' '

' ",- \

I ~

. I \

' .. ' ' \, '

\

···The Clllllpetition' for' Quality I ~·

: \ .. \ ', .\ .

I 'I ! ' \,

',I

·. . The effect of c-urr-ent· salary levels >

. on the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain · • superior scientific and engineering personnel .,

' I

\

I ,

('.

I 't'

I

· . U.S~ FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11 / . .· , " January 1962

I . /

. I . ,,

Lib111 u.s., MOdl

----:---.,.---r-------------,---------,-:------,-- -~---~--~"·--

Q \4-9.U3'l17,-~.l -.. \

r

'THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE PANEL .ON

ENVIRONMENT -AND INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH OF

. THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL

'FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. ? '

'FEDERAL. CO_l]NCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Members

Harold Brown, . , Alan T. Waterman Director-of Defense Research and Engineering Department of Ddense - . ' .·National Science Foundation.

,' -,1 ' _;

Director

Edward Gudeman, Jr.

I r

'·

Under §ecretary ' , Department of Commerce •.)

1 • -,James E. Webb Administnitor · . · 1

.' • •• \

'·· National Aeronaatics and Space Administratibn

Boisfeuillet Jones , . ·Special Assistant to the Secretary for Health

and Medical Affairs ~ .Department of Health, Edu~ation, ahd Welfare

Roger Revelle. 'Science Adviser to the Secretary· Department of the lnterior

GlennT. Seaberg Chairman- : Atomic Energy Commission

Elmer B.- Staats Deputy Director

Observers

· _Bureau of the Budge~

Walte; G. Whitman , Science Adviser. to the Secretary

... Dep~rtment of State-

Frank r Welch ' I. ' • .

·Assistant Secretary for Fed~ral~State Relations Department of Agriculture - 1 )~ •• • \

' \ /" . . /

Jerome B. ~iesner_ / · _· 1 · -- · ' __ ·___ _ ,

Special Assistant to the Presidentrfor Sci'ence and Technology (Chairman) · ( ' ' ·

. ( . /

\_'

I ' ( I

F I \

Executive Secretary I -)·

_Edward Wenk,Jr. ,. . 1

' Office of the Special Assistant \:o tQe President for- Science and Technology '

_) /

PANEL ON ENVIRONMENT AND INCENTIVES FOR. RESEARCH· .

Allen V: Astin. (Chairman)! National Bureau of-Standards

· Harve J. Carlson . National Science Foundation

' . I

llugh L. Drydefl . i- ·~ ) National.Aeronautics and Space Administration .,

\ • > -

I

J'

II

Charles V; Kidd 1 , ,, National Institutes of Health

'· .

Richard~ A. Weiss Department of the Army

I '_\

J. -Lee Westriuc (Ex Officio) Office of the Special Assistant to the ·

. \..President for Science and.Technology _ I,

) < . '·

Librar) U. S. Naval Poflit&radi!Ulte ;)ehool

Monterey, Califarnje C 0 NT EN T S

Page

Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

General Factors Influencing Competition for Quality Personnel. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3

Federal Salary Administration • • • • • • • • • 5

Requirements for Internal Flexibility. • • • • • 10

Flexible Entrance Rates • • • • • • • • • • • •

Herit Salary Increases • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Recommendations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ANNEX

Conventional Personnel Data • • • • • • • • • •

Measures of Quality •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ll

14

15

19

22

Pay Pressures to Leave the Government Service. • 28

Unsuccessful Efforts to Recruit Quality Personnel • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31

SurrJnar"J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 4

Appendices • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

A.

B.

Summary of Data from Civil Service Roster of Scientists and Engineers in Grades GS-13 and Above • • • • •

Summary of Data in Bureau of Labor Statistics 1961 Survey •••••••

• •

• •

35

35

C. The Competition for Excellence at the National Institutes of Health • • • • • 44

D. List of Laboratories Submitting Quality Turnover Data for Tables 1 & 2. 48

i

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is fundamental to the successful attainment of major national objectives. Defense, atomic energy, space, health, agriculture, education, and welfare all demand solid commitments of men and money for continuing and expanding research and development. These broad programs of research must provide a basis for the expanded national effort that world conditions now require.

Research and development programs undertaken or sponsored by the Federal Government range through the entire spectrum of scien-tific endeavor, with far-reaching effects on the lives of all its citizens. In this huge research effort, the Government scientist plays a key role. The Federal Government not only performs research in its own labora­tories, but also is strongly committed to providing leadership for muca of the research done in university and industrial laboratories. Inevi­tably, Government scientists ar~ responsible for administering Federal funds and supplying guidance for Government-sponsored programs. Hence the research done in Government laboratories, besides providing new knowledge for an advancing technology, must contribute to the technical competence that can provide the leadership for the total Federal research effort.

The Federal Government now {fiscal year 1961) spends about $8.5 billion a year for research and development, not including expen­ditures for plant and facilities. Of this amount about $2 billion is for its own intramural operations. The Federal Government employs approximately 97, 000 or 7o/o of all professional scientists and engineers in the United States. The range and diversity of the needs of the Fed­eral Government for scientific talents and skills far exceed those of any other employer. No complex of industrial or private institutional research activit~es has the broad, national scope nor does it impose the same requirements as the Federal research and development programs.

A major concern now and for the immediate future is to sustain and expand these programs to meet the national and international challenges of the 1960's. Clearly, the men and money entrusted by the Federal Government with accomplishing its scientific programs must be em­ployed effectively if this huge investment is to be productive.

-1-

Libra·

u.s. MOrtt'

One of the primary needs of the Federal Government in achieving this effectiveness is to improve the means for recruiting and retaining scientists of outstanding ability, who are capable of conceiving, initia­ting and carrying out the necessary programs of research and develo.p­ment. The issue is not simply one of obtaining a large number of scientists and engineers. Qualitative considerations are much more important in shaping our scientific and technical efforts; no number of mediocre scientists can replace one creative leader.

During the past five years the employment environment in indus­trial and private institutional research organizations has become increasingly more attractive. This has been due in part to the ability of private enterprise to compensate more adequately their most able people, to bring potential employees to their laboratories for visits and interviews at company expense, to offer higher starting salaries to outstanding candidates, to give transferred employees substantial moving and housing assistance, and in many cases, to match or exceed the Federal Government's fringe benefits including bonus payments and other means of augmenting income. As a result, Federal agencies most concerned with scientific research and development are finding it increasingly difficult to compete in the highly competitive market for the best research personnel. Continuing inability to recruit and retain top scientists in the face of increasing need will seriously jeopardize United States leadership in science and technology.

-2-

GENERAL FACTORS INFLUENCING COMPETITION

FOR QUALITY PERSONNEL

There are many components in the total environment other than financial that make one employer more attractive to a scientist than another. Generally, these include the degree of interest engendered by a particular research program, the prestige of an organization, the integrity and quality of management, the opportunities for self­improvement and growth within an organization, the salary range of positions within an organization, and geographical location. These components, and others, must receive the continuing attention of an employer if he is to be successful in creating an environment that will attract and retain scientific personnel.

Some components of a research scientist's environment within the Federal Government compare quite favorably with those in organi­zations outside the Government. Much has been done through legislation and policy formulation to improve the position of the Federal Govern­ment in competition for the best research personnel, but the factors of environment demand continuing study and improvement to keep abreast of hiring practices and incentives offered the scientist throughout the scientific community.

In its study of the Government's employment of scientists, the Panel has identified a number of areas that demand attention. For instance, Government recruiting efforts could probably be better planned and carried out. Authority to pay travel expenses to bring promising applicants for on-site visits and interviews would 'Qe very helpful in obtaining some of the best qualified people. Increased assis­tance for scientists transferred between laboratories would facilitate geographical mobility and better utilization of Government research personnel.

