This subcommittee's task was to recommend specific actions to implement recommendations 1-7 of the Final Report of Committee to Evaluate the Gladstone Postdoctoral Fellow Training Program. We carefully reviewed the original survey, the primary data collected from the survey, and the seven recommendations and associated commentary. We also gathered additional data through the HR and Grants Departments and sought input from other postdoctoral fellows and PIs. Finally, we discussed other considerations (e.g., legal, financial, and other institutional factors) to devise practical solutions that would bring the most benefit to the postdoctoral program with the least adverse impact on the program or other members of the Institute. Since the issues underlying the recommendations overlapped, the report is organized thematically around our conclusions rather than around the original recommendations.

Structure and Equity of Compensation Plan

Many fellows are not well informed about the Institute’s salary structure, and this lack of information often promotes misconceptions, false conclusions, and poor morale. To minimize these problems, we recommend that all aspects of the compensation plan be highly transparent to all fellows. That is, the criteria, tables/formulas, and rules governing starting salaries, adjustments to salaries, promotions, extramural support, other benefits, and any future changes in the plan for fellows should be plainly available and readily understood. In addition, the compensation plan should be applied in a highly consistent manner throughout the Institutes. That is, the system governing starting salaries, raises, promotions, etc. should be the same for all fellows. Transparency and consistency would counter false information and conclusions, heighten fairness, improve morale, and avoid a focus on compensation as a prominent feature of the fellowship experience.

We also recommend (1) revising the plan as needed to minimize elements that may be perceived as arbitrary; (2) documenting in writing all aspects of the plan; (3) fully educating fellows about the system at the time of hiring and as needed as the fellowship progresses (e.g., at annual performance reviews); and (4) fully educating PIs about the system at hiring and at various intervals (e.g., annually). One important issue raised in recommendations 1 and 2 relates to equity in salaries.We strongly recommend that the compensation structure continue to be applied equally to all fellows. Although a preliminary review by HR has not identified a correlation between gender and salary level within the Institutes, a formal analysis involving stratification by Institute and by gender should be completed by HR and reviewed by the Directors. Any inconsistencies in compensation should be rectified by adjusting salaries as needed.

A second issue relates to salaries for fellows with various postgraduate degrees (M.D., Ph.D., or M.D./Ph.D.). The subcommittee concluded that a differential is needed to attract outstanding physician-scientists into the postdoctoral program. However, we sensed that discontent surrounding this disparity derives less from the differential than from perceived arbitrariness in how supplements are applied. For example, the current guidelines state that a factor of up to 1.25 may be applied when calculating a salary for those with an M.D. degree. To remedy this concern, supplements for those with the M.D. degree should be specified clearly within the salary structure and applied uniformly. Several approaches were suggested: (1) a “fixed supplement” strategy, in which the basic salary is derived without regard to degree and then a fixed sum is added for the M.D. degree or medical training; (2) a “fixed multiplier” strategy, in which the basic salary is derived without regard to degree and then adjusted by a uniform multiplier factor for those with medical training; or (3) an “experience” strategy, in which the same scale is used regardless of degree, but years of medical training are included in “years of experience” for those with M.D. degrees or other medical training. Finally, every effort should be made to support the financial needs of all fellows without regard to degree (see below).

Basic Salary Scale and Annual Salary Adjustments

In accordance with recommendation 1, a preliminary review of several local and distant research institutions was conducted to compare Gladstone’s basic scale with that of other institutions. The subcommittee concluded that the basic Gladstone salary levels for postdoctoral fellows are similar to those of other institutions in the U.S. Therefore, we recommend that changes in the salary scale address certain caveats as delineated below.

One salary issue reviewed by the subcommittee was annual salary adjustments. We strongly recommend that postdoctoral fellows receive a uniform annual increase that reflects the additional experience and expertise gained during the preceding year and that takes into account changes in the cost of living. This increment could be a fixed sum (e.g., $2000–4000) or a fixed percentage of salary (e.g., 6–10%). In either case, the policy should be clearly specified. In addition, the subcommittee recommends that the salaries of all postdoctoral fellows, not just new hires, be adjusted accordingly each time a new scale is implemented.

