An evaluation of the tuition reimbursement program for a mid-sized mid-Atlantic city was undertaken using both surveys and quasi-experimental techniques. Contrary to recent criticisms of tuition reimbursement programs, the survey findings indicate generally perceived benefits of the program among participants, supervisors and non-participant co-workers. The quasi-experi mental phase of the research determined a 56% higher promotion rate among participants than among non-participants; moreover, program participants were much more likely to remain in city employment than were non-participants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Foegen, J.H. (1973). "The High Cost of Innovative Employee Benefits ." California Management Review (Spring): 184-188.
2.
Kaimen, R. and D. Robey (1976). "Tuition Refund: Asset or Liability." Personnel Journal (August): 389-399.
3.
Ling, C. (1965). The Management of Personnel Relations. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin Inc.
4.
Omera, J. (1970). Combating Knowledge Obsolescence: Employee Tuition Plan. New York: National Industrial Conference Board.
5.
Lewis, C. and A. Logalbo (1980). "Cutback Principles and Practices: Checklist for Managers." Public Administration Review (March/April): 184-188.
6.
Seybold, G. (1964). "What's New in Tuition-Aid Plans." The Conference Board Record. Weiss, C. (1972). Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
7.
Milwaukee Personnel Department Training Unit ( 1977). "Tuition Reimbursement in Employee Productivity and Aid: A Survey." Public Personnel Management (May/June): 166-172.
8.
National Industrial Conference Board (1956 ). Tuition Aids Plans for Employees. New York: National Industrial Conferene Board.