Scientists are very much concerned with their standing and growth in the community of scientists. They strongly favor positions with organizations which recognize and support their professional develop­ment, their participation in the affairs of professional societies, and their cooperation with scientists in similar fields of work in other locations. A favorable research environment recognizes the impor­tant status of science and scientists within an organization, and

-3-

Libra u.s. 1\{out; includes full opportunity for promotion in straight research positions

as well as in administrative positions.

All of these matters will receive careful study with the object of devising recommendations for improving the total environment of the research scientist and engineer in Federal employment. But in this first report, only one area has been selected for attention because improvements in it are of the most pressing importance. This area is the modernization of the Federal salary structure.

The Committee believes that within this broad area the most vital needs are ( 1) to increase salary rates to appropriate levels, and (2) to provide flexibility in the salary structure primarily as a means of recognizing superior quality. Recommendation,s in this report are restricted to those priority considerations.

-4-

FEDERAL SALARY ADMINISTRATION

General Federal salary levels can be changed only by an act of Congress. During the postwar period, changes have been made at irregular intervals of from one to four years. The changes that were made were usually "hardship" adjustments based on "cost-of-living" and "living wage" concepts. Thus pay increases from 1945 to 1951 were of a regressive nature, providing greater increases for the lower grades because they were hardest hit by the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar. Not until 1955 did nearly all grades receive sub­stantially the same percentage increase, and the 1958 and 1960 increases continued in that pattern. As a consequence, while alert industrial organizations have adjusted their pay scales to changing economic conditions, the Federal salary scale has lagged behind. The resulting compression of top Government salaries in comparison with those for the lower grades is now a well-recognized structural misalignment.

A good salary system, fo.r scientists as well as others, should embody a sound and systematic method for determining and main­taining pay levels that are reasonably comparable to those of com­peting employers.

For the first time adequate salary information of sufficient scope and uniformity is being systematically gathered on a nationwide scale for use in appraising the salaries of Federal civil servants. With its first annual report, "National Survey of Professional, Admin­istrative, Technical and Clerical Pay," released in December 1960, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has begun to publish current salary data representing private enterprise levels in metropolitan United States for occupations which are the same in industry and the Federal Government. These data can now be used to establish competitive levels for Federal salaries.

Salary alone is not the major factor in successful recruitment and retention of scientific personnel when the salaries offered by competing employers are reasonably close. Salary becomes of pri­mary importance, however, when differences between salaries at en­trance levels :f;or weB-qualified personnel are $1, 000 or more per

-5-

Libra '

u.s.' MDrtt' year and when salaries of governmental scientists and engineers at top

levels are less than half those paid for similar positions outside Government.

Table 1, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey, shows the unfavorable position of the Federal Government with regard to competitive salaries.

GS Grade

GS-7

GS-9

GS-11

GS-12

GS-13

TABLE 1

Differences Between Classification Act Salaries and National Average Job Rates for Engineer-Scientist Type Positions

1959-60

Class. Act Equivalent BLS National Average Job Rates Median Rate Chemist ·Engineer Mathematician

$ 5,850 $ 6,447 $ 7,241 $ 6,760

6,930 7,763 8, 411 7,992

8,080 9,496 9,868 9, 115

9, 475 10,993 11, 620 11, 788

11,155 13,696 14,193 14,193

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Actually Table 1 minimizes the differences between Federal and non-Federal salaries. The governmental salaries shown are those in effect after the general increase of July 1960 and average about 7. 5o/o more than the governmental salaries in effect at the time of the survey. Thus the table compares present Government salaries with those paid by industry a year or more earlier. Also, the non-governmental salaries shown in the table do not include the cash bonus payments made by many companies.

Table 1 properly compares national average rates in private industry with Classification Act median rates of the same responsibility.

-6-

The maximum rates provided by private industry greatly exceeded Classification Act maximums for comparable responsibilities.

The 1959-60 BLS salary survey did not include data comparable to Government grades higher than GS-13 for chemists and engineers. For mathematicians data were gathered for. work comparable to grade GS-14. The BLS national job average for such positions was $15,054. This compares to an annual rate of $12,730 for Government mathemati­cians.

At higher levels the wide disparity between salaries paid to Government scientists is illustrated by Table 2. Table 2 contains data from a recent study made by one Federal research activity. Al­though limited in scope, it'is quite typical of the prevailing situation according to the experience of research administrators in other Government agencies.

Additional data from the same Federal research activity respon­sible for the data in Table 2 were gathered on the annual salaries paid to senior staff members at 29 related research and development insti­tutions. The maximum annual salaries paid by these institutions to personnel equivalent to the rank of professor range from $15,000 to $35,000. The average maximum salary is $23,052. This compares with Federal salary maximums of $19,000 for P. L. 313 positions and $18,500 for GS-18.

Inability even to approach the level of compensation offered by private enterprise has tied the hands of Government recruiters and executives who search for highly qualified and highly able people. In­ability to fill these positions has brought about the development of an unusual type of institution--the contract-sponsored, nonprofit, research organization. These contract organizations, operating almost as an integral part of the Government, are free to pay industrial salary rates to attract trained personnel of the quality necessary to carry out the Government's assigned programs. Although such a system has appar­ently solved some problems, it has created others. A primary problem is the direct inequity, recently noted in the press, of the Government scientist or engineer whose pay ceiling is set at $19, 000 and his counter­part who is receiving $40, 000 in a contract program.

To compete for superior research personnel, a maximum Government salary of at least $25, 000 to $30, 000 is necessary at

661525 0 - 62 - 2 -7-

Libra : u.s.,, MQnl'

TABLE 2

Comparison of Present Salary Levels of Scientists at One Federal Research Activity with Offers Received by Those Scientists for

Employment Outside the Government

Source of Data: confidential survey of 61 GS-15 and PL-313 type scientists conducted in November 1960.

6 7 5 6

15 22

Number of scientists who participated in the survey listed opposite their present salary level (nearest thousand)

$50,000 40, 000 35,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20, 000 19, 000 18, 000 17, 000 16,000 15,000 14, 000

Annual Salary*

1

4 8

1 2

16

6 1 2

17 9

12 4 3

15 1

Offers received by same group of scientists from universities, research institutes and industry. The number of offers is listed opposite the salary (nearest thousand) which they were offered.

*Not included in the annual salaries offered is supplemental income in the form of special emoluments, private practice, c9·nsultations and royalties.

-8-

·this time. This conclusion is conservative in that it merely parallels a recommendation made in 1957 by the Committee on Scientists and Engineers for Federal Government Programs, which stated that compe­tition with industry in 1957 required a maximum rate of $25, 000 to $30, 000.

Once a competitive salary structure has been established, it will not automatically remain competitive. New legislation should provide for periodic review and adjustment of the salary structure within recog­nized guidelines laid down by Congress. Such legislation should not require specific Congressional action for every detailed change. The annual BLS survey provides a ready mechanism for accomplishing the necessary adjustment. A central agency such as the Civil Service Commission could be granted authority to adjust the salary structure periodically.

In essence, what is needed to attract men of outstanding scientific ability to Government service is a salary system which is broadly competitive with salary systems in private enterprise at all grade levels and in all categories, and which provides for regular periodic review and adjustment of its rates so that they continue to be competitive.

-9-

,.

Libra : u.s. MOttl

REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNAL FLEXIBILITY

Within the Federal salary structure, present authority in Section 80 3 of the Classification Act of 1949 attempts to provide a means of adjusting to the competition for individual specialities by authorizing the Civil Service Commission to select any within-grade step as the entrance pay level for shortage category occupations. In raising the minimum level for a grade, however, it creates inflexibility by wiping out the intervening pay ranges. This places incumbents of all degrees of capability into a reduced number of pay rates with less incentive for improvement and less prospect of periodic within-grade salary advance­ment. Use of the present authority also does an immediate injustice to all employees already performing in grade who, after receiving within­grade salary increases for a number of years, suddenly see newcomers being paid the same amount with no corresponding increase in their own rate.

