Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kryste Ferguson, MEd, NPALening Chen, MS, NPA
Tracy Costello, PhD, Coach4Postdocs
Growing Progress in Supporting Postdocs2021 National Postdoctoral Association
Institutional Policy Report
P.O. Box 139753200 Chapel Hill Nelson HighwayCape Fear Building, Suite 300Research Triangle Park, NC 27709800-243-6534 • 919-549-4691www.sigmaxi.org
Supplemental materials and links are available online at: https://www.sigmaxi.org/publications
National Postdoctoral Association15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855Phone: 301-984-4800www.nationalpostdoc.org
Sponsors
AcknowledgmentsThe National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) would like to give our sincere thanks to the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Sigma Xi, which allowed the NPA to develop the Institutional Policy Survey, complete data collection, analyze the results, and develop this report. We are extremely grateful to their support for NPA projects over the years.
We are grateful for the talents and wisdom of the Institutional Policy Survey Taskforce:
• Tracy Costello, PhD, Coach4Postdocs• Christine Des Jarlais, EdD, University of California, San Francisco • Kryste Ferguson, MEd, NPA• Imogen Hurley, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison• Kelly Phou, MS, National Science Foundation• Sofie Kleppner, PhD, Stanford University • Amy Wilson, BA, NPA
An enormous thank you to the team that analyzed the data and/or contrib-uted to the final report:
• Lening Chen, MS, NPA• Tracy Costello, PhD, Coach4Postdocs• Kryste Ferguson, MEd, NPA• Imogen Hurley, PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison• Thomas P. Kimbis, Esq., NPA• Barbara J. Natalizio, PhD, Professional Development Hub (pd|hub)• Amy Wilson, BA, NPA
Cover image: Science Photo Library/ Alamy Stock Photo
www.sigmaxi.org
Bringing together science, engineering, and technology for a better FUTURE.
Postdoctoral scholars receive a
20% discount on membership fees
when elected to Sigma Xi
and concurrently join the National Postdoctoral
Association.
Build your professional network and become part of a distinguished group of scientists and engineers dedicated to research excellence.• Growyourconnectionsina
Sigma Xi chapter
• Build your curriculum vitae with volunteeropportunities
• Apply for jobs in the Sigma Xi Career Center
• Receive American Scientist and discountsonotherpublications,researchevents,andsciencecommunicationcoaching
1
Over the past 19 years, the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) has grown from a committee of postdoc-toral leaders from across the country to an established nonprofit with the continuous mission to improve the postdoctoral experience. Through advocacy and outreach activities, the NPA provides a unified national platform to facilitate connections, raise awareness, and collaborate with stakeholders within the post-doctoral community at all levels (individual, organizational, and na-tional). This report represents the re-sults of the third iteration of the NPA Institutional Policy Survey, which seeks to understand the needs of the postdoc community, to document institutional and training environ-ments, and to assess the supporting policies and training opportunities led by the offices of postdoctoral affairs that direct and manage these activities. The NPA Institutional Policy Survey is typically conducted the year prior to the release of each Institutional Policy Report.
Postdoctoral scholars, or postdocs, are defined by the National Institutes of Health and other institutions as in-dividuals who hold doctoral degrees and who are engaged in a temporary period of mentored research and/or scholarly training for the purpose of acquiring the professional skills needed to pursue their chosen career path.1 Although postdoc fellowships have existed for more than a century, it is only in the past 30 years that this training model has been more widely adopted and subsequently studied. The most recent comprehensive re-port from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, published in 2018, noted continued challenges affecting the postdoctoral community, such as: the need for professional development appropri-ate for a diversity of career options; the collection and dissemination of alumni career outcomes; increased diversity, equity, and inclusion; increased compensation and benefits; mentor training; and expanded
NIH individual postdoc fellowship awards, among other challenges.2 Numerous other research teams and publications are beginning to look at training outcomes and career options, creating comprehensive training programs, and postdoc sala-ries, as well as examining inequities within subgroups of U.S. postdocs (women, minorities, and people from other countries).3,8
Since 2005, the NPA’s Recommen-dations for Postdoctoral Policies and Practices has served as a benchmark for an optimal postdoc training en-vironment. These recommendations include four overarching themes:
1. establishing a postdoctoral of-fice (PDO) and/or postdoctoral association (PDA) that actively engages and represents postdoc-toral scholars
2. establishing postdoctoral policies3. maintaining an office for interna-
tional scholar services4. establishing a diversity office
to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)4
The Institutional Policy Survey was established to examine the institutional environments and adop-tion rates of the recommendations, and to summarize these findings for the benefit of all stakeholders in the postdoctoral community.
The Need for Data Collection and Analysis Data collection and analysis to evalu-ate the postdoctoral training environ-ment continues to be vital for institu-tional- and national-level advocacy and policy that promotes initiatives to support postdoc training, includ-ing equitable compensation and benefits, professional development, DEI initiatives, and more. This report represents the third in a series started in 2014. It summarizes findings from the 2019 survey data and examines trends across the series. The ques-tions used in the 2019 survey were based on the 2013 and 2016 surveys and were expanded to examine spe-cific findings from the prior surveys in greater detail. The NPA’s Institu-
2021 National Postdoctoral Association Institutional Policy Report
2019 npa Institutional Policy Survey RespondentsArizona State University
Boston College
Boston University
Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
Case Western Reserve University
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
Cleveland Clinic, Lerner Research Institute
Columbia University
Cornell University
Drexel University
Duke University
East Carolina University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Gladstone Institutes
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Indiana University Bloomington
Iowa State University
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology
Maine Medical Center Research Institute
Medical College of Wisconsin
Medical University of South Carolina
National Institutes of Health, Office of Intramural Training & Education
New York University
New York University Langone Health
North Carolina State University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
Rice University
Rosalind Franklin University
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Billion Photos /Shutterstock
Introduction
2
tional Policy Survey remains the only comprehensive survey of institutions that train postdoctoral scholars.
To understand the national land-scape of postdoctoral issues, the NPA surveys its member postdoctoral offices to record the general demo-graphics of their postdoc popula-tions; structure of the office that serves them; postdoc-specific insti-tutional policies, compensation, and benefits; and career and professional development services.
Previous Studies and Recommendations Previous NPA Institutional Policy Re-port recommendations highlighted the need for continued support to
expand funding for PDOs, to expand professional development training programs, to expand health benefits and retirement account options for postdocs, to limit the postdoc training period to five years, and to capture data both through exit surveys and longitudinally about career outcomes of alumni.5,6 In re-cent years, more surveys/studies to examine aspects of the postdoctoral experience have been conducted on a variety of topics (including professional development, diversity issues including gender, parenting, and minorities, and sexual harass-ment).7,8,9,10 Although these studies have been focused at the individual postdoc level, the findings from these surveys corroborate our previously published institution-level findings and highlight the need for continued work in these areas.
Methodology 2019 NPA Institutional Policy Survey Each of the 199 NPA institutional members received a unique link to the 2019 NPA Institutional Policy
Survey via email in April 2019, followed by scheduled reminders. These members consisted of U.S. uni-versities and research institutes train-ing postdocs. Of these, 89 institutions (45 percent) started the survey and 79 institutions (40 percent) completed the survey in its entirety. This unique, comprehensive survey was designed to facilitate understanding of the current state of the postdoc environ-ment at institutions nationwide, and covered the following topics:
• institution demographics (in-cluding postdoc office structure)
• appointment, review, and exit processes
• postdoc-specific institutional policies
• compensation and benefits• professional development/train-
ing programs• demographics of the postdoc
populationThe same four postdoc appoint-
ment categories were used to ensure direct comparison between the 2013, 2016, and 2019 surveys:
Institutionally Funded Post-doc Employees (IFPE): The classification(s) an institution typi-cally uses for a postdoc funded on a principal investigator’s grant (for example, an NIH R01 grant).
