tuition reimbursement program · web viewthis report outlines the results of an evaluation of the...

Tuition Reimbursement Program

Evaluation Final Report

Prepared By:Kimberly Betty

Marcus GherardiMichael Denney

Job Ramirez

Prepared For:

Saint Elsewhere Regional Medical Center

Table of Contents

I. PRELIMINARIES................................................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................. 2

Preface............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology...................................................................................................................................................... 2

II. FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2

Background and Context..................................................................................................................................... 2

Descriptions and Definitions............................................................................................................................... 2

Consumers.......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Resources........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Value.................................................................................................................................................................. 2

III. SUB-EVALUATIONS........................................................................................................................ 2

Process Evaluation.............................................................................................................................................. 2

Outcome Evaluation........................................................................................................................................... 2

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................... 2

Exportability....................................................................................................................................................... 2

IV. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2

Overall Significance............................................................................................................................................. 2

Report................................................................................................................................................................ 2

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 2

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................................ 2

Survey Results.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Tuition Reimbursement Program Evaluation Proposal | 2

APPENDIX B............................................................................................................................................ 2

Interview Data.................................................................................................................................................... 2

APPENDIX C............................................................................................................................................ 2


I. PreliminariesExecutive Summary

This report outlines the results of an evaluation of the Tuition Reimbursement Program at Saint Elsewhere Regional Medical Center. The evaluation explores the impact of the tuition reimbursement program in correlation with the associated organizational goals and expectations for the program. The evaluation attempts to answer the following questions:

Is the program meeting the organization's future workforce needs for hard to recruit, shortage areas?

Is there an increased retention of key talent linked to the program?

Does the program help to develop high potential talent for succession/promotion?

Is there an increase in job performance/productivity due to program involvement?

What is the return on investment (ROI) associated with the program?

Overall Result: Based on the evaluation results, the Tuition Reimbursement Program has been given an overall rating of very good. The chart below breaks down the ratings across each individually measured criteria; retention, work performance, promotions, and recruitment.

General Comments: Critical and important areas are rated good to excellent. The Tuition Reimbursement Program is not a very strong recruitment tool.


Areas of Strength:

50% lower turnover rate in TRP participants. Majority of employees identify TRP as having a

positive impact on their job performance.

Areas for development:

Program is not marketed in/outside of company.

Work/life/school balance counseling program.

Preface

Our client is the Director of Organizational Learning/Development department at Saint Elsewhere. Stakeholders for this evaluation are the hospital’s Senior Leadership Team, the client mentioned above and the tuition reimbursement program manager. There is no record of a previous evaluation of the program. It has been in existence since 1987, preceding the client’s employment start date. The client wants to know if the program is providing a significant monetary benefit and to have proof to provide to the Senior Leadership Team.

To examine whether the program is meeting its goals, we conducted a goals-based summative evaluation. The purpose of doing a goals-based summative evaluation was to look at each of the program’s goals, which are clearly established, and determine whether or not they have been met. This provides proof of whether or not the program’s output is worth its input. Overall, this evaluation determines the evaluand’s relative worth to the company and provides major stakeholders with assistance in making financial decisions regarding the program.


Methodology

Since our focus was to perform a goal-based evaluation, we used elements of behavioral objective approach and experimental design. Using this combination-type of evaluation design, we were able to determine if the program has obtained its desired outcomes (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001).

We conducted a goal analysis, which involved identifying the program goals, determining which factors of the program to measure and how we plan to measure those factors using the resources available. We then met with the client to determine a ranking system for each of the factors.

The evaluation focuses on the program ROI – Return on Investment. Some indicators of ROI we measured are employee retention, recruitment, promotions, and work performance. We developed a survey targeted toward program participants that addressed retention, job performance, and promotions. We determined program participant turnover rate and compared that number against the company-wide turnover rate to provide a measure for retention benefits and a base number for the program’s return on investment. In addition, we interviewed company recruiters to determine if tuition reimbursement is a factor in drawing new employment to the company.