Permitting the Civil Service Commission to raise the entire range of salaries in a grade for shortage-category occupations would provide needed internal flexibility in the Federal salary system. When the national average pay rates for particular types of work deviate from the general norm, the Civil Service Commission should have standing authority to adjust those individual rates within guidelines laid down by Congress. This authority is necessary to allow the within-grade increase system to continue·to operate in hard-to-fill positions the same as it does in all others and to permit within-grade merit increases. If authority were provided to the Civil Service Commission to establish a fully competitive salary system, it should be recognized that the salary levels in shortage categories, where competition is critical, would tend to be higher than for corresponding skills in other categories.

-10-

FLEXIBLE ENTRANCE RATES

By law, all new employees in Government for a particular level of position must be hired at a fixed salary, usually the lowest grade step for a particular position. This is true regardless of the applicant's qualifications, provided only that certain minimum requirements are met. The inability to offer more to the occasional outstanding person impedes efforts to recruit the best available talent for the Government, and therefore tends to promote mediocrity.

A tendency toward mediocrity is demonstrated by analysis of the academic standing of June 1958 B.S. graduates with engineering majors who had accepted Federal civilian jobs. Table 3 shows that the Govern­~nt fared poorest in recruiting from the top of the class and that 60% of its recruits came from the 3rd and 4th quartiles.

TABLE 3

College Placement Council Survey Data on June 1958 B.S. Engineering Graduates Accepting Federal Employment

Academic Standing

Top quartile of class Second quartile Third quartile Fourth quartile

Number

133 229 311 235

908

Percent of Total

14.6"/o 25.2% 34.2% 25.9%

99.9%

There are not enough highly qualified engineers and scientists to meet all the country's needs. This fact is evidenced by the many conferences, speeches, and articles dealing with the shortage of quali­fied personnel; the many job offers received by the best of the college graduates; the relative earnings of scientists and engineers compared with other graduates; and the amount of advertising space devoted to technical and scientific personnel.

-11-

Libra u.s. MOtJ.t': In competing for the best qualified employees within this tight

labor market, industry typically uses a flexible system of entrance salary rates. A fixed minimwn is established as the rate to be used in most appointments but the employer is free to offer higher salary induce­ment to the most sought after scientists.

In the BLS 1959-60 salary survey, the allowable spread from lowest to highest monthly entrance salary was obtained for establishments with such policies. Among those employing chemists, mathematicians or engineers, the median establishment spread for these professions between the lowest and the highest entrance salary was between 11 and 12 percent, with the allowable percentage spreads ranging from less than 5 percent to over 25 percent. A relatively large proportion of establishments, in fact, .fixed the maximum range for entrance salaries at either 10 or 11 percent of the minimum.

Inexperienced engineers and chemists were hired under such a policy in 65 percent and 67 percent, respectively, of the establishments with formal entrance salaries. More than 90 percent of the organiza­tions with established entrance salaries for mathematicians permitted a spread in these salaries.

This flexibility in entrance salaries is sorely needed in govern­mental recruitment. Authority to offer salaries above the general hiring level for the grade to exceptionally well qualified individuals would help the Government attract those with outstanding scholastic records, unusually valuable experience or other especially desirable backgrounds. The Civil Service Commission should be authorized to establish a differential above the general entrance salaries which governmental administrators could offer to outstanding candidates. This differential should be reviewed periodically and be reasonably related to industry practice as determined by the annual BLS survey.

In view of the difficulty inherent in establishing criteria for predicting research ability, we do not feel that definite criteria for hiring above the minimum should be established centrally for the Government salary system. The bne thing that scientist-administrators are agreed on is that, although they cannot lay down absolute criteria, they can much more often than not recognize a good man when they find one. In the interest of flexibility and within a philosophy of respon­sible administration, the determination of which candidates should be

-12-

hired above the minimum should be made a matter of administrative judgment within the agencies. An overall control on the practice could be maintained by limiting the number of appointments above minimum salary rates to a fixed percentage of the total number hired.

-13-

Libra:

u.s.'; MOnt'

MERIT SALARY INCREASES

Present statutory provisions in the Classification Act make within-grade pay increases virtually automatic with length of service on a job. It is impossible to grant similar within-grade increases on the basis of demonstrated ability and outstanding performance. Unless another position at a higher grade level is available and the individual is promoted, an outstanding employee is paid the same rate as a mediocre employee at the same grade level.

Formal pay plans of private firms generally emphasize merit as the primary basis for within-grade advancement, sometimes further supplemented with bonuses. Permitting merit step increases in addi­tion to those earned by length of service provides a means for recog­nizing differences in the performance of individuals and a continuing incentive for each employee to perform up to his full capabilities. The 1959-60 BLS compensation survey indicates that periodic merit reviews constitute the prevalent basis for the advancement of salaries under rate range plans.

H the Federal Government is to clearly recognize and reward competence and hence be an attractive service to capable people, it is highly desirable that present salary legislation be modified so that within-grade salary increases can be awarded on the basis of individual merit as well as length of time in grade.

-14-

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology endorse the following recommendations and take whatever action is deemed best to implement them.

1. a. Establish a salary system broadly competitive with salary systems in private enterprise at all grade levels and in all categories.

b. Establish a system for periodic review and adjustment of Federal salaries so that they will continue to be reasonably competitive with salaries in private enter­prise.

2. Authorize the hiring of individuals with exceptional ability or with unique combinations of particularly needed skills at salary rates above the general entrance rate of the grade.

3. Authorize within-grade increases in salary for demon­strated competence and performance, in addition to step increases for length of service.

'881525 0 - 82 - 3 -1.5-

ANNEX

Statistical and Survey Haterial Used

in Heasuring Quality of the Scientific

and Engineering Service of the Federal

Government.

-17-

ANNEX

The major problem confronting administrators of Government scientific and engineering establishments is that of recruiting and retain­ing truly outstanding individuals in order to provide competent leader­ship at all important levels of the Government's technological effort. This is the unanimous conclusion of the scientist-administrators com-

: prising the Standing Committee of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. This problem was continuously brought to the attention of the Standing Committee's Panel on Environment and Incentives for Research in their discussions with administrators of Government scientific laboratories.

This report summarizes the results of an effort to provide mean­ingful quantitative measures for estimating quality. These measures were then applied for analyzing data on losses and acquisition of scientists and engineers in the Federal service.

CONVENTIONAL PERSONNEL DATA

Conventional employment turnover data involving Government scientists and engineers provide no real indication of the problem of recruiting and retaining superior people. The turnover rate for scien­tists and engineers is lower than for Government employees as a whole; in the scientist-engineer group, turnover rates are lowest for the senior grades. Furthermore, the turnover data show no significant trend which supports the unanimous opinion that the problem is critical. For example, the voluntary resignations of engineer13 and physical scientists accounted for 3. 7% of the total in Fiscal Year 1961 and for 4.3o/o in Fiscal Year 1959. For the Federal Service as a whole the corresponding rates were 6. 7% and 8. O%. Resignation rates for senior scientists, including grades GS-12 and above, were 1.9% and 2.0% in Fiscal Year 1961 and Fiscal Year 1959, respectively. It should be noted, however, that actual losses from individual agencies are substantially larger than those indicated by the quit-rate numbers. Retirements, deaths, and transfers to other agencies within Government add significantly to the total turnover and to the replacement problem.

-19 ...

Libra u.s.' Mont

The data from the Civil Service Roster of Scientists and Engineers in Grades 13 and Above are a little more helpful in supporting the con­tention of the Government's scientist-administrators. In addition, these data provide interesting descriptive information on the composition of the senior scientific group in Government. A summary of the study of the data in this roster is given in Appendix A.

The roster listing increased from 20,875 in 1958 to 25,884 in 1960. During the same interval the number of employees classified as scientists and engineers by the Civil Service Commission increased from approximately 102, 000 to 106, 000. Since the total number of scientists and engineers on the Federal rolls is increasing, as is the number in grades 13 and above, the problem confronting the Government's scientist-administrators clearly involves quality rather than quantity.