Institutionally Funded Postdoc Trainees (IFPT): The classification(s) an institution typically uses for a postdoc funded on a principal investigator’s grant (for example, an NIH T32 grant) but who cannot be an employee of the institution.
Individually Funded Postdocs (IFP):The classification(s) an insti-tution typically uses for a postdoc individually funded by a fellowship that is paid to the institution (such as an NIH National Research Service Award).
Externally Funded Postdocs (EFP): The classification(s) an institu-tion typically uses for a postdoc funded by a fellowship that is paid directly to the postdoc (such as a fel-lowship from a foreign country).
Expanding the Survey for 2019After analyzing the findings of the 2016 survey, it was clear that addi-tional questions were necessary to al-low the 2019 survey to clarify certain structures and policies highlighted in the 2017 report. Eighteen new ques-tions were strategically added by
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Research Institute
Scripps Research
Seattle Children’s Research Institute
Stanford University
Stony Brook University
Stowers Institute
The Ohio State University
Thomas Jefferson University
Tufts University
Tulane Univesity
University of Arizona
University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Francisco
University of Central Florida
University of Connecticut
University of Georgia
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Missouri
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of North Texas Health Science Center
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Pittsburgh
University of Rochester
University of South Florida
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
University of Vermont
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Van Andel Institute
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest School of Medicine
Washington University in St Louis
Wayne State University
2019 npa Institutional Policy Survey Respondents(continued)
Although postdoc fellowships have existed for more than a century, it is only in the past 30 years that this training model has been more widely adopted and subsequently studied.
3
the NPA Institutional Policy Survey Taskforce (“survey taskforce”) to provide insight regarding postdoc office (PDO) structures and admin-istrative functions, postdoc-specific policies, and benefits equity among different classifications of postdocs. Anecdotal evidence of PDO expan-sion at some member institutions required additional questions to identify and define the nuances of how PDOs are structured, and to bet-ter understand their role in shaping the postdoc experience. Although different PDO structures can achieve the same goals, it is important to know how they are supported at the institutional level.
These new questions queried basic information, such as the name of the PDO and the year the office was established, the scope and reach of PDO activities within the institution, and which individuals are responsible for postdoctoral affairs activities, including that individual’s title and percent effort. These new data allow analysis and clearer understanding of the various ways PDOs can be successfully structured and supported at institutions. Upon reflection on the institutional needs that were identi-fied in 2016, the survey taskforce also added more detailed questions to ascertain the success of institutional processes to ensure that postdocs are
accurately identified and counted, and whether PDOs are adhering to and enforcing these related policies. Lastly, additional questions were created to clarify institutional administrative functions (e.g., appointment process, orientation, exit surveys, and alumni tracking), benefits (e.g., fringe rates and clarifying access to benefits across appointment types), and access to mental health and wellness programs.
Overview of FindingsThe NPA Institutional Policy Survey was initiated in 2013 to measure the implementation of the NPA Recom-mended Policies and Practices, estab-lished as best practices for institu-tions hosting postdocs; this report is written with that framework in mind. The data have been analyzed to vi-sualize the growth and sustainability of policies and programs, including subgroup analyses by institution type, number of postdocs, and NIH funding levels. Additionally, this re-port examines trends across the three survey years (2013, 2016, and 2019) for the subset of institutions with longitudinal data, to see if certain areas have decreased, increased, or remained the same. The distribu-tion of postdocs among respondents to this survey mirrors those across
the NPA’s overall institutional distribution, providing confidence that our sample is representative of the overall population. Indeed, the respondents represent about 35,000 postdocs, approximately half of the estimated 70,000 postdocs at all 199 NPA member institutions in 2019.
The extent of institutional adop-tion over time of key NPA Recom-mended Policies and Practices is rep-resented in the radar graph. There is anecdotal evidence that when these 10 best practices are achieved at institutions, the success of postdocs hosted at such institutions increases during and after their postdoc, as outlined in the NPA’s Core Compe-tencies.11
Overall, it is encouraging that there is consistent growth in adoption of these policies and practices over time, despite asymmetrical adoption. Some of the 10 recommendations have been heavily adopted whereas others have seen minimal change over the past six years. The overarch-ing picture still highlights opportu-nities for significant improvement across institutional postdoc training programs.
Postdoc Office Role and ChallengesThe postdoc office (PDO) is the lifeblood of postdoc affairs, providing a central resource for all policies and programs pertaining to postdocs at the institutional level. At each survey
Historical Trends and Opportunities for Growth for NPA Recommendations
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Track PostdocAlumni
Ensure FamilyBenefits
Increase PDOBudgets
Have RetirementBenefits
Ensure Health Care
Establish PostdocPolicies
Maintain TrainingPrograms
EstablishPDO/PDA
Maintain OfficeFor International
Scholars
Establish ClearAppointment
Periods
201320162019
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0
Per
cent
age
Before 20002001−20052006−2010
2011−20152016−2020Don't know
What year did your postdoc office (PDO) begin?
20
25
15
10
5
0
Before 2000
2001–2005
2006–2010
2011–2015
2016–2020
Don’t know
3%
15%
24%23%
19%
16%
4
time point, there has been a continuous increase in the number of dedicated postdoc offices at member institutions, from 167 in 2013 to 199 in 2019, mir-roring the known growth from fewer than 25 PDOs in 2003 when the NPA was founded, to 202 in early 2021. The greatest growth in this space occurred between 2006 and 2010, following a period in which the NIH budget was doubled, and has continued over the years to near-universal adop-tion among institutions that support postdocs. This trend is welcome, as we have seen a positive link between establishing a formal postdoc office and improved postdoc policies and programs within an institution.
The newly added questions within the 2019 survey that examine postdoc office structure indicate that 83 percent of PDOs are responsible for
all postdocs at their institutions, with only a fraction of institutions having either discipline-specific or multiple PDOs. The survey clarified that PDOs overwhelmingly initiate within the medical science area of their institu-tions, with 100 percent of respondents indicating they represent postdocs in the medical sciences and 89 percent in biosciences, and these data also reflect where the majority of postdocs are found within institutions. Similar to prior survey findings, the majority of PDOs report to and are funded by a graduate school, provost, or research affairs division. Overall, the data reveal that different structures are applied at different institutions and that no one standard exists that fits all institution types.
The impact of the PDO can only be as strong as the number of employ-
ees who support it. Unfortunately, this area has seen little growth; the mode remains 1 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff per PDO, indicating that the majority of PDO offices who responded to the current survey are an office of 1 FTE. It is encouraging that the average FTE per PDO rose from 1.24 FTEs in 2016 to 1.84 FTEs in 2019, but this increase primarily occurred in offices that already had more than 1 FTE. With an average of roughly 450 postdocs per insti-tution, it is a significant challenge for a single individual to serve all postdocs, as well as faculty and other administrators who require support and data. It is important to note that there are many one-person PDOs across the country that currently manage many more postdocs than this average.
It is encouraging to see a trend of PDOs receiving budgets, but the average budget (excluding personnel salaries) remains in the same range of $20,000 to $40,000 found in 2016, and the top quartile of budgets shows no growth. The most positive trend ob-served in the data is that the number of PDOs with no annual operating budget (excluding personnel salaries) has decreased from 39 percent in 2013 to 16 percent in 2019.
Because of these conditions, the success of the PDO often comes through partnerships with other departments within the institution or with other offices at nearby institu-tions. Shared resources across these partnerships represent a creative solution for achieving impactful
0
20
40
60
Yes, standard templateletter to all postdocs
Yes, a letter toall postdocs
(not standardized)
No Don't know
Per
cent
age
Is there a standard appointment letter or reappointment letter for postdocs?