Finally, we considered the topic of merit-based “incentive” or “bonus” pay. Although rewarding fellows for success is a worthy goal, the question of bonus payments for specific accomplishments (publications, grants) or overall performance was quite controversial among fellows and within the subcommittee. Numerous concerns were raised that dampen enthusiasm for such a policy. (1) Financial rewards linked to specific scientific accomplishments would be unusual within the academic research field and would alter the culture and/or aims of the postdoctoral experience (e.g., emphasize short-term accomplishments and be a disincentive to tackle the “hardest” projects). (2) Substantial conventional rewards are already built into the system, including enhanced success in future jobs searches. (3) Most fellows work as hard, as intelligently, and as creatively as they can without such an incentive, and a bonus system might limit the total support available for salary increases that are applied to all fellows. (4) A system of bonuses based on specific accomplishments would require a very complex scoring matrix, while a system based on aggregate annual performance reviews may be perceived as subjective. Overall, the majority of the subcommittee expressed concern that some or all of these potential downsides may outweigh the advantages. Thus there was not a consensus recommendation to implement such a system.

Housing/Cost of Living

The San Francisco Bay Area is an extremely expensive location, and residential housing costs here are among the highest in the nation. This factor has contributed to the loss of some highly skilled candidates. Time constraints precluded a complete assessment of the extra cost of housing in this area; however, two Internet-based calculators for comparing the cost of living (www.homefair.com and www.movingcenter.com) indicate that San Francisco is approximately 1.26-1.8-fold more expensive than competitor locations (e.g., San Diego and Bethesda). A third source (Runzheimer International), indicates that a rental housing unit in San Francisco is approximately 2.6-fold higher than in “Standard City U.S.” These marked differences in housing costs could represent an extra burden of $500–1000 per month for a postdoctoral fellow who joins Gladstone. Other institutions in this area have programs to minimize this difference, for example, informal salary supplementation or subsidized housing.

The subcommittee recommends that the Gladstone employ several strategies to remedy this problem in accordance with recommendation 7. The aim is to minimize the financial “cost” of accepting a Gladstone postdoctoral fellowship. First, Gladstone should take formal steps to ensure that any available subsidized housing connected to UCSF (e.g., Presidio, Mission Bay) is offered fully to Gladstone fellows. Second, a mechanism for providing additional compensation to fellows should be developed to reduce the housing differential. Depending upon various institutional needs (e.g., restrictions relating to comparability with UCSF, recovery through indirect or direct costs on grants), a supplement could be in the form of a separate payment that is additional to the specified salary structure. Third, all possible pre-tax mechanisms should be exploited fully, including creating flexible spending accounts for childcare costs and any other such costs that can be covered legally. Finally, a long-term loan program to defer some of these costs could be considered.

Fellowships and High-end Salaries

Postdoctoral fellows at Gladstone have a unique quasi-student, quasi-employee status. Unlike most other members of the Institute, they are expected to seek extramural funding (i.e., fellowships) to cover all or part of their stipends; a substantial fraction of fellows succeed in this process, which liberates important funds for other research uses. The subcommittee reviewed several fellowship sources (e.g., National Institutes of Health NRSA, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Damon Runyon–Walter Winchell Foundation, University-wide AIDS Research Program) and found that the funding level ranges from somewhat below to marginally above Gladstone scale. The single award with the most striking difference from the Gladstone scale is the physician-scientist KO8 award. The wide variability in salary range offered with this award by various NIH Institutes complicates the “comparability” requirement by the NIH. In any event, this award is unique in its strict requirement for a professional degree (e.g., M.D. or D.V.M.) and its intention to support senior fellows with near-faculty status. Indeed, the comparability rules for this award refer to faculty members as the reference group.