The net increase of about 5, 000 names on the Grade 13 and Above Roster involved 1, 690 deletions and 6. 672 additions. About one-third of the losses, or 547, were resignations. A detailed examination of the nearly 7, 000 additions identifies only 413 as newly recruited senior scientists. Thus, during a period when the·total scientific and engineer­ing employment of the Federal Government was increasing, the Govern­ment lost about one-fourth more senior scientists to outside competi­tion than were recruited from outside sources. This represents a net competitive drain on the Government's internal competence during a period of expanding activities.

The Loss of Ph. D.'s

Although much of the data show little difference in the quality or experience of the senior scientists lost and gained, this is not true for holders of advanced degrees. Among thoSe resigning from the Govern­ment service between 1958 and 1960, 2lo/o had the Ph.D. and 20% had the Master's degree. At the same time, only 10.5% of the new additions to the Roster had the Ph. D. and 15% the Master's degree. The average percentage of Ph. D.'s on the register decreased from 12.4% to 12. O%. On the basis of this important index of scientific competence, the rela­tive overall quality of the training of personnel on the Grade 13 and Above Roster actually declined between 1958 and 1960.

A specific example of the long-range effect of such erosion can be seen in the case of a major defense laboratory where the number of

-20-

Ph. D.'s decreased from 108 to 69 between May 1951 and May 1961. This is a drop of from 11. 7o/o to 5. 5% of staff members with degrees. During the same period the number of professional staff members with master's degrees decreased from 173 to 161 (from 18. 6% to 12.9% of total professional staff holding degrees.)

-21-

,, '

Librtll ; u.s.:,~

MQ0.111' MEASURES OF QUALITY

In order to substantiate the claim of Government scientist­administrators that the loss of quality in today's strongly competitive market is a critical problem, it is necessary to develop meaningful measures of quality. These measures must then be applied to losses and gains. Two measures have been proposed. One is a subjective measure involving assessment of quality by groups of scientists. The other is non-subjective and was proposed by the Nobel .. laureate physicist, William Shockley.

Quality as Judged by Peers

The most common means of evaluating the quality of scientists and engineers is through the judgment of other scientists. Accordingly, it was decided to conduct surveys among a number of Government scien­tific establishments using this method to evaluate the quality of losses and gains during a specific period of time. Sixteen laboratories were selected and asked to provide collective evaluations of senior scientists and engineers who left the laboratories during Fiscal Year 1961 and of senior individuals acquired during the same period. Each individual lost or hired in grade GS-13 and above was rated in one of the four following quality categories.

Outstanding: Truly exceptional professional stature, national or international reputation in his field, major creative impact.

Excellent: Widely known and respected in his field, considerable creative impact.

Competent: Prof·essionally capable and productive scientist or engineer.

All Others: Anyone not included in the first three categories.

The results of the analysis as it pertains to gains from, and losses to, non-Federal establishments are shown in Table 1. These

-22-

I I

'l'ABLE 1 Losses and Gains of Scientists and Engineers

Grade GS-13 and Above

Between Government and !Jon-Government Establislunents

l'Jine military Seven civilian Combined Quality laboratories* laboratories* laboratories*

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Losses

Outstanding 21 17% 39 32% 60 25%

Excellent 55 45 48 40 103 42

Competent 40 33 29 24 69 29

All Others 6 5 4 4 10 4

TOTAL 122 100'% 120 100% 242 100'%

Gains

Outstanding 7 7% 18 12% 25 10~

Excellent 36 35 65 43 101 40

Competent 59 58 61 40 120 47

All Others -- -- 8 5 8 3

TOTAL 102 lO~b 152 100% 254 100%

Outstanding and Excellent Combined:

Losses 67%

Gains 50%

*The laboratories surveyed are listed in Appendix D.

. 66!525 0 - 62 - 4 -23-

Lib1'1l I

u.s. M.Oill'

Quality

TABLE 2 Losses and Gains of Scientists and Engineers

Grade GS-13 and Above

Bet••een Government Establishments

Nine military Seven civilian laboratories* laboratories*

Combined laboratories*

Number Percent Nunber Percent Number Percent

Losses

Outstanding 13 15~ 8 13%

Excellent 37 43 26 Ll-1

Conpetent 29 34 27 43

All Others 7 8 2 J

TOTAL 86 100','b 63 100;6

Gains

Outstanding 9 91 /'o 4 lJ;b

Excellent 21 20 11 36

Competent 57 55 14 45

All Others 17 16 2 6

TOTAL 104 100% 31 100%

Outstanding and Excellent Combined:

Losses 56~

Gains 3J7b

.•

*The laboratories surveyed are listed in Appendix D. -24-

21 14%

63 42

56 38

9 6

149 1005b

13 9jb

32 24

71 53

19 14

135 100%

data show that 2.5o/o of the losses were in the "Outstanding" category and only IOo/o of the acquisitions were in the same category. In addition, 67o/o of the losses were in the combined categories "Outstanding and Excellent," whereas only 50o/o of the acquisitions were so classified. Although the data in the table are summarized for groups of laboratories~ each individual laboratory showed a net loss of quality during Fiscal Year 1961 on a percentage basis. There were several individual instances, as a result of extensive recruitment for expanding programs 1

where there was a net gain of quality individuals. However, the per­centage of quality acquisitions was always less than the percentage of quality losses. Thus, each of the 16 individual laboratories included in the survey suffered deterioration in the overall quality of its staff. This is a situation which, if allowed to continue very long, will have disastrous effects upon the Government's scientific and technical work. Even though the total numbers of individuals involved may be relatively low, the percentage of exceptional individuals who are leaving and not being replaced is alarmingly high.

Data of the same type were obtained for transfers and gains within Government. These are summarized in Table 2.. The data show that for the 16 laboratories involved in the survey there was a net loss of quality to other Government agencies not included in the survey. The total losses and gains from Tables 1 and 2. were very nearly equal (391 lost, 389 gained); hence they represent, on the average, a non-expanding sample. Presumably the net losses within Government were to agencies undergoing substantial expansion. Some of the laboratories surveyed did state that they experienced significant losses to rapidly expanding NASA laboratories not included in the survey.

A subjective method of assessing quality is vulnerable to the, criti­cism that it might be biased. For example, the individuals providing the assessment might be inclined to evaluate scientists lost more highly than they evaluate acquisitions, even though the new men had been on board 5 to 17 months at the time of the survey. Hence it is important to supplement at least part of the foregoing assessment by a non­subjective assessment if possible.

Shockley Merit Index

Dr. William Shockley's proposal for rating quality involves only

-25-

,. ·'

Libi11 ' u.s. MOU1':

,I

salary and age.* It is based on the assumption that, in any reasonably stable and integrated organization, management will tend to promote the more able individuals more rapidly than the less able. Thus the more able individuals in any specific age group are apt to receive higher salaries than the less able. If individuals are grouped by year of birth, the highest salaried individual in each age group is given a merit index of one, the lowest zero, and the median 0. 5. An entire organization can then be arranged into above median, or below, or into quartiles or deciles. So far only one laboratory, the National Bureau of Standards, has made extensive use of this rating system.

Within the National Bureau of Standards, application of the Shockley merit index to those of its staff members who resigned from the Government service during Fiscal Years 1960 and 1961 showed that 36% of the resignations in the age group 29 to 59, inclusive, were in the top quartile, Sixteen percent were in the top decile. If the organi­zation were static with respect to quality, the losses in these groups should, of course, be 25% and 10%, respectively. If management had the means to improve its quality through encouraging the more able to stay and the less able to leave, then the losses in the top categories should be substantially less than a status quo 25% and 1 O%, respectively. Clearly this is not the case and the organization is losing significantly more of its most able people, judged by this index, than it should. This confirms evaluation of losses in the same organization, with quality judged subjectively by peers.

NBS has found a high degree of correlation between the Shockley merit index and quality as assessed by peers. There are, however, occasional important individual deviations.