70%
38%
18%
10% 9%
38%
4%
14%
Appointment Letter
Reappointment Letter
Per
cent
age
of In
stitu
tions
No se
para
te PDO bu
dget
$1,0
00–$
9,99
9
$10,
000–
$19,
999
$20,
000–
$39,
999
$40,
000–
$59,
999
$60,
000–
$79,
999
$80,
000–
$99,
999
$100
,000
–$20
0,00
0
abov
e $2
00,0
00
40% 39%
18%
16%
13% 13% 13%
17%
12%
33%
19%
13%
8%7%
3%5%
3%3%5%5%
4%
7%
2%
8%7%
9%9%
5%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
2016
2019
PDO Annual Operating Budget (excluding personnel salaries)
Share budget dollars
Share materials
Programs are open to postdocs
In what ways do you partner with and/orshare resources with other offices?
87%
70%35%
5
training for postdocs, as well as ef-ficiency for the institution: 35 percent of respondents indicated they share budget dollars with other offices at their institution, 70 percent share materials, and 87 percent conduct programs that are open to postdocs.
Postdoc Onboarding and Appointment The appointment process for on-boarding postdocs provides crucial information about the training envi-ronment and institutional policies, and establishes expectations critical to a successful postdoc experience at an institution. Providing contact information for the PDO at this step ensures postdocs know before they arrive whom they can contact for various needs outside their research area. Beyond the fact that a defined appointment process brings structure to the onboarding process, it can also lead to the creation and enforcement of related policies, such as consistent classification and streamlined, succinct postdoc titles that enable accurate counting of the number of postdocs at a given institution. This standardization translates to a better understanding of the number of postdocs nation-wide when surveyed for this type of data. The use of consistent titles is of greater importance than it may appear at first glance. The ability to more accurately count and measure not only the number of postdocs in an institution and across institu-tions, but also their demographic and specialization data, can pro-foundly affect the ability to convey both postdoc needs and impact.
The 2019 data showed 94 percent of institutions have a uniform ap-pointment process, and 70 percent is-sue a standardized letter to incoming postdocs that includes important de-
tails such as date of appointment and description of their project. A smooth, comprehensive onboarding process for new postdocs increases certainty, helps minimize misunderstandings, and maximizes productivity.
Because the typical postdoc train-ing experience lasts between two and five years, the reappointment process is an important component of a postdoc’s experience. In 2019, ques-tions were added to the Institutional Policy Survey inquiring if institutions have a standardized reappointment process. Although nearly all reported having a formal initial appointment process, only 39 percent maintain a formal reappointment process.
Another critical component of PDO success is to know when new postdocs are arriving at their institu-tion, allowing the PDO to begin out-reach to the postdocs immediately. A new 2019 survey question found that 85 percent of PDOs are either a part
of the new postdoc approval process or can retrieve the records of incom-ing postdocs from an institutional system. Because previous survey data showed postdoc offices were providing an orientation for post-docs at a very high rate (a trend that continued in 2019 at 90 percent), the 2019 survey added additional ques-tions to better understand the types of orientations offered. The data reveal that only a third of institutions consider postdoc-specific orientation mandatory, and 74 percent of these orientations are conducted by the postdoc office. Other orientations are typically provided by the institu-tion’s human resources office; being inherently more general in nature, these orientations may lack specific information important to postdocs.
Compensation and Term LimitsOne of the hallmarks of NPA’s ad-vocacy efforts is to increase postdoc
0
25
50
75
Per
cent
age
Is there a minimum stipend/salary for postdocs at your institution?Do postdocs receive an annual stipend increase?
Yes, required Yes, recommended No Don’t know
Minimum Stipend
Annual Increase
89%
33%
6%
42%
5%
20%
0%5%
15
27
62 0 24
0
9
62
843
05
25
39
3
Num
ber
of In
stitu
tions
80
60
40
20
0
$20,
000–
$37,9
99
$38,
000–
$39,
999
$40,
000–
$46,
999
$47,0
00–$
49,9
99
$50,
000–
$55,
999
$56,
000–
$75,
000
2013 2016 2019Minimum Postdoc Stipends
A defined appointment process brings structure to the onboarding process, and can lead to the creation and enforcement of related policies, such as consistent classification and streamined, succinct postdoc titles.
6
compensation to levels appropriate to experience and education. Over the past 16 years, the amount of the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Re-search Service Award (NRSA) issued by the NIH, which has provided certain minimum postdoc stipend levels, has increased by 60 percent. This stipend scale is widely used as the standard for minimum postdoc compensation policies at institu-tions, and increases are evident in the postdoc stipend data over the course of the three Institutional Policy Surveys. In 2019, 50 percent of institutions set a required minimum compensation level for postdocs at the NRSA minimum level or higher. Notably, 29 percent of institutions
are still compensating postdocs at the 2017 NRSA level, a year when there was a substantial increase in postdoc compensation because of the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act revisions. Even though this revision was ultimately not passed into law, the revisions pushed many institu-tions to promise a proposed higher stipend level of $47,476. This cohort of entities therefore lags current recommendations.
Although a minimum stipend policy is crucial, another impor-tant component to ensure that fair compensation continues is a policy to provide annual increases. Changes from 2016 to 2019 show movement in the direction of recommended
policies. The data show in 2016 that annual increases were required among 36 percent of surveyed insti-tutions and recommended among 43 percent; in 2019, the data changed to 43 percent required and 33 percent recommended.
Along with compensation poli-cies, it is important to set term limits to the postdoc appointment period. The postdoc is a defined period of enhanced research training; thus, it should be a stepping-stone and not a permanent landing for a career. Eighty-nine percent of institutions do set a term limit for postdocs and, of that group, 54 percent count prior years of postdoc experience toward the term limit. This point is very important for ensuring individuals do not spend 10 years or more going from one postdoc appointment to another. The majority of institutions have a policy limit-ing the maximum length of time as a postdoc to five years. Many institu-tions do allow a one-year extension for extenuating circumstances, such as parental leave or time lost because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
$52,000
$50,000
$48,000
$46,000
$44,000
$42,000
$40,000
$38,000
$36,000
$34,000
$32,000
$30,000
NIH NRSA Stipend Scale History
NIH Minimum StipendActual Postdoc Stipend (Mean ± SEM)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2017
2019
0
20
40
Yes No Don't know
Per
cent
age
Does your institution count prior years of experience as a postdoc towards the term limit?
32%
54%
14%
0
10
20
30
All postdocsare offeredthe samebenefits
Sourceof
Funding
Connectionto
InstitutionalPayroll
ClassificationTitle
Departmentor Discipline
Percent ofPosition
FTE
MinimumSalary/StipendLevel
Other
Per
cent
age
If the same benefits are not offered to all postdocs, which of thefollowing criteria impacts benefits eligibility?
30%
38%
28%
23%
0%4% 3%
35%
0
10
20
30
40
Insuranceplans
Time off Retirementhealth
benefits
Workman'scompensation
Payroll Taxes,Social Security,and Medicare
Other
Per
cent
age
What does the fringe benefit rate cover or what is the poolof money collected from the fringe rate cover?
39%
20% 19%
29%25%
9%
0
20
40
Yes No Don't know
Per
cent
age
Has your institution establisheda fringe benefit rate for postdocs?
56%
19%
25%
7
Policy is only effective and benefi-cial to postdocs if it is implemented and enforced. The 2019 survey added a new question to help better understand who enforces postdoc policy. As was expected, 66 percent of respondents said PDOs do actively enforce postdoc policy. For instance, the head of the PDO often mediates situations between postdocs and their supervisors.