II. FoundationsBackground and Context

The Tuition Reimbursement Program was established in 1987. Initially, the program intended to educate staff members in order for them to fill empty positions within the nursing staff at Saint Elsewhere. At the time the program was initiated, there was a massive shortage of adequately trained nurses in the marketplace. Saint Elsewhere’s Organizational Learning/Development department currently bears responsibility for the administration of the program. Since its


inception, the program has provided opportunities for employees to return to school to pursue career-related degree programs at the Associates, Bachelors, Masters, and PhD levels. The degree sought must either provide professional development for the participant's current role or be related to a job description at Saint Elsewhere's where there are anticipated openings."

The program does not cover continuing education or hospital training programs. These types of learning opportunities are managed and budgeted at the departmental level. After one year, all employees are eligible to take advantage of the hospital’s tuition reimbursement program. Due to current demand, nursing employees are eligible after 90 days of continuous employment.

The Organizational Learning/Development department views the tuition reimbursement program as a key contributor for achieving high employee retention, as a source of promotions, as an recruitment bonus, and as a mean of cultivating an educated workforce. This aligns with the Saint Elsewhere’s “Guiding Behavior” principle, which states that in order to grow, employees must be “continuous learners.” The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the value of the program for the Senior Leadership Team, which has recently considered scaling back the program.

The program requires a three-year employment commitment by the staff member receiving the tuition reimbursement benefit. This commitment ensures Saint Elsewhere benefits from the financial investment made to their employees. Employees who terminate prior to the end of their three-year commitment are responsible for repaying a pro-rated amount of the disbursement received.

There are at least two contributing factors for the success of the tuition reimbursement program. First is the significant availability of educational opportunities in and around the Treasure Valley. Second is the unyielding commitment Saint Elsewhere has to the program. Saint Elsewhere is truly dedicated to having an educated workforce and is continuously evaluating processes to improve service and care to their valued patients.

The main constraint upon the tuition reimbursement program is budgetary.

Descriptions and Definitions

Employees who have been continuously employed for one year (90 days for nurses) are eligible to apply for Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program. The first step for an employee is to talk to their direct supervisor about their educational goals. Upon a favorable endorsement from the prospective student’s supervisor, the employee then completes an application for the intended program and forwards all documentation to the program administrator in the Organizational Learning/Development department.


Once the Organizational Learning/Development department confirms the validity of the application, the program administrator schedules a meeting with the employee. The purpose of the meeting is to review the expectations of the program and to ensure the employee understands the conditions of the program (i.e. what constitutes a passing grade, employment conditions, etc.). Following the meeting, the program administrator provides a final endorsement to the employee’s manager.

Model of the Tuition Reimbursement Enrollment flow:

Consumers

Consumers of the tuition reimbursement program can be divided into three groups:

Upstream ImpacteesSenior Management/Board of Directors

Immediate RecipientsThese are all employees who enroll in the program.

Downstream ImpacteesThese are supervisors, managers, coworkers, subordinates, patients and the organization as a whole. Other downstream impactees include families of immediate recipients and the communities in which they live and serve.

Resources

After interviewing our client, we identified human capital and financial resources available to the program.

Financial ResourcesSaint Elsewhere has established an annual, approximately, $500,000 budget to pay tuition expenses for employees who want to increase their education. The client stated that additional funds are available to hospital members if the Tuition Reimbursement Program exceeds the budget. Last year, when the tuition reimbursement expenses exceeded the program budget,


cutbacks were made in other departmental expenses to accommodate for the popularity and success of the tuition reimbursement program.

Human CapitolThe evaluand’s personnel resources consist of employees who are currently enrolled in the Tuition Reimbursement Program and those who are not. Other human capital resources consist of organization management and Saint Elsewhere’s Organizational Learning/Development director. All hospital personnel are available for surveys, interviews, observation, and group discussion. Selective information regarding the hospital’s Tuition Reimbursement Program compiled during exit interviews is also available. Other human capital data needed for the evaluation of this program include: retention information, promotion data, and a work performance reviews as a result of advancing their formal education. In lieu of the unavailability of promotion data and work performance reviews, we resorted to the use of self-reported employee data in these areas.

♦ In the past, Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program has had to use funds from other departments to accommodate staff member tuition assistance requests.


Value

As previously mentioned, the purpose of the evaluation is to rate Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program using established criteria to measure ROI. We conducted an analysis of the program to effectively measure each ROI criterion’s worth.

