To be eligible for a merit increase, an employee must have a current performance appraisal with a rating of at least “meets performance requirements.” Employee Views In general, 6 of the 11 South Carolina employees we interviewed consid- ered the overall strength of the state’s pay-for-performance program to be that it provided a way for exceptional employees to move through Page 44 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance - f Appendix IJI Additional Information on State Pay-For- Perfommnce Syetema the pay range. Also, 8 of the 11 employees cited merit pay funding as an area needing reform. Utah first implemented pay-for-performance in 1969 with the intent to Utah promote open communication between managers and employees and to assess employee performance according to predefined standards. Cur- rently, Utah requires that each employee have a performance plan and receive an annual performance rating based on this plan. Utah uses a three-tier rating system under the performance appraisal component of its merit pay system. About 14,000 of the state’s approximately 35,000 employees are cov- ered by the merit pay system. State elected officials, members of the judiciary, and various state boards are not covered. The Utah Depart- ment of Human Resource Management oversees the merit system through the development of rules and policies that address such govern- mentwide issues as the number of performance rating levels, how per- formance should be related to pay, and annual performance assessment requirements. State agency responsibilities include setting internal time frames for conducting performance appraisals, establishing a perform- ance management implementation strategy, educating and training employees about performance management, maintaining the perform- ance management system, and reviewing its internal effectiveness. Performance Appraisal Employees are rated annually in May, and, although the state does not require them, the Department of Human Resource Management strongly System suggests that state agency supervisors complete quarterly interim reviews. At the beginning of the rating period, supervisors and employees are required to mutually establish work objectives and per- formance expectations in a written performance plan. Employees are rated as either exceptional, successful, or unsuccessful. Although Utah Department of Human Resource Management officials said the state does not have a policy on setting performance rating distributions, the Department issues to the agencies an expected rating distribution to guide agencies in monitoring ratings for the forthcoming fiscal year. The following guidelines were in effect for the 1989 fiscal year performance appraisal period: Page 45 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Performance - Appendix III Additional Information on State Pay-For Performance Systfmw Table 111.4:Utah Performance Appraisal Quldelines, Fiscal Year 1969 Ratina Expected distribution Exceptional 20% Successful 78 Unsuccessful 2 Salary Increases and Utah merit pay employees are eligible for cost-of-living or general increases and also for merit increases that are additions to base salaries Bonuses based upon performance ratings. The state legislature appropriates funds annually for each type of increase as a percentage of covered employees’ aggregate payroll. The state legislature did not fund merit pay increases in 6 of the last 11 years, as table III.5 indicates. The 1989 merit increase appropriation of 2.5 percent of payroll was equal to . approximately $6.3 million. Table 111.5:Utah Merit Increase Funding aa a Percent of Payroll, Fiscal Years Year Merit increase Year Merit increase - 1979-1969 1979 0.0% 1985 2.0 1980 0.0 1986 0.0 1981 4.0 1987 0.0 1982 4.55 1988 0.0 1983 0.0 1989 2.5 1984 1.25 As shown in table 111.6,for fiscal year 1989, the Department of Human Resource Management provided state agencies with rules on the range of individual merit increase amounts. These increases are expressed as a percentage of base salary and are to be granted at each performance rating level. Table 111.6:Utah Merit Increase Guidelines, Fiscal Year 1969 Increase as a percent of base salary -Rating Exceptional 3.0 to 6.0% ---- Successful 2.0 to 2.5 Unsuccessful 0.0 Because 1989 merit increase funding was limited to 2.5 percent of agency payroll, when one employee received an increase of greater than 2.5 percent, another employee had to receive less than 2.5 percent. Employees at the top of their pay ranges are not eligible for merit increases. Department of Human Resource Management officials told us Page 46 GAO/GGD-91-l Pay for Perfommnce . Addltloti Information on State Pay-For Perfor&luuwe systeme that data on merit increase amounts broken down by performance rating levels were not readily available. Employee Attitudes In our initial meeting to discuss plans for gathering information on Utah’s pay-for-performance system, state personnel officials requested that we not present employee views. Page 47 GAO/GGDSl-1 Pay for Performance , Appendix IV Amounts Spent by Stateson Performance Awards for F’iscalYears 1987 Through 1989 Dollars in millions Average annual Performance award amounts performance award stete FY 1967 FY 1966 FY 1989 amount per employee Alabama N/A N/A ” N/A WA Arizona $14.3 a N/A N/A Arkansas N/F $8.5 8.6 $460 b California $1.4 1.4 1.4 Connecticut 3.5 3.9 4.1 1,650 Florida WA N/A WA 4%C Idaho N/A N/A $19.0 $1,000 Illinois N/A N/A 15.9 -- 1,616 d d Indiana N/F 4%d Iowa N/A N/A N/A N/A Kentucky N/F N/F N/F N/F Maryland VA N/A WA WA Massachusetts N/F N/F N/F N/F Michigan $0.4 $0.5 WA $2,831 Minnesota WA N/A N/A N/A Mississippi N/F N/F N/F N/F Nebraska $5.0 $6.0 $6.0 400 New York VA N/A 9.6 N/A Oregon N/A N/A WA WA South Carolina N/F WA N/F 1 %e South Dakota N/F- I N/F N/F Utah N/F N/F $6.3 $495 Wisconsin WA N/A N/A 1,130 N/A = Performance pay funded but state financial data not available. N/F = State pay-for-performance system not funded. aNo statewide performance award data were available. However, range of awards was available for one of the larger state agencies-$391 to $952 per employee for FY 1989. bAverage performance award amount for FY 1989 was $1,750 for managers and $500 for supervisors. ?n fiscal years 1985-1989, the Florida legislature appropriated 1.5 percent of the total base rate of pay for all career service employees, resulting in increases ranging from 3 percent to 5 percent for eligible employees. For the FY 1990 performance pay period, no performance increase funds were appropri- ated. No other performance payout statistics were available. dPerformance award amounts were not available. State pay for performance funded in FY 1987 at 4 percent and FY 1988 at 4.25 percent of total state salary base. For FY 1988, the average annual employee performance award was 4 percent of base pay. ePerformance award amounts were not available. For FY 1988, the average annual employee perform- ance award was 1 percent of base pay. ‘A performance-based cash bonus program entitled “merit cash” was authorized in 1990. South Dakota state employees may receive, in cash, 1.75 percent of base pay up to a maximum of $500. Page 48 GAO/GGDOl-1 Pay for Performance Major Contributors to This l&port -General Government Division, Washington, - Mfn.agement Issu? Wllham Trancuccl, Evaluator-in-Charge Deborah L. Parker-Junod, Evaluator D.C. Ernestine Burt, Secretary Clyde James, Evaluator Atlanta Regional Kathy Alexander, Evaluator Office Page 49 GAO/GGDBl-1 Pay for Performance (966408) . _- ---_-I .“.1 .-I ,,._,, ll-l.. _.. . . . ._.... ..__.. -..--.I .__^. --I -..- _ .-.-. -..--1------------ I__-_ ".I _..._ - -.-....... -.,l---"l-"_--.-- Ordering Infornrat.iot~ I J.S. (;t*ntv-al Account,ing Office I’.(). Box ml 5 (;aithc*rshurg, MI) 20877 Ortit~rs rniiy also he placed by calling (202) 275-C&41. First-(:lass Mail Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GlOO
Pay For Performance: State and International Public Sector Pay-For-Performance Systems
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-10-12.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)