Equal Benefits for All PostdocsThe NPA Recommended Policies and Practices states: “Provide a compre-hensive, fair, and equitable benefits package to postdocs, comparable to that which is received by standard employees whether national or international at the same institution.” Basic insurance plans are offered to
the vast majority of postdocs, which is a positive sign. Looking at benefits offered by institution type, we see the greatest increases—roughly 15 percent—between 2016 and 2019 in vision, life, short-term disability, and long-term disability insurances at private institutions. For both public and private institutions there are marginal increases among the other insurance benefits. For the important topic of family leave, we see positive gains in paternal leaves, both paid and unpaid, as well as an increase in general paid time off.
Although benefits are improving overall for postdocs, data segmented by postdoc classification shows gains in subsectors that are much smaller, to the point of being insig-nificant (see Methodology for defini-
tions of different postdoc classifications). For instance, external postdocs saw virtually no increase in any benefit category, significantly trailing their peers. For individually funded postdocs, the 2019 data showed a
marginal increase of 2–5 percentage points in all benefit categories over three years. The comparison data between 2016 and 2019 was done
2016
94
86
86
61
88
80
80
57
92
84
82
59
90
80
80
51
84
73
73
47
88
78
78
49
90
78
76
49
82
69
67
43
86
73
71
45
82
65
61
37
67
53
45
24
65
49
43
27
53
24
16
12
82
43
37
20
65
37
31
16
82
69
67
53
86
71
67
57
65
57
57
49
61
55
47
33
65
57
51
43
57
49
43
29
57
49
43
35
20
12
8
2
45
41
35
27
16
14
10
6
43
31
27
12
33
24
22
16
47
45
41
27
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Postdoc Type
2019
98
88
88
60
92
82
82
56
96
86
84
58
92
80
80
50
86
74
74
46
90
78
78
48
94
80
78
48
86
72
70
42
90
76
74
44
84
64
60
36
68
52
44
24
68
48
42
26
56
24
16
12
86
42
38
20
68
36
30
16
86
70
68
52
90
74
68
56
68
60
58
48
66
58
48
32
68
60
52
42
62
52
44
28
58
50
42
34
24
12
8
2
48
40
34
26
20
16
12
6
46
32
28
12
34
26
24
16
50
48
44
28
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lorem ipsum
2016
94
86
86
61
88
80
80
57
92
84
82
59
90
80
80
51
84
73
73
47
88
78
78
49
90
78
76
49
82
69
67
43
86
73
71
45
82
65
61
37
67
53
45
24
65
49
43
27
53
24
16
12
82
43
37
20
65
37
31
16
82
69
67
53
86
71
67
57
65
57
57
49
61
55
47
33
65
57
51
43
57
49
43
29
57
49
43
35
20
12
8
2
45
41
35
27
16
14
10
6
43
31
27
12
33
24
22
16
47
45
41
27
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Postdoc Type
2019
98
88
88
60
92
82
82
56
96
86
84
58
92
80
80
50
86
74
74
46
90
78
78
48
94
80
78
48
86
72
70
42
90
76
74
44
84
64
60
36
68
52
44
24
68
48
42
26
56
24
16
12
86
42
38
20
68
36
30
16
86
70
68
52
90
74
68
56
68
60
58
48
66
58
48
32
68
60
52
42
62
52
44
28
58
50
42
34
24
12
8
2
48
40
34
26
20
16
12
6
46
32
28
12
34
26
24
16
50
48
44
28
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lorem ipsum
2016
94
86
86
61
88
80
80
57
92
84
82
59
90
80
80
51
84
73
73
47
88
78
78
49
90
78
76
49
82
69
67
43
86
73
71
45
82
65
61
37
67
53
45
24
65
49
43
27
53
24
16
12
82
43
37
20
65
37
31
16
82
69
67
53
86
71
67
57
65
57
57
49
61
55
47
33
65
57
51
43
57
49
43
29
57
49
43
35
20
12
8
2
45
41
35
27
16
14
10
6
43
31
27
12
33
24
22
16
47
45
41
27
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Postdoc Type
2019
98
88
88
60
92
82
82
56
96
86
84
58
92
80
80
50
86
74
74
46
90
78
78
48
94
80
78
48
86
72
70
42
90
76
74
44
84
64
60
36
68
52
44
24
68
48
42
26
56
24
16
12
86
42
38
20
68
36
30
16
86
70
68
52
90
74
68
56
68
60
58
48
66
58
48
32
68
60
52
42
62
52
44
28
58
50
42
34
24
12
8
2
48
40
34
26
20
16
12
6
46
32
28
12
34
26
24
16
50
48
44
28
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
IFPE
IFPT
IFP
EFP
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lorem ipsum
2016
100
95
100
83
79
100
96
95
100
88
89
100
83
79
100
88
95
100
88
84
100
83
68
100
88
79
100
79
79
83
54
47
83
54
68
67
46
42
50
58
74
100
54
63
83
46
79
100
88
84
83
75
68
67
54
47
67
62
58
67
46
42
50
58
63
83
12
26
17
50
42
17
12
26
0
46
63
0
42
47
33
54
42
67
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Institution Type
2019
100
100
100
96
95
83
96
100
100
88
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
92
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
80
95
83
56
89
67
60
79
83
60
42
83
88
89
83
60
68
100
84
89
83
92
100
67
64
84
67
64
84
50
76
68
50
56
84
50
60
63
50
20
16
83
56
53
17
20
16
33
40
58
50
20
42
67
32
84
33
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
2016
100
95
100
83
79
100
96
95
100
88
89
100
83
79
100
88
95
100
88
84
100
83
68
100
88
79
100
79
79
83
54
47
83
54
68
67
46
42
50
58
74
100
54
63
83
46
79
100
88
84
83
75
68
67
54
47
67
62
58
67
46
42
50
58
63
83
12
26
17
50
42
17
12
26
0
46
63
0
42
47
33
54
42
67
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Institution Type
2019
100
100
100
96
95
83
96
100
100
88
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
92
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
80
95
83
56
89
67
60
79
83
60
42
83
88
89
83
60
68
100
84
89
83
92
100
67
64
84
67
64
84
50
76
68
50
56
84
50
60
63
50
20
16
83
56
53
17
20
16
33
40
58
50
20
42
67
32
84
33
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
2016
100
95
100
83
79
100
96
95
100
88
89
100
83
79
100
88
95
100
88
84
100
83
68
100
88
79
100
79
79
83
54
47
83
54
68
67
46
42
50
58
74
100
54
63
83
46
79
100
88
84
83
75
68
67
54
47
67
62
58
67
46
42
50
58
63
83
12
26
17
50
42
17
12
26
0
46
63
0
42
47
33
54
42
67
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100Benefits: Institution Type
2019
100
100
100
96
95
83
96
100
100
88
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
92
100
100
88
89
83
88
95
100
80
95
83
56
89
67
60
79
83
60
42
83
88
89
83
60
68
100
84
89
83
92
100
67
64
84
67
64
84
50
76
68
50
56
84
50
60
63
50
20
16
83
56
53
17
20
16
33
40
58
50
20
42
67
32
84
33
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing
le H
ealth
Ins.
Two-
Pers
on H
ealth
Ins.
Fam
ily H
ealth
Ins.
Sing
le D
enta
l Ins
.
Two-
Pers
on D
enta
l Ins
.
Fam
ily D
enta
l Ins
.
Sing
le V
isio
n In
s.
Two-
Pers
on V
isio
n In
s.
Fam
ily V
isio
n In
s.Li
fe In
s.
Shor
t-ter
m D
isab
ility
Long
-term
Dis
abilit
y
Mat
ched
Ret
irem
ent
Tax-
Def
erre
d R
etire
men
t
Flex
Spe
ndin
g Ac
ct.