One of the theses advanced by Shockley in proposing his merit index is that Government laboratories, because of their poor competi­tive position salary-wise, would probably lose gradually the more able of their younger scientists and thus force the promotion of less abie individuals as they grow older. This thesis would be tested if the merit index histories of individuals in an organization were available. This information is difficult to acquire since the necessary payroll and age data for computation of the index ratings are not readily available.

*The Statistics of Quality Losses in Civil Service Laboratories" by W. Shockley, National Academy of Sciences Report, COM-4-Tl9, October 1957.

~26-

NBS has, however, acquired the data for its professional staff back to 1942.

At NBS there is a strong indication that the merit indices of section chiefs have moved upward as Shockley contends. The present average index of 103 section chiefs is 0. 83. For the 80 of these who were with the organization in 1951, the average index was 0. 73. Forty­three of the present section chiefs were at NBS in 1942 with an average index of 0. 70. Thus the average of this group has moved from the second quartile to the first.

The average Shockley merit indices of the 21 division chiefs have remained consistently high. However, it is probable that part of this maintenance of quality is associated with relatively rapid promotion. The median age of NBS division chiefs over this period changed from 62 in 1942 to 48 in 1951 and to 43 in 1961.

-27-

Lib rill

u.s.' MOD-• \

PAY PRESSURES TO LEAVE THE

GOVERNMENT SERVICE

The recently released 1961 salary survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrated again the substantial differential between Government salaries for scientists and engineers and those paid by private industry. These are shown in Appendix B. An important characteristic of the BLS survey is the increasing extent of the dif­ferential as the equivalent grade level increases. For chemists and engineers a differential of nearly $2, 000 or about 20 percent for GS-12 1s, the level of a new "quality'' Ph.D., grows to about $4,000 or 30 percent at the GS-15 level. The Ci~il Service Commission h,as also recently made available its data on comparable industry salaries for the so-called super grades in Government. These may be summarized as follows:

Federal Government Private Business

GS-16 $15,255 16,29-5 $20, 000 - 30, 000

GS-17 $16,520 - 17,570 $27,500- 37,500

GS-18 $18,500 $32, 500 - 45, 000

In the super grade range the differential grows from nearly double to more than double the Government salary. Perhaps of greatest significance is the extremely small spread in Government salaries at any particular grade level and the large spread in cor­responding industry salaries. Such spreads can be used to recognize quality, with the greatest differential becoming applicable for the most able individuals. Information available in Government labora­tories relative to salaries paid to Government employees recruited by industry or offered to and declined by Government employees support the data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Civil Service Com­mission.

Salaries Paid to Scientists Hired from Government

In the survey of the quality of losses and gains of the 16 Federal establishments covered in Tables 1 and 2, the laboratories were asked

-28-

to provide available data on salaries received by resigned employees. The data provided are very spotty but in full support of the very great salary inducements offered to the Government's most able employees. In most cases, however, the departing individuals do not feel free to disclose salaries being paid them by industrial firms, particularly in the more senior positions. A sampling of the replies includes the following:

From the Naval Research Laboratory--one GS-14 received a $6,000 increase, another $5,000. Two GS-13's received increases of $5, 500 and $5, 000.

From the Naval Ordnance Test Station--one GS-15 who left during 1959 reported a present salary of $25, 000; a second reported his new salary as being in excess of $50, 000.

From the National Bureau of Standards--two GS-14's reported receiving industry salaries of $4, 000 more than their Government salaries.

From a National Aeronautics and Space Administration laboratory--of the two GS-15's reporting, one indicated a salary of $20, 000 plus stock options and the other, a salary "approximately 50% more" than his Government salary.

From a Department of Agriculture laboratory- -two GS-15 scientists left for salary increases of 5 Oo/o.

From the National Institutes of Health--a salary was reported of $35,000 received by a departing Section 208(g) scientist. Another scientist more than doubled his Govern­ment salary by taking a $47, 000 post outside Government.

Supplementing the above examples is information obtained from questionnaires sent to 551 persons who resigned and were taken off the Civil Service Roster of Scientists and Engineers in Grades 13 and Above between 1958 and 1960. Of 191 replies received, 64 respondents indicated that their present position was a more responsible one than their last Federal position, 46 were about the same, and 77 had less responsible positions. (Four gave no indication of relative responsi­bility •) Yet 16 7 respondents indicated that their initial non-Federal

-2S-

Lib raJ

u.s.J,' MOn1lll

salaries were higher than their Federal salaries had been, 5 were receiving comparable salaries, and 10 were receiving less. (Nine provided no salary information.} The median differential was an increase of $2, 000 to $2, 500 over their Federal salaries. Twenty­four respondents indicated increases in excess of $5, 000.

Industry Offers Received and Declined

Information concerning salary offers received and declined by Government employees is likewise spotty, primarily because such information is normally not systematically accumulated and ~iled. There are, however, sufficient data concerning such offers to demon­strate the great disparity between industry and Government salaries. The offers also demonstrate that, by industry standards, there are still many highly capable scientists in the Government laboratories.

NASA reports seven offers ranging from $29, 000 to $48, 000 for three excepted (PL 313-type) employees, numerous offers up to $20, 000 for GS-15's, and one of $20, 000 to a GS-14.

The National Bureau of Standards reports one offer of $50, 000 to a PL 313 employee and'several of about $25,000 to GS-15's.

The Department of Agriculture reports an offer of $30, 000 and two of $20,000 to GS-14's, one of $25,000 to a GS-13, and two of $20, 000 to GS-12's.

According to a recent survey at the National Institutes of Health, their scientific staff members are constantly receiving offers from other employers for significantly higher-paying positions. The,survey indicates that fully 70% of the members of the senior civil service staff have received recent offers for better-paying positions outside the Federal Government. In almost every case, these offers involve superior fringe benefits as well as higher starting salaries. Over 50% of the offers received· by Section 208(g) personnel fell in the $25, 000 or over bracket. One-half of the offers received by GS-15 and Section 208(g) positions combined exceeded the scientists' current salaries by at least $5, 000. Very recently, at least 10 senior staff members were seriously considering tempting offers ranging up to $45, 000. A majority of the research staff could change their employ­ment and materially improve their income merely by announcing their availability. -30-

UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO RECRUIT

QUALITY PERSONNEL

All of the laboratories involved in the survey report extreme . difficulty in obtaining quality individuals for both senior and junior positions. The Naval Ordnance Test Station, for example, reports that the lack of an attractive salary range at upper levels is a major obstacle to effective external recruitment despite intensive advertising,

· recruiting visits, contacts by Test Station scientists personally and : through correspondence.

The National Bureau of Standards reports that it has been unsuc­cessful for a period of more than 10 years in filling vacancies by

· recruitment at the division chief level. Usually such positions are filled by promotion from within, but there are occasional instances where recruitment of external competence would be highly desirable. All cases where external recruitment has been tried have been unsuc­cessful because the individuals solicited for such positions were usually receiving salaries $5, 000 to $10, 000 in excess of wl;lat the NBS could offer and, therefore, felt that they could not afford to work for the Government. In several instances the inability to recruit has made it necessary to hold positions open for extended periods up to two and three years until sufficient competence could be developed within the organization.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently engaged in a nationwide campaign to obtain 2, 000 scientists and engineers. Key NASA officials responsible for the. success of this large-scale and expensive recruitment drive fear that, due to the great discrepancy between the salaries NASA is able to pay and the present salaries of the high-quality personnel NASA is seeking, results will be very limited compared to the promotional and other recruitment costs involved. One of NASA's laboratories reports that, during Fiscal Year 1961, offers were made to 99 recent recipients of degrees from universities. Only 10 of these offers were accepted and these were all below the doctoral level. Although 21 offers were made to recent Ph. D. recipients, none were accepted.