Saint Elsewhere has prioritized the four components of ROI as follows: Employee Retention: Critical Promotions: Important Work Performance: Important Recruitment: Desirable

Employee RetentionCost of retraining personnel, cost of employee headhunting services, overtime paid to fill gaps due to lost personnel. In the healthcare industry it is estimated that the cost of employee turnover is 1.5 times the annual salary of that vacant position (Phillips & Reisman, 1992)

PromotionsPromoted staff members understand corporate mission/vision/values, which helps streamline training efforts. Promoting staff from within also eliminates recruitment costs and probable expenses associated to temporary employees.


RecruitmentThis component of ROI is defined as potential employee’s perception of Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program as an incentive factor in accepting employment. A high incentive creates a greater pool of interested employees and the larger the pool of potential employees, the greater the opportunity to hire the best talent.

Work PerformanceEnhanced productivity/responsibility = improved service and patient care.

To determine the value of the company’s tuition reimbursement program we have established ‘Excellent’ and ‘Poor’ output parameters for each criterion. ‘Excellent’ and ‘Poor’ represent the best- and worst-case scenarios for each criterion. The scale we have ranked the criteria on for this evaluation is as follows: 1) Excellent, 2) Very Good, 3) Good, 4) Satisfactory, 5) Poor.

III. Sub-evaluations


ROI Criteria Excellent Output Poor Output

Employee Retention Tuition Reimbursement Program is a significant contributor to staff retention

Tuition Reimbursement Program has no effect on staff retention

Promotions Tuition Reimbursement Program has facilitated a well established “talent pipeline” and is a significant contributor to “in-house” promotions

Tuition Reimbursement Program has not produced the skills needed to promote staff members for higher jobs/responsibilities.

Recruitment Tuition Reimbursement Program is so highly regarded as a significant factor in employment for new hires.

Tuition Reimbursement Program is not regarded as a causable factor in recruiting new employees.

Work Performance Tuition Reimbursement Program has measurable positive results on staff performance

Tuition Reimbursement Program has no/negative results on staff performance

Process Evaluation

Normally, in an evaluation, the evaluators will not only focus on how well an evaluand is achieving its goals, but also on how good the process is for delivering the evaluand. Such an evaluation, the process evaluation, usually focuses on ethics, consistency, efficiency, and consumer and staff needs (Davidson, 2005, p. 198). This evaluation does not include a process evaluation because the primary goals of the client placed a priority on outcome evaluation in the form of an ROI determination.

Outcome Evaluation

St. Elsewhere’s most critical need is to understand the return on investment (ROI) for its Tuition Reimbursement Program. The elements of ROI in order of importance are employee retention for participants versus non-participants, work performance, promotion rates for participants versus non-participants, and new employee recruitment.

RetentionOverall Rating: Excellent

The Tuition Reimbursement Program employee turnover is lower than the organization-wide turnover rate. In fact, for a 3-year fiscal period, including the current year, the turnover rate for employees in the tuition reimbursement program averages 5% compared to the organization average of 16%. St. Elsewhere requires employees to stay with the company for 3 years after the final disbursement of tuition reimbursement. Access to attrition rates for employees who have completed a course of study using the Tuition Reimbursement Program and who have satisfied their 3-year commitment, was not provided by the company. It is unknown if the attrition rate for such a group of employees would reflect a number closer to that of the rest of the hospital. However, consumers of the tuition reimbursement program appear to remain with the organization at a higher rate.

In addition to turnover rates, a group of employees was surveyed to determine their attitudes about their use of the Tuition Reimbursement Program. A clear majority (67%) of respondents said that their participation in the program has had “a great impact” or “a very great impact” on their decision to remain employed with St. Elsewhere.


Work PerformanceOverall Rating: Very Good

A majority of employees believe their work performance has increased due to their participation in the Tuition Reimbursement Program.

Certain performance measures produced by supervisors or managers were not available for this process and the opportunity to survey managers of Tuition Reimbursement Program participants for this data was not provided due to issues of company confidentiality and feasibility. In the absence of these measures, we relied on employee self-reported information. The one area of measurement the evaluators were able to survey in regards to work performance, was recognition on the job or winning an award. While the majority responded that they have not won an award since participating in the Tuition Reimbursement Program, those who have won an award gave some credit to their participation in the program.


PromotionsOverall Rating: Good

A majority of the employees in the Tuition Reimbursement Program, who have received promotions, believe their participation in the Tuition Reimbursement Program has had at least some impact on getting the promotion.