Recommendation 4 was to permit fellows to apply for and receive the highest fellowship stipend for which they are eligible. One aspect of this recommendation deserves further explanation. Recommendations made earlier in this report emphasize the importance of consistency in applying Gladstone salary scales to avoid inequities, and the recommendation regarding removing “caps” on salary levels from extramural fellowship awards could be considered to be inconsistent with this principle. The subcommittee concluded that the two ideas are not internally inconsistent. The key issue regarding “consistency” is that the Gladstone as an organization (through the Directors, PIs, and HR) be perceived as fair, uniform, and equitable in its treatment of postdoctoral fellows. In this context, assignment of starting salaries and salary adjustments should be well defined and applied in the same fashion to all fellows uniformly regardless of the funding source (i.e., Gladstone funds or grants held by a PI). However, the subcommittee endorses this recommendation with regard to the typical array of fellowships available and offers additional recommendations to deal with the special KO8 award (see below). The advantages of this approach are that (1) “capping” such awards is seen by many fellows as extremely demoralizing; (2) it would reward fellows who successfully compete for extramural awards; and (3) it would increase stipends for some postdoctoral fellows without further taxing Institute funds. The potential hazards are that (1) the disparity in salaries could be demoralizing; and (2) not all fellows are eligible for such extramural awards, which could lead to an inequitable distribution. Nonetheless, the subcommittee enthusiastically endorses implementing recommendation 4 of the initial report. After such a fellowship, internal Gladstone salary scale would once again be applied.

Recommendation 3 was to consider expanding the upper end of the fellow salary scale for truly outstanding fellows. Such a policy could provide several potential benefits: (1) increased competitiveness with other organizations whose fellows are paid outside the organization’s postdoctoral fellow salary scale; (2) a pathway for higher salaries that would not be constrained by eligibility rules for selected extramural fellowships; (3) a better reference point for comparing high-end fellowships (e.g., KO8); and (4) a formal mechanism for rewarding the most outstanding senior fellows without the downsides of a bonus system. The subcommittee proposes that Gladstone create an intramural, competitive, high-end postdoctoral fellowship category (termed here “Gladstone Scholars”) that is open to all fellows within the Institutes. The salary for this elite position would be higher than the current range for postdoctoral fellows (perhaps $65,000 for non-M.D.’s) and would encompass the highest KO8 award level ($75,000) for physicians. Gladstone Scholars would be supported by any fellowships already in place and would be supplemented as needed by the Institutes. Each year, a very small number of awards would be made with 1- or 2-year terms. By design, appointment as a Gladstone Scholar would be a high honor in recognition of truly outstanding performance, skill, and near-faculty status, and would serve as a merit-based incentive for all postdoctoral fellows.

Additional Benefits

The initial report also recommended a cost/benefit analysis of adding a retirement plan for fellows, surveying satisfaction with dental care plans, and looking at adding other dental care options (recommendations 5 and 6). The subcommittee recommends that fellows be incorporated into the retirement plan if an adjustment can be made in the vesting period. The subcommittee also recommends that the dental care plan be re-evaluated to ensure that the most convenient options are made available.

Summary

In summary, we recommend that:

1. The system be fully transparent and consistent.
2. Elements within the plan that may be perceived as arbitrary be minimized.
3. All aspects of the plan be documented in writing.
4. All fellows and PIs be fully and regularly educated about the system.
5. The compensation structure be applied equally.
6. A formal analysis of salary levels involving stratification by Institute and by gender be completed by HR and reviewed by the Directors to ensure equity.
7. Supplements for those with the M.D. degree be specified clearly within the salary structure and applied uniformly to all appropriate individuals.
8. The basic salary structure be retained, but changes in the salary scale be directed toward addressing selected issues as described below.
9. Postdoctoral fellows receive a uniform annual salary increase.
10. The salaries of all existing postdoctoral fellows be adjusted accordingly each time a new scale is implemented.
11. Gladstone take formal steps to ensure that any available subsidized housing connected to UCSF (e.g., Presidio, Mission Bay) is offered fully to Gladstone fellows.
12. Gladstone develop a mechanism for providing additional compensation to fellows (either a housing “supplement” or an upward adjustment of salaries) to reduce the differential caused by the high cost of living in this area.
13. All possible pre-tax mechanisms (e.g., flexible spending accounts) be exploited fully for the benefit of fellows.
14. Fellows be permitted to apply for and receive fellowship stipends for which they are eligible.
15. Gladstone create an intramural, competitive, high-end postdoctoral fellowship category (Gladstone Scholars) that is open to all fellows.
16. Fellows be incorporated into the retirement plan if an adjustment can be made in the vesting period.
17. The dental care plan be re-evaluated to ensure that the most convenient options are made available.