The Department of Agriculture's Northern Utilization Research and Development Laboratory reports on its recruitment efforts at

-3.L-

Librtl

u.s .. ; MOQi, meetings of the American Chemical Society. ·At the September 1960

meeting of the Society, laboratory officials screened 462 applications, intervjewed approximately 45 applicants, and made only one appoint­ment. Again at the ACS meeting in March 1961, 291 applications were screened, 66 applicants interviewed, and one appointment was made at Grade GS-11.

The National Institutes of Health has provided extensive information concerning its recruitment problem, particularly at the senior level. Individuals solicited for positions at $19, 000, the top salary that NIH can pay, are generally receiving salaries in the range of $25, 000 to $50, 000. For one position, discussions with 10 potential candidates indicated that any offer below $25, 000 was unacceptable. Excerpts from NIH's report dealing with this problem are included as Appendix C.

The Quality Problem in College Recruiting

In connection with the work of the Panel, a survey was made of the output to Government of a number of universities and colleges. Informa­tion as to placement of recent graduates was requested from the following institutions:

Group A - California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Duke University, Harvard University, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Illinois, University of California, University of California at Los Angeles, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Group B -North Carolina State University, University of West Virginia, Iowa State University, University of Cincin­nati, Marshall College, Pennsylvania State University, Ohio State University, University of Alabama, Univer­sity of Mississippi, University of South Carolina, and th~ College of the City of New York.

Universities in Group A are those that reported less than 5% of their bachelor of science and engineering graduates accepting Federal employment. The overall average was only slightly more than 2%. The Federal Government was able to employ 5% or more of similar B.S. graduates from the universities in Group B. The overall average from Group B was approximately 15%. An interesting aspect of this grouping

-32-

is that 6 of the 9 schools in Group A are among the top 19 universities generally selected or preferred by male winners of National Merit Scholarships. Only one of the 11 schools in Group B is in the most 11popular 11 19.

Few of the universities in Group A provided information as to the class standing of graduates who accepted Federal employment. How­ever, of 21 per sons so identified, only one ranked in the first quartile. Twelve were in the third quartile. From the second group of universi­ties, information on the class standing of 311 graduates who took Federal positions indicated fairly even distribution among the quartiles.

A Civil Service Commission survey of scientists and engineers with the bachelor's degree hired by Federal.agencies during FY 1961 indicated that approximately one-third were either from the upper quartile of their class or had a "B" average. Judging from the selected university samples and the Civil Service Commission survey, it appears that, while the Federal Government is obtaining a proportionate share of top ranking students on an overal.l basis, very few are from univer­sities represented by Group A. Those graduates from Group A univer­sities that do accept Federal appointment rank lower in their class.

The average salary received by holders of the bachelor's degree from the five institutions that reported salary information was approxi­mately $80 per month in excess of that paid by Government.

-33-

,. Libi'Il'

u.s .. 1 M011l'

SUMMARY

1. Analyses of quality changes in the Government's top scientific staff point to a deterioration rather than a gain.

2. The large differential between salaries paid to Government scientists and industry scientists, particularly at senior levels, is a major factor in the quality deterioration of Government laboratories.

3. The extent of the pressures being applied to the more able Government scientists by potential employers outside of Government make it likely that the more able personnel of Government laboratories will continue to be drained away.

4. Many Government laboratories find it almost impossible to recruit competent individuals for the most senior positions.

5. The Government is securing very few of the better graduates from a number of colleges and universities where the com­petition for quality is strongest. Thus there is inadequate quality input at lower levels to provide for the replace-ment of critical quality losses at the top.

6. With the Government's scientific laboratories steadily being bled of their best talent and the transfusion mechanism sadly deficient, Government science is facing a serious crisis.

_;34-

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF DATA FROM CIVIL SERVICE ROSTER

OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS IN

GRADES GS-13 AND ABOVE

Utilizing information contained in the 1958 and 1960 Rosters of Government Scienfists and Engineers in Grades GS-13 and above maintained by the U. S. Civil Service Connnission, a survey has been made of some major features of the composition of the senior scientific civiL service. As these rosters do not include medical and dental research personnel, they are excluded from this evaluation. The information contained in the roster is the best now available. Several limitations, however, must be recognized such as: (1) due to administrative and mechanical factors, not all scientists qualifying for placement in the roster have been included; (2) in some cases, agencies and departments may not have submitted completed roster questionnaires in sufficient time to be incorporated within the system; (3) possibility exists that some scientific activities may not have forwarded completed questionnaires for their personnel.

Removals from Roster

Cognizant of the shortcomings listed above, a comparison of the registration under the two rosters indicates th~t 1,690 removals were made of persons no longer in Federal service. This data follows:

1. Known or reported resignations

2. All other Deaths Retirements Changes to lower grade (below GS-13) RIF separations ( not reported by

other activities) Changes in job series to non­

scientist and engineer codes Transfers, ("not at this activity",

etc.) (not reported by other activities)

Total -35-

551

147 424 154

49

266

99 -1690

On the basis o~ this sample, it is evident that an approximately equal number o~ vacancies were created by such involuntary causes as deaths and retirements as resulted ~rom voluntary resignations.

Some outstanding quality factors concerning the group of persons who vol~ntarily resigned are:

1. Pro~essional Experience Related to Last Position in Federal Service - 22 (4%) had three years or less, 211 (38%) had 4-10 years, 106 (19%) 11-15 years, 149 (27%) had 16-25 years, and 63 (12fo) had over 25 years. The great majority, therefore, were persons with substantial experience in their last Federal positions.

2. Hembership in Pro~essional and Technical Societies - 415 (75%) are members, associates, or ~ellows in one or more pro~essional or technical societies; 295 (54%)1 in two or more.

3. Recognition in Honorary Lists (American Men o~ Science, l>/ho 's Who in America Who's tvho in Engineering, etc.) - 157 (28%5 knew o~ and acknowledged this recognition in one or more such lists.

4. Major Scienti~ic or Engineering Publications -257 (47%) listed one or more publications.

5. Important Inventions and Patents - 108 (2o%) listed one or more such credits.

Total of Government Scientists and Engineers

A total o~ 1051 761 scientists and engineers are now employed in the Civil Service, approximately 6 percent o~ total Federal employment. Almost one-~ourth o~ this total o~ scientists and engineers are now in GS-13 br higher grades.

Loss of Advanced Degree Holders

On the basis o~ the roster information, proportionately a higher percentage of persons with Ph.D.'s le~t Govern­ment during the 1958-1960 period than ~rom any other degree-holding group at the GS-13 and above levels. Also,

-36-

a higher proportion of the total number of GS-13 1s and above with a master's degree left Government than comparable separations for those with a bachelor's degree. (See Table A-1)

This greater loss of Ph.D.'s compared with other degree holders occurs principally among physicists, chemists, and the life sciences, and least among all types of engineers. During the 1958-1960 period, the ratio of Ph.D. •·s to the total number of scientists and engineers at grade GS-13 and above declined from 12.4 to 12.0 percent.

The number of higher degree holders varies from 13% of the total among engineers to 85% of the total for the life sciences. This reflects the difference in the educational requirements for full acceptance as a professional research investigator among these occupations.

or the selected occupational groups covered in these rosters, the information available indicates that the largest percentage of quits occurred among chemists, physicists, and aeronautical engineers, in that order.

Age Distribution of Voluntary Resignees

The following fi~lres based on the 1960 roster are indicative of recruitment requirements occasioned only by voluntary resignations in the groups of scien­tists who are 50 years of age and over and in those who are under 50:

Total scientists and engineers, No. age 50 No. under % age 50 % under GS-13 and above and over age 50 and above age 50

25,310 9,446 15,864 37.3% 62.7'/o

Voluntarl resignations

535 135 400 25.3% 74.'7%

From these figures, it appears that approximately three-fourths of the voluntary resignations occur among the younger two-thirds of the total group.