Empl
oyee
Ass
t. Pr
ogra
mPa
id T
ime
Off
Unp
aid
Tim
e O
ffPa
id M
ater
nity
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty
Paid
Pat
erni
ty L
eave
Unp
aid
Pate
rnity
Lea
ve
Adop
tion
Assi
stan
ce
On-
site
Chi
ld C
are
Subs
idiz
ed C
hild
Car
eTu
ition
Ass
ista
nce
Tran
spor
tatio
n As
sist
ance
Dis
coun
ted
Athl
etic
Mem
bers
hip
Although benefits are improving overall for postdocs, data segmented by postdoc classification shows gains in subsectors that are much smaller.
8
with a subset of the institutions that answered both surveys.
A fringe benefit rate can cover a range of categories, such as health ben-efits and paid time off. Postdocs can either have the same fringe benefit rate as other employees at the institution, or the fringe benefit rate can cover just insurance benefits. Fifty-five percent of institutions have established a fringe
benefit rate for postdocs that averages between 22–25 percent. When institu-tions establish this pool of money, it can allow for all postdocs to have access to more benefits regardless of funding source. However, this access depends on whether the fringe benefit rate applies to all postdocs and/or the pool of money is accessible to all postdoc classifications.
Importance of Training ProgramsProfessional development and career services are two areas paramount to postdocs’ future successes. The NPA recommends that institutions offer programs that allow postdocs to explore the multiple career paths available to them, and to improve on the important professional skills essential to help them achieve their
desired career goals. When averaged across all institutions, there is a very small decline in the total number of programs offered, and this decrease warrants attention by institutions.
For professional development pro-grams, results are mixed when look-ing at institution type and program-matic offerings in 2019 compared to 2016. There were increases in diversity and outreach programs, but a decline in academic project management and workshops on negotiation skills and time management. When looking at NIH funding, the highest-funded
Development Programs: NIH Funding
94
100
88
94
62
83
47
76
75
78
76
82
50
50
47
71
56
50
41
47
62
67
76
82
38
39
47
71
25
17
12
29
56
72
71
59
19
11
18
18
56
61
65
82
75
78
88
100
25
28
41
47
25
28
41
29
94
94
100
82
88
94
82
82
38
50
71
76
50
33
59
71G
rant Writing
Science W
riting
Diversity and O
utreach
English Language Training
International Legal Issues
Interpersonal Skills
Academ
ic Lab Mgm
t
Industry Lab Mgm
t
Leadership
Mock S
tudy Sections
Negotiation S
kills
Presentation S
kills
Academ
ic Project M
gmt
Industry Project M
gmt
Responsible C
onduct
Teaching Skills
Tech Transfer
Tim
e Managem
ent
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Development Programs: Number of PDO Staff
86
95
96
59
68
79
73
77
82
36
50
68
41
45
50
45
82
86
23
55
64
5
23
36
36
73
82
5
18
21
32
82
75
77
100
82
14
41
46
0
45
43
86
91
96
68
86
100
45
59
71
36
41
71
Grant W
riting
Science W
riting
Diversity and O
utreach
English Language Training
International Legal Issues
Interpersonal Skills
Academ
ic Lab Mgm
t
Industry Lab Mgm
t
Leadership
Mock S
tudy Sections
Negotiation S
kills
Presentation S
kills
Academ
ic Project M
gmt
Industry Project M
gmt
Responsible C
onduct
Teaching Skills
Tech Transfer
Tim
e Managem
ent
0−1
1−2
2+
0
20
40
60
80
100
Development Programs: Number of Postdocs
90
91
89
100
100
100
50
65
72
90
75
67
50
87
61
100
75
100
20
52
44
100
50
50
30
52
44
50
75
33
60
65
61
100
100
83
30
61
28
50
50
100
10
26
11
30
50
33
40
65
50
90
100
83
10
22
0
30
0
33
30
52
72
90
100
67
70
87
83
90
100
100
20
22
28
70
50
67
10
22
33
60
50
33
70
96
89
100
100
100
50
87
89
100
100
100
30
57
61
70
75
83
30
43
39
90
75
67
Gra
nt W
ritin
gSc
ienc
e W
ritin
g
Div
ersi
ty a
nd O
utre
ach
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Tra
inin
g
Inte
rnat
iona
l Leg
al Is
sues
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls
Acad
emic
Lab
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Lab
Mgm
t.Le
ader
ship
Moc
k St
udy
Sect
ions
Neg
otia
tion
Skills
Pres
enta
tion
Skills
Acad
emic
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Res
pons
ible
Con
duct
Teac
hing
Ski
llsTe
ch T
rans
fer
Tim
e M
anag
emen
t
1−100
101−250
251−500
501−750
751−1000
1000+0
20
40
60
80
100
Development Programs: Number of Postdocs
90
91
89
100
100
100
50
65
72
90
75
67
50
87
61
100
75
100
20
52
44
100
50
50
30
52
44
50
75
33
60
65
61
100
100
83
30
61
28
50
50
100
10
26
11
30
50
33
40
65
50
90
100
83
10
22
0
30
0
33
30
52
72
90
100
67
70
87
83
90
100
100
20
22
28
70
50
67
10
22
33
60
50
33
70
96
89
100
100
100
50
87
89
100
100
100
30
57
61
70
75
83
30
43
39
90
75
67
Gra
nt W
ritin
gSc
ienc
e W
ritin
g
Div
ersi
ty a
nd O
utre
ach
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Tra
inin
g
Inte
rnat
iona
l Leg
al Is
sues
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls
Acad
emic
Lab
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Lab
Mgm
t.Le
ader
ship
Moc
k St
udy
Sect
ions
Neg
otia
tion
Skills
Pres
enta
tion
Skills
Acad
emic
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Res
pons
ible
Con
duct
Teac
hing
Ski
llsTe
ch T
rans
fer
Tim
e M
anag
emen
t
1−100
101−250
251−500
501−750
751−1000
1000+0
20
40
60
80
100
The data in 2016 and 2019 show that the more PDO staff at an institution, the more programs and services available to posdocs. This data point is critical for institutions that desire to advocate for more PDO staff.
2016
89
95
100
63
89
80
22
37
40
44
63
60
22
74
60
11
47
40
81
84
80
89
84
80
81
74
60
63
79
80
93
100
100
52
79
60
48
79
60
56
47
60
59
74
80
67
79
60
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Developmental Programs: Institution Type
2019
92
94
100
69
76
67
8
18
67
35
71
67
35
41
17
23
47
17
88
82
67
96
88
67
62
65
67
69
76
83
96
82
100
69
82
83
54
65
33
46
53
17
42
59
67
54
76
33
Gra
nt W
ritin
gSc
ienc
e W
ritin
g
Moc
k St
udy
Sect
ions
Acad
emic
Lab
Mgm
t.
Acad
emic
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.Te
achi
ng S
kills
Pres
enta
tion
Skills
Neg
otia
tion
Skills
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls
Res
pons
ible
Con
duct
Div
ersi
ty a
nd O
utre
ach
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Tra
inin
g
Inte
rnat
iona
l Leg
al Is
sues
Tim
e M
anag
emen
tTe
ch T
rans
fer
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
2016
89
95
100
63
89
80
22
37
40
44
63
60
22
74
60
11
47
40
81
84
80
89
84
80
81
74
60
63
79
80
93
100
100
52
79
60
48
79
60
56
47
60
59
74
80
67
79
60
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Developmental Programs: Institution Type
2019
92
94
100
69
76
67
8
18
67
35
71
67
35
41
17
23
47
17
88
82
67
96
88
67
62
65
67
69
76
83
96
82
100
69
82
83
54
65
33
46
53
17
42
59
67
54
76
33
Gra
nt W
ritin
gSc
ienc
e W
ritin
g
Moc
k St
udy
Sect
ions
Acad
emic
Lab
Mgm
t.