See Appendix A for all data collected from the survey.

RecruitmentOverall Rating: Satisfactory

Based on interviews with St. Elsewhere’s recruiters, recruitment was rated as satisfactory because it does not appear to be such a compelling factor in recruitment that recruiters utilize it as a major selling point.

While the comments in the interviews were positive, some of the recruiters voiced concern that the three-year commitment was a hurdle for some employees. According to recruiters, the


three-year commitment for the Tuition Reimbursement program discourages recruits from seeking employment with St. Elsewhere. Although recruits expressed interest in the Tuition Reimbursement Program, it was not there top concern in finding a job. Ultimately, the recruiters did not view the tuition reimbursement program as the most powerful recruitment tool nor as the least important recruitment tool.

See Appendix B for the coded data from the recruiter interviews.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness

Two comparable competitors to the existing Tuition Reimbursement Program were outlined and considered: a creative lower-budget “Shoestring” option, and a “Rolls Royce” exemplary best practice option.

Competitive Option #1: Shoestring Tuition Reimbursement ProgramThe Shoestring alternative should attempt to address all of the minimum requirements of a successful tuition reimbursement program while reducing overall program costs. A program developed around these goals could utilize a lower monetary overall budget while providing more encouragement and program support at the line supervisor and middle management levels.

Lower Tuition Reimbursement Program budget (i.e. $250,000 to $300,000 annual fiscal budget).

Career Planning and employee development counseling (encouraging Tuition Reimbursement Program utilization) conducted at the supervisory level.

Informative organizational meetings outlining program benefits and promoting program participation (conducted by the organizational learning/development team).

Competitive Option #2: Rolls Royce Tuition Reimbursement ProgramThe Rolls Royce alternative incorporates all the characteristics of the Shoestring option as well as providing quarterly employee development monitoring, extensive intra-organizational Tuition Reimbursement Program marketing, a Tuition Reimbursement Program Promotion Point system, annual Tuition Reimbursement program evaluation, increased support of marketing of the Tuition Reimbursement Program in recruitment efforts, and an increased program budget.


The evaluation has determined that the current St. Elsewhere Tuition Reimbursement Program is cost effective in achieving substantial results of critical factors. Although a “Shoestring” approach is not recommended at this time, we believe that the supplementary recommendations of the option could be effectively implemented without altering the current budget.

Exportability

The St. Elsewhere Tuition Reimbursement Program has the potential to be successful across multiple industries employing larger numbers of people where continued education is


Retention

Promotions

Recruitment

Work Performance

Competitive Option #1: Shoestring

Lower program budget Implementation of career

counseling system Increased program support Increased intra-

organizational program marketing

(Not recommended)

Competitive Option #2: Rolls Royce

Increased program budget Quarterly employee

development counseling Increased program support Extensive intra-

organizational program marketing

Program promotion point system

Annual TA Program

supported and encouraged. The program’s effect on retention alone shows promise for larger companies where employee turnover has become an urgent concern. Smaller companies may also be able to employ some of the features of the program utilizing a significantly lowered budget in alignment with organizational goals and strategies.

IV. ConclusionsOverall Significance

Since its inception 18 years ago, Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program has demonstrated the hospital’s strong commitment to furthering employee education. Survey data indicates this program to be a significant component in the success employees have achieved in reaching their educational goals. Saint Elsewhere’s patients benefit from the enhanced knowledge and skill of staff members who have received advanced education. Survey, interview and archival data indicate that Saint Elsewhere earns significant financial and human capitol returns on their annual program investments.

Program StrengthsFinancial Viability: Under the current structure, Saint Elsewhere’s Tuition Reimbursement Program provides a tangible financial return on investment. These strong financial returns are mainly attributed to formidable employee retention numbers for those members using the tuition reimbursement program. Archival data indicates significant financial savings occur from recruitment, administrative, and training costs saved and contribute to a 93 – 280% return on investment. This measure is based solely on the criterion of retention and should be viewed as a minimum return on investment. Additional unknown savings are possible in the areas of work performance, promotions and recruitment. The resources were not made available to conduct an evaluation of this depth.