-37-

Additions to 1960 Roster

The questionnaires or all persons added to the roster were screened to determine the reason for their being added to the roster. The results of this screening follow:

1. Persons who should have been included in the 1958 roster, but were not re-ported by their agencies. 1743

2. Persons whose occupations were first added to the roster in 1960. 473

3. Persons who were promoted.or reassigned to positions covered by the roster between 1958 and 1960. 3628

4. Persons whose questionnaires indicated they were hired from outside the service between 1958 and 1960. 413

5. Persons whose questionnaires did not include adequate information to base a determination. 415

6. Total. (This total is slightly in excess of that shown on the statistical tables, because it includes 92 persons who filed data and are scientists or engineers, but who are not currently serving in a scientific or engineering position.) 6672

A further screening was made of the 413 persons who were hired from outside the service. Seventy-two or these persons had prior employment in the Federal service, 341 did not. Their employers immediately prior to their to their current employment were as follows:

1. Private industry 246

2. Academic institutions 93

-38-

3. International organizations, foreign governments, or foreign industries 23

4. Armed services 22

5. Self-employment 14

6. State and local governments 10

7. Nonprofit organizations 5

The data on the selected professional characteristics of the persons hired from the outside are as follows:

1. Professional Experience Related to Their Current Federal Employment -- 22 (5.3%) three years or less, 180 (43.6%) had 4 to 10 years, 84 (20.3%) had 11 to 15 years~ 80 (19.4%) had 16 to 25 years,and 47 (11.4%) had over 25 years.

2. Membership - Professional and Technical Societies 354 (83.5%) are members, associates, or fellows in one or more technical societies; 212 (51.3%), in two or more.

3. Recognition in Honorary Lists (American Men of Science, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Engineering1 ~tc.) -- 127 (30.8%) knew of and acknowledged this recognition in one or more such lists.

4. Major Scientific or Engineering Publications 215 (52%) listed one or more publications.

5. Important inventions or patents listed one or more such credits.

-39-

86 (20.8%)

Grade Year GS-

lJ '19.58 1960

esigna ions

14 ;19.58 :1960

Re signa ions

1.5 19.58 1960

esigna ions

16 19.58 :1960

R esignat ions '

17 19.58 1960

R esigna ions

18 19.58 1960

R esigna ions

Above 18 19.58

1960 R esignat ions

TOTAL 19.58 1960

R esignat ions

TABLE A-1

Comparisons· of Educational Level of Persons on Roster of Scientific and Engineering

Personnel in Grades GS-13 and Above 19.58 and 1960

All Professional Engineering and Scientific Occupations

EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Less than !Bachelor's Easter's Doctor's No record bachelor's degree degree de~ree of level

2,022 7,2.51 1,8.58 1,190 277 2,439 8,698 2,144 1,27.5 4.59

38 166 6.5 .50 7

668 3,12) 948 80.5 1)4 860 J,91.5 1,266 989 210 lJ 64 28 J4 2

190 1,114 408 4.50 . 40 267 1,46.5 .5J4 .598 96

3 20 1.5 19 2

12 9.5 J7 62 J 1.5 1.58 60 118 11

- 1 2 8 -J .51 20 .52 -8 9J J.5 7.5 7

- 1 1 J -2 10 2 1.5 2 2 12 2 20 2

- 1 - - -- 14 1 16 -

1 20 4 24 2 - 1 - 3 -

2,897 11,6.58 J,274 2,.590 4.56 J.592 14,J61 4,04.5 3,099 787

54 2.54 111 117 11

*Resignation figures are totals for 19.58 and 1960 rosters. -40-

Total

12,.598 1.5,01.5

326

.5,678 7,240

141

2,202 2,960

.59

209 )62 11

126 218

5

31 38 1

31 .51 4

20,875 2.5,884

547

I

~ I

'

Table A-2 Educational Level of Persons First Included in the Federal Roster of

Scientists and Engineers in 19601/

Percent distribution by level of education I

Occupational groups and series Less than Bachelor's Master's Doctor's No record· All Bachelor's degree degree degree of degree

Levels def!ree

All science and engineering series 100.0 14.4 52.9 15.0 10.5 7.2

Engineering, total 100.0 18.6 60.4 11.1 1.0 8.8 Aeronautical 100.0 6 • .3 59.4 22 • .3 2.0 10.0 Nechanical 100.0 20.5 64.9 6.4 .5 7.7 Electrical and electronic 100.0 21.7 56.6 10 • .3 .8 10.6

Physical and earth sciences 100.0 8.2 .38.2 19.5 28.4 5.7 Chemistry 100.0 o.o 2,3.6 1.3.4 58.8 4.2 Physics 100.0 .3.1 28.7 24.6 .37.1 6.5

Mathematics & statistics 100.0 5.2 41.4 .31. 5 19 • .3 2.6 Mathematics 100.0 4.2 .35.8 .32.6 25 • .3 2.1

I Agricultural sciences 100.0 4.8 51.7 2.3.7 16.8 .3.0

Biological sciences 100.0 1.2 17.1 18 • .3 61.6 1.8

~--- -~~---- ---

1/ Persons grades GS-1.3 and above in selected occupational series included in the Federal Roster of Scientists and Engineers maintained by the Civil Service Commission.

j ! I

i

j

I I I

I I

I i

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF DATA IN BUREAU OF

LABOR STATISTICS 1961 SURVEY

INDUSTRY GOV~RN.HENT National Classification Act Rate Range

OCCUPATION Average Grade :V.d.nimum Maximum Rate

Chief accountants I $9,564 GS-11 $7,560 $8,860 Chief accountants II 11,484 GS-12 8,955 10,255 Chief accountants III 11,928 GS-13 10,635 11,935 Chief accountants IV 15,012 GS-14 12,210 13,510

Attorneys I 6,372 GS- 7 5,355 6,345 Attorneys II 8,136 GS- 9 6,435 7,425 Attorneys III 9,804 GS-11 7,560 8,860 Attorneys IIIA 11,604 GS-12 8,955 10,255 Attorneys IV 14,664 GS-13 10,635 11,935 Attorneys IVA 15,336 GS-14 12,210 13,510 Attorneys V 20,712 GS-15 13,730 15,030

Chemists I 5,772 GS- 5 4,345 5,335 Chemists II 6,684 GS- 7 5,355 6,345 Chemists III 7,716 GS- 9 6,435 7,425 Chemists IV 9,504 GS-11 7,560 8,860 Chemists V 11,424 GS-12 8,955 10,255 Chemists VI 13,356 GS-13 10,635 11,935 Chemists VII 15,456 GS-14 12,210 13,510 Chemists VIII 18,276 GS-15 13,730 15,030

Engineers I 6,576 GS- 5 4,}45 5,335 Engineers II 7,308 GS- 7 5,355 6,345 Engineers III 8,460 GS- 9 6,435 7,425 Engineers IV 9,984 GS-11 7,560 8,860 Engineers V 11,520 GS-12 8,955 10,255 Engineers VI 13,368 GS..,l3 10,635 11,935 Engineers VII 16,476 GS-14 12,210 13,510 Engineers VIII 19,056 GS-15 13,730 15,030

Directors of personnel I 8,676 GS-11 7,560 8,860 Directors of personnel II 9,996 GS-12 8,955 10,255 Directors of personnel III 12,442 GS-13 10,635 11,935 Directors of personnel IV 14,532 GS-14 12,210 13,510

Draftsmen, junior 4,908 GS- 4 4,040 4-,670 Draftsmen, senior 6,382 GS- 6 4,830 5,820 Tracers 3,931 GS- 3 3,760 4,390

-42-

APPENDIX B- (Continued)

Bookkeeping-machine operators I 3,278 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Bookkeeping-machine operators II 4,121 GS- 3 3,760 4,390 Clerks, accounting I 3,829 GS- 3 3,760 4,390 Clerks, accounting II .5,117 GS- 4 4,040 4,670 Clerks, file 1: 3,026 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Clerks, file II 3,871 GS- 3 3,760 4,390 Keypunch operators 3,822 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Office boys and girls 3,119 GS- 1 3,18.5 3,81.5 Stenographers, general 4,102 GS- 3 3,760 4,390 Stenographers, technical 4,.584 GS- 4 4,040 4,6?0 Switchboard operators 3,9.51 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Switchboard operators, special 4,381 GS- 3 3,760 4,390 Tabulating-machine operators I 3,774 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Tabulating-machine operators II 4,.586 GS- ) 3,760 4,390

' Tabulating-machine operators III .5,.500 GS- 4 4,040 4,670 Typists I 3,31.5 GS- 2 3,.500 4,130 Typists II 3,921 GS- 3 3,760 4,390

-4J-

APPENDIX C THE COMPETITION FOR EXCELLENCE AT

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

The research program of the NIH constitutes one of the largest scientific installations in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and is 1 moreover1 the world's largest single research enterprise in the bio­Inedical sciences. As a national and world leader in stimulating interest and participation in biomedical research 1 NIH h'as maintained an outstanding research staff and has been eminently successful in developing1 attracting1 and retaining many world-renowned scien­tists. The stature of the NIH is such that employment within that organization in a professional capacity has been recognized throughout the research world as an indorsement of high professional standards. The level of professional competence is of the very highest 1 comparable in stature to the leading half-dozen academic centers in the United States.