Acad
emic
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.Te
achi
ng S
kills
Pres
enta
tion
Skills
Neg
otia
tion
Skills
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls
Res
pons
ible
Con
duct
Div
ersi
ty a
nd O
utre
ach
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Tra
inin
g
Inte
rnat
iona
l Leg
al Is
sues
Tim
e M
anag
emen
tTe
ch T
rans
fer
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
2016
89
95
100
63
89
80
22
37
40
44
63
60
22
74
60
11
47
40
81
84
80
89
84
80
81
74
60
63
79
80
93
100
100
52
79
60
48
79
60
56
47
60
59
74
80
67
79
60
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Developmental Programs: Institution Type
2019
92
94
100
69
76
67
8
18
67
35
71
67
35
41
17
23
47
17
88
82
67
96
88
67
62
65
67
69
76
83
96
82
100
69
82
83
54
65
33
46
53
17
42
59
67
54
76
33
Gra
nt W
ritin
gSc
ienc
e W
ritin
g
Moc
k St
udy
Sect
ions
Acad
emic
Lab
Mgm
t.
Acad
emic
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.
Indu
stry
Pro
ject
Mgm
t.Te
achi
ng S
kills
Pres
enta
tion
Skills
Neg
otia
tion
Skills
Inte
rper
sona
l Ski
lls
Res
pons
ible
Con
duct
Div
ersi
ty a
nd O
utre
ach
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Tra
inin
g
Inte
rnat
iona
l Leg
al Is
sues
Tim
e M
anag
emen
tTe
ch T
rans
fer
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
9
institutions (Q4) continue to offer the largest number of development programs and career services.
Importantly, data in 2016 and 2019 show that the more PDO staff at an institution, the more programs and services are available to its postdocs. We saw in 2016 as well that hav-ing dedicated staff allowed for this increase. This data point is critical for institutions that desire to advocate for more PDO staff. For career services, overall we saw an increase in the num-ber of programs offered by institutions, regardless of type, in 2019 versus 2016. There were a few exceptions, such as networking events that decreased slightly, which are critical components of a robust program. When looking at the comparison with NIH funding, PDO staff, and the number of postdocs at an institution, we saw the same results as we did with the professional development programs. More grant money, staff, and a higher number of postdocs generally equate to a greater number of programs.
The important topic of mental health and wellness prompted a new question for the 2019 survey, asking institutions if they provide programs on this topic. Eighty-eight percent of institutions responded
that they do offer mental health and wellness programs to their postdocs. Given the long hours postdocs often work and the isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this area has increased in importance.
201685
72
80
74
67
60
56
39
20
37
39
40
89
89
80
67
67
80
93
89
80
63
50
60
89
83
80
67
83
100
81
83
80
19
22
20
56
50
80
85
83
100
15
22
0
30
28
60
67
56
100
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: Institution Type
201972
75
80
68
81
60
28
44
60
28
62
60
92
94
100
72
88
80
92
94
80
48
69
20
76
69
80
76
88
80
76
75
80
20
31
40
48
62
80
76
81
80
16
19
40
24
44
60
60
81
80
Acad
emic
Job
Sea
rch
Car
eer F
airs
/Sym
posi
um
Car
eer I
nter
est A
sses
smen
tsC
aree
r Lib
rary
Car
eer P
anel
s/Ta
lks
Car
eer−
rela
ted
Res
ourc
es
CV/
Cov
er L
ette
r Rev
iew
Empl
oyer
Pre
sent
atio
nsID
P W
orks
hops
Indi
vidu
al C
aree
r Cou
nsel
ing
Job
Sear
ch W
orks
hops
Job
Shad
owin
gM
ock
Inte
rvie
ws
Net
wor
king
Eve
nts
On−
Cam
pus
Inte
rvie
ws
On−
Site
Vis
its
Self−
Asse
ssm
ent P
rogr
ams
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
201685
72
80
74
67
60
56
39
20
37
39
40
89
89
80
67
67
80
93
89
80
63
50
60
89
83
80
67
83
100
81
83
80
19
22
20
56
50
80
85
83
100
15
22
0
30
28
60
67
56
100
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: Institution Type
201972
75
80
68
81
60
28
44
60
28
62
60
92
94
100
72
88
80
92
94
80
48
69
20
76
69
80
76
88
80
76
75
80
20
31
40
48
62
80
76
81
80
16
19
40
24
44
60
60
81
80
Acad
emic
Job
Sea
rch
Car
eer F
airs
/Sym
posi
um
Car
eer I
nter
est A
sses
smen
tsC
aree
r Lib
rary
Car
eer P
anel
s/Ta
lks
Car
eer−
rela
ted
Res
ourc
es
CV/
Cov
er L
ette
r Rev
iew
Empl
oyer
Pre
sent
atio
nsID
P W
orks
hops
Indi
vidu
al C
aree
r Cou
nsel
ing
Job
Sear
ch W
orks
hops
Job
Shad
owin
gM
ock
Inte
rvie
ws
Net
wor
king
Eve
nts
On−
Cam
pus
Inte
rvie
ws
On−
Site
Vis
its
Self−
Asse
ssm
ent P
rogr
ams
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
201685
72
80
74
67
60
56
39
20
37
39
40
89
89
80
67
67
80
93
89
80
63
50
60
89
83
80
67
83
100
81
83
80
19
22
20
56
50
80
85
83
100
15
22
0
30
28
60
67
56
100
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: Institution Type
201972
75
80
68
81
60
28
44
60
28
62
60
92
94
100
72
88
80
92
94
80
48
69
20
76
69
80
76
88
80
76
75
80
20
31
40
48
62
80
76
81
80
16
19
40
24
44
60
60
81
80
Acad
emic
Job
Sea
rch
Car
eer F
airs
/Sym
posi
um
Car
eer I
nter
est A
sses
smen
tsC
aree
r Lib
rary
Car
eer P
anel
s/Ta
lks
Car
eer−
rela
ted
Res
ourc
es
CV/
Cov
er L
ette
r Rev
iew
Empl
oyer
Pre
sent
atio
nsID
P W
orks
hops
Indi
vidu
al C
aree
r Cou
nsel
ing
Job
Sear
ch W
orks
hops
Job
Shad
owin
gM
ock
Inte
rvie
ws
Net
wor
king
Eve
nts
On−
Cam
pus
Inte
rvie
ws
On−
Site
Vis
its
Self−
Asse
ssm
ent P
rogr
ams
Public
Private
Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: NIH Funding
56
61
59
83
81
94
88
89
56
56
59
78
31
22
18
72
69
50
76
78
88
83
76
89
50
39
35
56
25
28
24
50
69
61
71
78
62
56
65
83
75
61
59
83
31
22
12
33
56
33
47
61
69
50
76
83
25
22
12
17
38
28
18
33
44
56
59
72
Academ
ic Job Search
Career P
anels/Talks
Career Fairs/S
ymposium
Career Library
Career−
related Resources
CV
/Cover Letter R
eview
Em
ployer Presentations
Career Interest A
ssessments
Individual Career C
ounseling
IDP
Workshops
Job Search W
orkshops
Job Shadow
ing
Mock Interview
s
Netw
orking Events
On−
Cam
pus Interviews
On−
Site V
isits
Self−
Assessm
ent Program
s
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: PDO Staff
43
73
75
70
95
96
43
68
79
9
50
43
39
82
75
61
86
96
30
41
61
9
27
50
48
77
82
39
68
82
43
82
82
4
32
32
22
55
68
43
77
82
13
18
21
9
45
29
30
64
75
Academ
ic Job Search
Career P
anels/Talks
Career Fairs/S
ymposium
Career Library
Career−
related Resources
CV
/Cover Letter R
eview
Em
ployer Presentations
Career Interest A
ssessments
Individual Career C
ounseling
IDP
Workshops
Job Search W
orkshops
Job Shadow
ing
Mock Interview
s
Netw
orking Events
On−
Cam
pus Interviews
On−
Site V
isits
Self−
Assessm
ent Program
s
0−1
1−2
2+
0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: Number of Postdocs
18
74
61
80
75
100
55
96
89
100
100
100
9
83
61
80
75
83
27
43
11
50
50
50
18
83
50
90
75
100
45
83
89
100
100
100
0
39
50
80
50
83
0
39
22
50
50
33
36
70
67
100
75
100
36
74
56
70
100
83
27
78
61
90
100
100
9
30
22
30
0
33
9
65
33
90
50
50
36
74
56
90
100
100
0
17
22
30
25
17
9
39
17
40
0
50
18
61
61
80
75
67
Acad
emic
Job
Sea
rch
Car
eer P
anel
s/Ta
lks
Car
eer F
airs
/Sym
posi
umC
aree
r Lib
rary
Car
eer−
rela
ted
Res
ourc
es
CV/
Cov
er L
ette
r Rev
iew
Empl
oyer
Pre
sent
atio
ns
Car
eer I
nter
est A
sses
smen
ts
Indi
vidu
al C
aree
r Cou
nsel
ing
IDP
Wor
ksho
ps
Job
Sear
ch W
orks
hops
Job
Shad
owin
gM
ock
Inte
rvie
ws
Net
wor
king
Eve
nts
On−