Human Capitol: Survey data report that 75% of members who enrolled in the tuition reimbursement program have received a higher level of responsibility since enrolling. Over 87% reported greater job satisfaction and 76% claimed that their advanced education was a contributing factor in getting promoted. It is clearly evident that Saint Elsewhere’s tuition reimbursement program is greatly enhancing human capital within the organization.

Program ChallengesWork-Life Balance: In the survey provided to tuition reimbursement recipients, 5% cited issues relating to excessive work-life capacity. In some cases, members who use the tuition reimbursement program find the added educational workload taxing on their professional and personal life. Although these cases are rare, the client must be cognizant of potential unforeseen issues in work-life balance.


Key RecommendationIn keeping with the high return on investment figures in employee retention, it is highly recommended that Saint Elsewhere continue with the tuition reimbursement use policy. This policy states that employees who take advantage of the tuition reimbursement program shall remain employed with Saint Elsewhere for 3 years following the date of tuition disbursement. This is major contributor to maintaining positive retention numbers and financial returns on recruitment, administration, and training dollars saved.

Report

A full report of this evaluation will be provided to Saint Elsewhere’s director of organizational learning and development. Further copies of this report will be provided to Anthony Marker, Ed., professor of Evaluation Methodology, and as directed by the client.


ReferencesRuss-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to

enhancing learning, performance, and change. New York: Basic Books.

Phillips, J.D., & Reisman, B. (1992). Turnover and return on investment models for family leave. In D. E. Friedman, E. Galinsky & V. Plowden (Eds.), Parental Leave and Productivity: Current Research. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Davidson, E.J.(1992). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc.


Appendix ASurvey Results

RetentionQuestion 1: What impact has your participation in the program had on your decision to remain employed with Saint Elsewhere?

None at all – 3 (4.5%)

Very little impact – 7 (10.4%)

Some impact – 12 (17.9%)

Great impact – 22 (32.8%)

Very great impact – 23 (34.3%)

Total responses – 67

Skipped - 0

Promotions


Question 2: To what extent was your enrollment in the program linked to the possibility of receiving a promotion?

Not at all – 15 (24.2%)

Very little extent – 12 (22.6%)

Some extent – 11 (17.7%)

Great extent – 14 (22.6%)

Very great extent – 8 (12.9%)


Skipped – 5


Question 3: Since your enrollment in the program, have you received a promotion?

No – 51 (77.3%)

Yes – 15 (22.7%)


Skipped – 1


Question 4: How much of an impact did the program have on your promotion?

None at all – 1 (6.7%)

Very little impact – 5 (33.3%)

Some impact – 5 (33.3%)

Great impact – 2 (13.3%)

Very great impact – 2 (13.3%)


Skipped - 52


Question 5: Describe how the program had an impact on your promotion.

5-1 Knowledge/Skill set increase – 2 (20%)

5-2 Eligibility/Qualifications for promotion – 6 (60%)

Throw out – 2 (20%)



Question 6: What impact did your enrollment in the program have on your performance on the job?

Mostly negative impact – 0 (0.0%)

Some negative impact – 3 (4.6%)

No impact – 18 (27.7%)

Some positive impact – 22 (33.8%)

Mostly positive impact – 22 (33.8%)


Skipped – 2


Question 7: Provide reasons why the program had a positive or negative impact on your performance on the job.

7-1 Capacity overload (work/school/life balance) – 2 (5%)


7-3 Increased future opportunity – 3 (7.5%)

7-4 No impact – 1 (2.5%)

7-5 Increased motivation on the job – 5 (12.5%)

Throw out – 5 (12.5%)



Question 8: Since you enrolled in the program, have you won an award or received recognition for an accomplishment at work?

No – 48 (72.7%)

Yes – 18 (27.3%)


Skipped – 1


Question 9: To what extent did your enrollment in the program play a part in the award or recognition?

Not at all – 4 (21.1%)






Skipped – 48

Question 10: Describe how the program played a part in the award or recognition:

Thrown out question


Question 11: Do you think your marketability for jobs in your line of work has improved as a result of the program?

No – 18 (26.9%)

Yes – 49 (73.1%)


Skipped – 0


Question 12: Have you applied for one of these jobs?

No – 41 (85.4%)

Yes – 7 (14.6%)


Skipped – 19


Question 13: Have you received an offer as a result of applying for one of these jobs?

