HD56 - The Desirability and Feasibility of State Agencies Providing Non-monetary Incentives to Exemplary Employees

  • Published: 1994
  • Author: Department of Personnel and Training
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 597 (Regular Session, 1993)

Executive Summary:
House Joint Resolution 597 (1993) directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DPT) to determine the desirability and feasibility of state agencies providing non-monetary incentives to state employees who are role models for their fellow employees and excel in the performance of their duties. Because the Commonwealth currently has a personnel policy which promotes providing non-monetary incentives to state employees, Policy 1.20, Employee Recognition Programs, DPT surveyed 118 state agencies, requesting input on their implementation and use of this program.

Thirty-six, or approximately 51 percent, of the 73 agencies which responded to DPT's survey acknowledge the importance of recognizing exemplary employees and, pursuant to Policy 1.20, have implemented a program to recognize outstanding employees with non-monetary awards or incentives. Normally these awards are given to employees for performance or service above and beyond the normal expectations of the employees' jobs. For example, the University of Virginia Hospital, the Virginia Employment Commission, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Health, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have established programs, such as the employee of the month or year, to recognize and promote excellence in service to the Commonwealth.

Current policy limits the type of recognition which may be given to non-monetary awards with a value of $25 or less. The survey indicated that over half of the agencies with employee recognition programs adhere strictly to the non-monetary award suggestions contained in Policy 1.20 (e.g., cups, mugs or lapel pins). However, almost as many agencies have expanded their programs to include alternate prizes or rewards, while still adhering to state policy. Thus, a number of agencies have been creative in identifying ways to recognize employees within the dollar constraints imposed by policy. For example, some agencies have awarded gift certificates, theater tickets and passes to amusement parks and sporting events. Agencies report that prizes such as these have been very enthusiastically received by employees.

Some agencies stressed the need to remove the $25 ceiling on awards, viewing it as too restrictive and inconsistent with the prestige and honor of awards, such as agency-wide employee of the year awards. To address this concern, agencies have used non-general funds to fund their employee recognition programs. For example, Virginia Polytechnic and State University and the Virginia Employment Commission provide awards from such funds. Other agencies with general and non-general funds, such as the University of Virginia, Christopher Newport University, and the Department of Housing and Community Development, also provide a variety of different awards (e.g., preferential parking).

Respondents to the state agency survey indicated that the Commonwealth should consider requiring all state agencies to implement employee recognition programs pursuant to Policy 1.20. As previously noted, DPT's survey revealed that 51 percent of the agencies are publicly recognizing their exemplary employees. Thus, employees in half of the executive branch agencies do not receive the non-monetary incentives available under current policies. As a result, employees in agencies with strong and effective employee recognition programs receive benefits or incentives which their peers in other agencies do not. Because agencies and other states report that these programs are effective in improving employee morale and productivity, it seems logical that such programs could and would improve the morale and productivity of all agencies' workforces, if they were implemented by all Executive Branch agencies throughout the Commonwealth. This action can be accomplished by amending the current policy to make implementation mandatory, not discretionary.

To ascertain other states' practices in the area of non-monetary incentives, DPT surveyed 49 states and the District of Columbia. Of the 44 respondents, 25, or 56.8 percent, have established some type of program to recognize outstanding employees, with 22 states recognizing exemplary employees on an annual basis.

According to the survey, states award both monetary and non-monetary recognitions. Fifteen of the 25·states that reported having an employee recognition program provide non-monetary awards, such as plaques, citations, jewelry and engraved items. The remaining ten states provide cash award, ranging from $200 in Maryland to $2,000 in Delaware.

Because all of the states indicated that their programs had been in existence for a number of years, each state was asked to rate the effectiveness of its program. The majority of the states (14) indicated their programs were very effective, while ten states reported that their programs were somewhat effective. Only one state, New Hampshire, reported that its program was not effective, because it was not well-publicized.

Based on information received from other states and Virginia's agencies, publicly recognizing exemplary governmental employees is an effective means of acknowledging employees' contributions. Accordingly, so that the Commonwealth realizes these benefits, effective July 1, 1994, implementation of the state's current Employee Recognition Programs Policy will be mandatory for all Executive Branch agencies.