Cam
pus
Inte
rvie
ws
On−
Site
Vis
its
Self−
Asse
ssm
ent P
rogr
ams
1−100
101−250
251−500
501−750
751−1000
1000+0
20
40
60
80
100
Career Services: Number of Postdocs
18
74
61
80
75
100
55
96
89
100
100
100
9
83
61
80
75
83
27
43
11
50
50
50
18
83
50
90
75
100
45
83
89
100
100
100
0
39
50
80
50
83
0
39
22
50
50
33
36
70
67
100
75
100
36
74
56
70
100
83
27
78
61
90
100
100
9
30
22
30
0
33
9
65
33
90
50
50
36
74
56
90
100
100
0
17
22
30
25
17
9
39
17
40
0
50
18
61
61
80
75
67
Acad
emic
Job
Sea
rch
Car
eer P
anel
s/Ta
lks
Car
eer F
airs
/Sym
posi
umC
aree
r Lib
rary
Car
eer−
rela
ted
Res
ourc
es
CV/
Cov
er L
ette
r Rev
iew
Empl
oyer
Pre
sent
atio
ns
Car
eer I
nter
est A
sses
smen
ts
Indi
vidu
al C
aree
r Cou
nsel
ing
IDP
Wor
ksho
ps
Job
Sear
ch W
orks
hops
Job
Shad
owin
gM
ock
Inte
rvie
ws
Net
wor
king
Eve
nts
On−
Cam
pus
Inte
rvie
ws
On−
Site
Vis
its
Self−
Asse
ssm
ent P
rogr
ams
1−100
101−250
251−500
501−750
751−1000
1000+0
20
40
60
80
100
10
Postdoc DemographicsThe range of research fields is as di-verse as the people who fill postdoc positions. The current demographics data are similar to the 2016 survey data. International, visa-holding postdocs continue to represent more than half of the postdocs (57 per-cent) in the United States. The U.S. research enterprise is dependent on this talent from all around the world, further demonstrating the impor-tance of this sector of our community and the need to provide services to them. Ninety percent of surveyed institutions provide services for inter-
national postdocs. International post-docs mainly utilize the J-1 scholar program, with the H1-B visa and F-1 OPT used a lesser amount.
Across genders, the past three years saw only a minor increase in female representation among post-docs, from 43 percent to 44 percent. Meanwhile, separate research by the Council of Graduate Schools shows women earned 53 percent of doctorate degrees in 2019, a level that has increased significantly and consistently, 4.4 percent year-over-year, over the past decade since 2009 (however, this research may not
include research on graduate degrees earned outside of the United States). The 2019 NPA survey also added a gender option for those who identify as nonbinary. Although some institu-tions may not collect these data, those that do showed nonbinary individuals represented 0.2 percent of the overall postdoc population.
Gaining a better understanding about whether postdocs identify with underrepresented groups, have dis-abilities, and/or are from disadvan-taged backgrounds, raises awareness among the greater postdoc and PDO population, allowing both academic
institutions and the NPA to improve programs and practices to make the postdoc experience as equitable and inclusive as possible. As in past years, 65 percent of institutions do collect data on underrepresented
The U.S. research enterprise is dependent on international talent from all over the world, further demonstrating the importance of this sector of our community and the need to provide services to them.
Postdoc Status
Institutions
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pos
tdoc
s (%
)
TemporaryVisa
PermanentResident
US Citizen
Postdoc Gender
Institutions
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pos
tdoc
s (%
)
Female
Male
Non-binary
Unspecified
Institutions
Temporary Visa Status
Post
docs
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
J–1H–1B
TNE–3
F1–OPTO
J–2
11
groups, but only 14 percent collect data on postdocs with a disability, and even fewer (4 percent) collect data on postdocs from disadvan-taged backgrounds. The data from 2019 was very similar to 2016. The sample sizes are too small to have statistical significance.
Tracking Postdoc Outcomes Postdoc career progression is an area of data collection that is slowly gaining traction. Two 2019 survey questions asked about tracking post-docs after they leave their positions, with the data showing an increase of 20 percent in institutions track-ing this information. In 2016, the survey asked those institutions not yet tracking postdoc careers whether
they planned to do so in the next 12 months; 33 percent said they were likely to begin doing so in the next year. Indeed, the 2019 survey re-sponse shows that many institutions did as planned, with 48 percent now tracking postdoc career outcomes versus 28 percent that stated they did so in the 2016 survey. Institu-tional career tracking can generate data that can then be shared nation-ally in surveys such as this one, or with other interested parties such as the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and En-gineering Statistics and the Coalition for Next Generation Life Sciences. Locally, these data can be used for postdoc recruitment.
Exit surveys are an important part of the postdoc pathway to ascertain both their career trajectory and feed-back on the postdoc’s experience at the institution. Topics include future employment, demographic infor-mation, and satisfaction with the postdoc program. There has been no change in the use of exit surveys between the NPA 2016 and 2019 surveys, with 44 percent of institu-tions continuing to conduct exit surveys for postdocs. New questions in the 2019 survey show that only 5 percent of institutions maintain mandatory exit surveys or exit inter-views. Interestingly, PDOs seem to be disengaged from the exit survey process, as data show that very few know when the exit process is con-ducted or if it is mandatory. How-ever, many PDOs proactively collect data on planned career pathways while postdocs are still at their insti-tutions. Sixty-one percent of PDOs survey postdocs about their future career plans, and 47 percent collect these data on an annual basis. The data are mostly collected through self-administered surveys, whereas a small percentage of institutions conduct interviews.
RecommendationsInstitutions should accelerate the productive and effective actions the community took between 2016 and 2019, which resulted in the favorable findings from the current survey. Similarly, they should take into serious consideration areas that are not showing improvement and/or
are deteriorating. The NPA Recom-mended Policies and Practices were created to assist institutions in iden-tifying areas for improvement within their own organizations and can be consulted as a resource when assess-ing current programs and policies.
This 2019 survey reveals several areas that should elicit the attention of senior leadership at institutions serving postdocs. The NPA is pre-pared and eager to work with institu-tions to continue developing best practices and to tackle challenges that arise in addressing these issues. As institutions review the results of this survey, the NPA encourages them to consider the recommendations below to gain the full benefit of this nationwide data collection effort. The aggregate data from the survey ques-
tions will be available on the NPA website for its members. Subsequent reports that will conduct a more in-depth analysis on various sections of this survey are planned.
Given the results from the 2019 Institutional Policy Survey, the NPA proposes the following list of central recommendations.