No – 7 (87.5%)

Yes – 1 (12.5%)

Total response – 8

Skipped – 59


Question 14: To what extent did your enrollment in the program contribute to obtaining the new job?

Not at all – 0 (0.0%)




Very great extent – 1 (100%)


Skipped – 66

Question 15: Describe how your enrollment in the program contributed/did not contribute to obtaining the new job:

No response


Question 16: Since your enrollment in the program, have you assumed a higher level of job responsibilities?

No – 34 (50.7%)

Yes – 33 (49.3%)


Skipped – 0


Question 17: To what extent did your participation in the program contribute to you being able to assume higher-level job responsibilities?

Not at all – 4 (12.1%)






Skipped – 34


Question 18: Describe how your enrollment in the program contributed to your assumption or lack of assumption of higher-level job responsibilities:


18-2 Increased motivation on the job – 1 (10%)


Skipped – 58


Appendix BInterview Data

The first two questions have been omitted for confidentiality reasons. These questions are not significantly relevant to the evaluation.

Question 3: Please describe St. Elsewhere’s approach to recruiting talent.

3-1 Oriented around getting the right skills and knowledge in recruits – 3 (23%)

3-2 All recruiting is done online – 4 (30%)

3-3 Responsive to internal factors – (timeframe and manager’s needs) – 2 (15%)

3-4 Attend job fairs – 2 (15%)

3-5 Throw out – 2 (15%)


Question 4: When you write a job advert for a website or a newspaper do you ever mention the tuition reimbursement program?

4-1 Yes – 2 (22%)

4-2 No – 2 (22%)

4-3 It depends on market conditions – 1 (11%)

4-4 Throw out – 4 (44%)


Question 5: If you were at a job fair, recruiting talent, would you ever mention the tuition reimbursement program? Would you take literature with you promoting it?

5-1 Yes – 2 (25%)

5-2 No – 1 (12.5%)

5-3 People ask us about it – 1 (12.5%)

5-4 Throw out – 4 (50%)



Question 6: In your experience, what are the most important “selling points” when recruiting new talent?

6-1 The opportunity recruits have for skill/knowledge set increases because they work for St. Elsewhere – 1 (11%)

6-2 The reputation of the organization – 3 (33%)

6-3 Salary and/or benefits – 3 (33%)

6-4 Throw out – 1 (11%)


Question 7: Are you <<often, sometimes, never>> asked about the tuition reimbursement program (by prospective employees) when recruiting new talent?

7-1 Sometimes – 2 (66%)

7-2 Often – 1 (33%)


Question 8: What is your reaction to this question? (By way of clarification, the interviewer asked if this question raises “red flags.” All things being equal, if a recruiter has two prospects and one has designs on utilizing the TR, is this negative or positive?

8-1 No – 4 (57%)

8-2 Throw out – 3 (42%)


Question 9: Do you find that it is important to recruits? As important as <<job duties, salary, opportunity for promotion>>, or less so?

9-1 Equally as important as other factors – 1 (20%)

9-2 Really important compared to other factors – 2 (40%)

9-3 Less so (not as important as other factors) – 1 (20%)

9-4 Throw out – 1 (20%)



Question 10: In your opinion what value does the tuition reimbursement program offer the organization?

9-1 It a great value – 2 (28%)

9-2 It’s a competitive advantage – 1 (14%)

9-3 It enhances St. Elsewhere’s reputation – 3 (42%)

9-4 Throw out – 1 (14%)


Follow up Questions/Comments:

It can exclude some people. Some people can’t commit to the three year commitment and so they don’t come to work here. It shows the values of the organization and it helps people want to be here but some people can’t make the commitment.

Three years is too long.

Some people stop taking the funds after the 2nd year and self-pay the third. That way by the time they are done with school, they have satisfied their commitment and then they leave. For life reasons.

Follow up Question 1: From this standpoint, does it make the TR a less desirable recruiting tool?

Yes.

Some people who leave the organization come back because it is a good organization to work for.

The three-year commitment rule can be a detriment to recruiting.

In fact, the three-year rule sometimes makes it hard to utilize the TR as a recruitment tool.

Sometimes employees who finish it can’t find a job in their field. Then they are stuck in their old job and maybe not motivated anymore.

Appendix C(See next page)


tuition reimbursement program · web viewthis report outlines the results of an evaluation of the...

Documents