The development of the NIH to its present pre­eminence in biomedical research has hinged on its success in developing or attracting and retaining world-renowned scientists for many key positions. In the past 1 recruit­ment for such positions has not infrequently been restricted to a selection from a dozen or less of the most qualified specialists in the United States. The attractiveness of NIH and the -opportunities available for research there were sufficient to support these high standards of pro­fessional excellence. More recently 1 however 1 the NIH staff at all levels (including Dr. Shannon1 Director of the Institutes1 individual Institute Directors1 Laboratory Chiefs 1 members of the National Advisory Councils 1 and members of Boards of Scientific Council) have been increasingly concerned over the inability of NIH to compete successfully with other research organizations for scientific leaders.

The nature of NIH operations in the direct performance of biomedical research and in the substantial encouragement

* Excerpts from National Institutes of Health Report

-44-

and direction of national research efforts is such that an effective program requires a continuous but limited exchange of personnel with other outstanding research organizations. An effective research organization requires fresh blood in the form of dynamic experienced investi­gators and program leaders 1 particularly at top levels. Until recently this exchange was reciprocal and contributed to the growth and development of the NIH as an alert 1 vigorous 1 expanding organization.

Unfortunately1 NIH no longer had the capacity to maintain this exchange. Losses of key personnel to other employers are both increasing and continuing, but there is a noticeably decreasing ability to replace them with the same quality staff. As a result key positions in direct research and in program direction go unfilled for long periods, preventing program development and at times precipitating program withdrawal or failure. Because this trend must inevitably lead to a decrease in professional excellence, there will be a further reduction in the attractiveness of NIH employment and inevitable descent to program mediocrity. As quality begets quality 1 so mediocrity begets mediocrity. Unless appropriate remedial action can be taken quickly, the future of NIH looks dark indeed.

NIH has experienced a frightening lack of success in attempting to fill many key leadership positions 1 some vacated by departees and others created with new programs. Some dramatic examples of these are:

Two top management positions in the Office of the Director, NIH:

Associate Director for Training

Associate Director for Collaborative Research

Each of the above positions involves responsibility for the development and direction of major. national medical programs. Scientists qualified to perform at this level generally receive salaries of $251 000 to $50 1 000. None have been attracted by our present top salary of $19 1 000.

Deputy Director of the Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center:

For more than a year attempts to fill this senior level scientific administrative position have been unsuccessful. The logical recruitment source for this position are the

-~-

pharmaceutical houses. Discussion with 10 potential candidates indicates that any offer below $25 1 000 is completely unacceptable.

Chief'! Section on Holecular Biophysics, National Institute of Ar hritis ana Hetabolic Diseases: For two years, intens1ve efforts have been made to find a f'ully qualified appointee. Almost all prospects had salaries well above the Section 208(g) maximum. Five thought to be available have been offered the position - each has declined because of inadequate salary. The supply of fully qualified candidates is exhausted. All of these were relatively young men in a rapidly moving new field. Demand is great, salaries high.

Chief, Laboratory of Virolo~ and Rickettsiology, Division of Biologics Standards: Th1s position was under recruit­ment for almost 4 years. During this period, offers were made to 10 qualified scientists. All refused the avail-able salary. The position was finally filled by reassignment of a current Section 208 (g) employee from another position at NIH.

Chief Surgeon, National Cancer Institute: Of eight qualified surgeons a~proached to date, all indicate salaries well above $19 1 000. Two have indicated a willingness to consider this rate even though it may mean an immediate sacrifice of as much as $7,000 per annum.

Chief, Laboratory of Immunology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Active recruitment has been underway for two years. A special recruiting committee has been able to identify only eight immunologists fully qualified for this demanding position. None of these are available even at the highest salary rate currently authorized by Section 208 (g).

Scientific Administrator for Grants and Training: All prospects considered for this position have declined because they are now making more than the present Section 208 (g) maximum of $19,000. One candidate was receiving $8 1 000 per annum in consultancy fees which would be for­feited by accepting NIH employment.

Special Assistant for Industrial Relations: Present occupant of this critical position in Cancer Chemotherapy has indicated his intent to retire from the Government

-46-

service. This person is independently wealthy in his own right and has not been influenced by outside offers for better paying positions. However, all attempts to locate a qualified replacement have failed because of the wide disparity between our $19 1 000 maximum and their present salaries. There is no foreseeable prospect of filling this position at the salaries presently authorized.

The inability of NIH to recruit for its positions of leadership must be repaired. Examination of the NIH salary structure indicates without question that the top salary authorized under current legislation is hopelessly inadequate to attract the caliber of scientists NIH desires and cannot provide an attractive structure for subordinate leadership positions. The current ceiling of $19,000 was established by amendment to the PHS Act in 1956 and_enabled the NIH to offer truly competitive salaries at that time. This salary authority combined with the attractive environment of NIH and the stimulating presence there of outstanding research leaders has enabled NIH to recruit and retain its truly outstanding staff and its many world-renowned program leaders. These successes could not have been possible without the salary rates established under this special authority.

Such a situation no longer obtains. Salaries provided under this section are not now competitive and are, in fact, dramatically less than those provided by other employers in a medical research world. The following examples support this:

NIH participates annually in a salary survey involving a selected group of medical schools and research institutions, comparing maximum salaries of professional type positions. Twenty­two participating organizations from a total of 29 reported salaries in excess of NIH maximum for 1960. These were for professorial positions and did not include positions comparable to the more responsible Section 208 (g) positions at NIH.

The Office of Education in its annual salary survey reflects pertinent salary data from medical schools. In the 1959-60 survey, of the 60 schools reporting salaries paid to deans, 43 paid current maximum salaries higher than the NIH maximum of $19,000. Similarly, of the 59 schools reporting salaries for professors, 40 paid current maximum salaries higher than the NIH maximum of $19 1 000.

APPENDIX D

LIST OF GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES

SUBMITTING QUALITY TURNOVER DATA

FOR TABLES 1 AND 2

Military Laboratories:

Naval Research Lab., Washington, D. C.

Naval Ordnance Test Sta., China Lake, Calirornia

Naval Ordnance Lab., Corona, California

Naval Electronic Lab., San Diego, California

Naval Ordnance Lab. 1 White Oak, Haryland

Army Signal R&D Lab., Fort Nonmouth, New Jersey

Air Force Electronics System Div., Bedford, Hassachusetts

Air Force Aeronautical Systems Div., Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio

Pacific Hissile Range, Pt • .Hugu, Calirornia

Civilian Laboratories:

Department of Agriculture Research Service

Geological Survey 1 lvashington, D. C.

National Bureau of Standards, lvashington, D. c.

Patent Ofrice, Washington, D. c.

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Haryland

NASA (Langley, Lewis, and Ames Labs.)

Atomic Energy Commission

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1962 0 - 661525