Budgets for PDOs Increase funding and staffing for post-doc offices. PDOs are the lifeblood of the postdoc community and are most closely tied to the overall postdoc ex-perience. Yet, despite some improve-ment in staffing, these offices are woe-fully under-resourced and unable to provide the critical attention postdocs need in all areas outside their niche research expertise and in addition to guidance from their supervisors. Examine current funding and staffing levels to ensure positive progress can continue to meet or exceed the standards outlined in the NPA Recom-mended Policies and Practices.
Postdoc Onboarding Create and provide a postdoc-specific onboarding process with appointment policies that help set expectations for
0
25
50
75
Yes No Don't know
Per
cent
age
Does your institution provide mental health and wellness programs for postdocs?
87%
4%9%
0
10
20
30
40
Yes No Not ableto do so
Per
cent
age
Does your institution conductan exit survey or exit interviewwith postdocs when theirappointments end?
43%41%
16%
Postdoc offices are the lifeblood of the postdoc community and the most closely tied to the overall postdoc experience.
12
postdocs as soon as they arrive at institutions and lay the foundation for their success. Institution-wide onboarding by human resource offices is important for accommodating all members of the university communi-ty, but postdocs have special require-ments and needs that require atten-tion. Special consideration should be given to international postdocs.
Postdoc Compensation Create a mandatory minimum stipend/salary for postdocs that matches the NIH NRSA recommen-dation each fiscal year. Only half of the institutions surveyed met this standard of $50,004 in 2019 (which increased to $52,704 in 2020 after the survey was completed). This bench-mark is a nonpartisan, carefully cal-culated figure, designed to meet the needs of postdocs and their families.
Despite nearly all institutions having some form of minimum stipend, only one-third require annual increases. During their postdoc fellowship, many postdocs consequently struggle with financial planning.
Equal Benefits Ensure equal benefit plans for all postdocs regardless of funding source, along with fair leave poli-cies for family and medical leave. Examine your postdoc program to determine any differences that exist among various categories of postdocs in terms of benefits conferred. The NPA continues to build resources and can assist in formulating institution plans to remedy identified inequities.
Training Offer carefully orchestrated training programs for postdocs to help them
maximize their postdoc experience at your institution and attain their preferred career goals. Ultimately, this training will help postdocs continue to make valuable contributions to the re-search community at the highest level. The widespread adoption of virtual programming in 2020–2021, necessi-tated by the COVID-19 pandemic, may lead to opportunities for smaller in-stitutions to share programming with one another even after the pandemic is over. It is worth noting that the 2020 National Postdoctoral Appreciation Week virtual events that took place at specific institutions served as an exem-plar for this type of collaborative effort, coordinating virtual events open to all postdocs nationwide. This type of col-laboration can be extremely beneficial for one-person PDOs.
Building a Diverse Postdoc Population Work to remedy the gender gap among postdocs, which is currently out of sync with female majorities in undergraduate and graduate enrollment and awarded degrees in the United States. Develop means to open doors to a more diverse popula-tion of postdocs, especially among traditionally underrepresented groups in the United States. Track demographic data extensively and implement best practices in equity and inclusion for current postdocs.
Career Tracking Build or improve implementation of career-tracking practices for post-docs, which will help your institution better understand the needs and
0
25
50
75
100
Perc
enta
ge
How often are data collected?
Bi-annuallyAnnuallySemi-annuallySporadicallyOther
Satisfactionwith Current
Position
13%
38%
33%
15%
Other
8%
42%
17%
33%
IncomingExpectations
4%
35%
17%
43%
Evaluation ofProgramsOffered
4%
2%
25%
35%
33%
CareerPlans
10%
46%
21%
23%
0
25
50
75
100
Per
cent
age yes
no
Which of the following topics does your institution collect data on?
Satisfactionwith Current
Position
Evaluation ofProgramsOffered
IncomingExpectations
CareerPlans
Other
49%
51%
63%
63%
37%
72%
28%
60%
40%
37%
0
10
20
30
40
50
Yes No Don't know
Per
cent
age
Does your institution trackpostdocs' career outcomes afterthey leave your institution?
48%47%
5%
13
desires of current postdocs; increase your engagement with potential employers; and develop robust rela-tionships with postdocs that last after they leave the institution.
Growing SupportAlthough institutions remain with significant opportunity to advance the postdoc experience, this report demonstrates that there is cause to cel-ebrate the successes that have already been achieved, and optimism that further change is possible. The NPA stands ready to assist institutions as they implement these changes. Look-ing forward, the NPA fully recognizes
that the current COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the United States in 2020 and is ongoing at the time of this report, is having a significant impact on academic institutions. The NPA plans to capture and analyze post-COVID data in the next 12–18 months to determine its impact on the progress of best-practices adop-tion with the upcoming 2022 NPA Institutional Policy Survey. It will be crucial to document how changes in the administrative and training environment impact all postdocs, with special attention to any differential changes seen across the many layers of diversity and inclusion.
NPA Recommendations: Opportunities for Growth
Track PostdocAlumni
Increase PDOBudgets
Ensure FamilyBenefits Maintain Office
For InternationalScholars
EstablishPDO/PDA
Establish ClearAppointment
Periods
Have RetirementBenefits
EnsureHealth Care
Establish PostdocPolicies
Maintain TrainingPrograms
0
25
50
75
100
CareerPlans
Evaluationof Programs
Offered
IncomingExpectations
Other Satisfactionwith Current
Position
Per
cent
age
Self-administeredsurvey such as aweb survey
Interview
Other
How are data collected?
68%
9%
23%
64%
9%
50%
50%
27%
89%
6%6%
91%
9%
1. National Postdoctoral Association. What is a Postdoc? Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www.nationalpostdoc .org/?page=What_is_a_postdoc
2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25008
3. Rybarczyk, B. J., L. Lerea, D. Whit-tington, and L. Dykstra. 2016. Analysis of postdoctoral training outcomes that broaden participation in science careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education 15(3):ar33.
4. National Postdoctoral Association. NPA Recommendations for Postdoctoral Policies and Practices. Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www.nationalpostdoc .org/?recommpostdocpolicy
5. National Postdoctoral Association. 2014. National Postdoctoral Association Institutional Policy Report 2014: Support-ing and Developing Postdoctoral Schol-ars. Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/?page=policy _report_databa
6. National Postdoctoral Association. 2017. National Postdoctoral Association Institutional Policy Report 2017: Support-ing the Needs of Postdocs. Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www.nationalpost-doc.org/?page=policy_ report_databa
7. Bixenmann, R., B. J. Natalizio, Y. Hussain, and C. N. Fuhrmann. 2020. Enhancing Dissemination of Evidence-Based Models for STEM PhD Career Development: A Stakeholder Workshop Report. Worcester, MA: Professional Development Hub, University of Mas-sachusetts Medical School. https://doi .org/10.13028/79a5-ym66
8. Woolston, C. 2020. The precarity of postdocs. Nature 587:505–508.
9. Lee, J., J. C. Williams, and S. Li. 2017. Parents in the Pipeline: Retaining Postdoctoral Researchers with Families. Accessed March 12, 2021. http://www .thepregnantscholar.org/wp-content /uploads/Parents-in-the-Pipeline-Posdoc -Report.pdf
10. National Academies of Sci-ences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi .org/10.17226/24994
11. National Postdoctoral Association. NPA Core Competencies. Accessed March 12, 2021. https://www.nationalpostdoc.org /page/CoreCompetencies
References
14
JOIN OURCOMMUNITY
To improve the pos tdoctora lexper ience by support ing a
cu l ture o f inc lus iveconnect ion .
15800 Crabbs Branch Way · Suite 300Rockville, MD 20855
www.nationalpostdoc.org
bwfund.org | @bwfund
Science | Education | SocietyThe Burroughs Wellcome Fund serves and strengthens
society by nurturing a diverse group of leaders in biomedical sciences to improve human health
through education and powering discovery in frontiers of greatest need.
