Pay for Performance: State and International Public Sector Pay-for-Performance Systems
DIANE Publishing, 1994 - 49 pages
Examines the federal government1s pay-for-performance (PFP) system and whether and to what extent state governments are operating PFP compensation systems. Identifies some of the problems experienced by these systems. Also presents general information on the extent to which PFP systems are being used internationally. Charts and tables.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
2.5 percent Additional Information anniversary date Annual Fixed Yes annual performance Arizona assess employee performance base pay increases base salary increases bonus bonuses Employee Performance Appraisal Employee Views Employees are rated employees received employees we interviewed Fiscal Year 1989 Florida Florida legislature for-performance system fully satisfactory fully successful Human Resource Management Idaho identified Illinois implemented Increase Funding Management and Recognition merit pay system Moving Toward Pay N/A N/A N/A N/F N/F N/F oecd Pay for Performance pay range maximum Pay-For pay-for-performance system percent of base percentage Performance Appraisal System performance award amount Performance Award Increases Performance Award Payout performance factors performance levels Performance Management performance standards Performance Systems performance-based pay Performance-related pay personnel directors Personnel Management personnel officials rating distributions Recognition System salary range South Carolina South Dakota Steny H United Kingdom Vic Fazio Yes Annual Anniversary Yes Annual Fixed Yes Yes
Page 34 - Hawaii 12. Idaho 13. Illinois 14. Indiana 15. Iowa 16. Kansas 17. Kentucky 18. Louisiana 19. Maine 20. Maryland 21. Massachusetts 22. Michigan 23. Minnesota 24. Mississippi 25. Missouri 26. Montana 27. Nebraska 28. Nevada 29. New Hampshire 30. New Jersey 31. New Mexico 32. New York 33. North Carolina 34.
Page 34 - Maine. 18. Maryland. 19. Massachusetts. 20. Michigan. 21. Minnesota. 22. Mississippi. 23. Missouri. 24. Montana. 25. Nebraska. 26. Nevada. 27. New Hampshire. 28. New Jersey. 29. New Mexico. 30. New York. 31. North Carolina. 32. North Dakota. 33. Ohio. 34. Oklahoma. 35. Oregon. 36. Pennsylvania. 37. Rhode Island. 38. South Carolina. 39. South Dakota. 40. Tennessee. 41. Texas. 42. Utah. 43. Vermont. 44. Virginia. 45. Washington. 46. West Virginia. 47. Wisconsin. 48. Wyoming.
Page 10 - Loaned initially by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to...
Page 33 - Room 3150 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548 If you have any questions about this survey, please call William Trancucci at (202) 512-5043 or Mary Martin at (202) 512-4345.
Page 12 - Although the personnel directors expressed little agreement on how PMRS should be changed, they frequently suggested that agencies be given more flexibility in designing a pay-for-performance system that fits their goals and cultures.
Page 14 - ... existing federal, state, and independent studies of the programs. During our review, we also interviewed other researchers and knowledgeable officials and reviewed available studies of managed care programs for disabled persons. We performed our work for this study between November 1995 and May 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Chapter 2 States Are Moving Toward Managed Care for Disabled Medicaid Recipients Of the 17 states that enrolled some portion of...