Mr. Moss. Out on the coast, are you still operating a training school for engineers, getting them in and keeping them for a year or two and then losing them? Mr. MACY. We are still losing them. I am not aware of the training aspect of it. The picture has changed somewhat because of the shifting situation in the airframe industry. Part of our problem out there is deciding whether those who have been employed as engineers with the aircraft industry are really engineers, because the term is sometimes used rather broadly. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee notes that the socalled Federal executive committees located in various sections of the country have been functioning for some time. I wonder if you might give us a brief statement on that. You touched on it earlier. You might tie it in specifically at this time. Mr. MACY. I shall be happy to, because this is a new approach which I think has great potential value. Last year, in November, President Kennedy asked that there be established in 10 major centers of the country, where the Civil Service Commission has regional offices, Federal executive boards made up of the managers or commanding officers of the major Federal activities in those centers, the purpose being to have these officials recognize the community of interest that they have as Federal executives to join in various cooperative ventures which would bring about a higher degree of economy, better management, and improved public relations in those centers. Each of the boards has been organized. A representative of the White House staff, the Budget Bureau, and the Civil Service Commission has met with each of the 10 boards, has reviewed some of the program possibilities. In fact, the Philadelphia pilot operation on ADP which I described is an outgrowth of considerations in the Philadelphia Federal executive board. There are a number of other projects in process in each of these centers which should serve beneficially to the entire Federal community and, as a result, to the taxpayers. INCENTIVE AWARDS PROGRAM Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one other question I wish you to discuss. Earlier, this past week, I went down and, with much interest, reviewed the Commission's presentation relating to distinguished service awards to outstanding civil servants in connection with the Nautilus program, the missile program, the orbit program, and several others. I wondered, as a result of these presentations by the President of that very fine civil service medal, what reaction you think this has received among Federal employees? What other actions or recommendations would you make to indicate appreciation of outstanding effort on the part of civil servants? I say this having in mind that many people we all know in the civil service work hard and put in a real killing week's work, while there are others that we feel probably do not produce quite that much. Those who do produce are the ones we want to encourage, and we want to encourage others to be like that. I wonder if you have any suggestions in the nature of this system of honoring these five people which the President has just adopted. Mr. MACY. I believe there is a decided need for the Federal Government to recognize those who have made a major contribution to the accomplishment of the Government's work. I feel the incentive awards program which the Commission administers is another means for stimulating action by Federal employees in the interest of economy and efficiency. In the past year, along the lines you suggest, we have reviewed the operation of the suggestions program under the incentive awards approach, and we have revised the criteria and developed new standards in order to encourage recognition of really significant contributions made by Federal employees. Last year, 110,000 Federal employees were given recognition because of suggestions they contributed to the Federal Government. This resulted in measurable benefits of $63 million as first year's savings. (Subsequently the agency supplied the following information, exhibit 8:) EXHIBIT 8-FISCAL YEAR 1961 SUMMARY, EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS IMPROVED GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPROVED GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO Fiscal year 1961 summary Suggestions adopted (4.9 per 100 employees). Superior performance recognized (3.5 per 100 employees) 110, 295 79, 072 MEASURABLE BENEFITS Adopted suggestions.. $63, 927, 159 Superior performance. Plus better accomplishment of agencies' mission. Awards: Adopted suggestions-Average award $24; superior performanceAverage award $139. $37, 540, 672 2 Reflects "citizen only" participation. 1 The figures given under this heading are also included under "Suggestions" and "Superior performance." 3 No report received. 4 Includes National Gallery of Art. Fact sheet on Government-wide incentive awards program, fiscal year 1961 For adopted suggestions (average award $24 per adoption)_. Awards (cash) based on measurable benefits: Number (32 percent of total cash suggestion awards). Total measurable benefits.. Average benefits per case. Average award per case.. Amount paid in awards (52 percent of total). Awards (cash) based on immeasurable benefits: Number (68 percent of total cash suggestion awards). $63, 927, 159 $37, 540, 672 $101, 467, 831 $2,669, 998 $10, 987, 870 110, 295 49 23 28 92, 208 $2,669, 998 $24 $29 $63, 927, 159 $29, 718 $63, 927, 159 $2, 151 $1, 385, 057 $47 $62, 490 $1, 284, 941 $21 Awards (cash) based on measurable benefits: Number (4 percent of total cash superior performance awards). 3, 079 Total measurable benefits. Average benefits per case.. $37, 540, 672 $12, 192 Amount paid in awards (3 percent of superior performance total). $306, 317 Average award per case.. $99 Awards (cash) based on immeasurable benefits: Number of cash awards (96 percent of total cash SP awards).. Average award per case. - $150 1 Total receipts 473,791-Rate 210 per 1,000. NOTE.-Individuals submitted 92 percent of approved suggestions; groups submitted 8 percent of approved suggestions. |