employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Kessler Foundation

Is this your company?

Kessler Foundation Reviews

4.1

82% would recommend to a friend

(54 total reviews)

Rodger L. DeRose

85% approve of CEO

63% positive business outlook

Kessler Foundation has an employee rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars, based on 54 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have an excellent working experience there. The Kessler Foundation employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Non-profit and NGO industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

54 reviews
3.0
18 Apr 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

There's a lot to love at Kessler. The organization genuinely cares about its mission to rehabilitate people with disabilities and people neurological illnesses and injuries. Middle management and study coordinators are very competent, reasonable, and caring. The scientists are excellent at getting grants, which is a testament to their competency and helps promote employment for research staff. Managers and coordinators try their best to take into account your workload bandwidth and try to cater to your interests. There is also a tremendous amount of learning involved in this job, and research assistants typically can get a lot of interaction with participants of various populations over the course of their stay here. This job will definitely let you know if you enjoy research and patient/client interaction.

Cons

Unfortunately, there's also a lot to critique about Kessler. As many of the other reviews have mentioned, the pay is subpar. While it's difficult to gauge what is "market-level" pay for such a position, many research assistants have left for higher-paying positions with the same title or job responsibilities at other research institutions, clinics, and hospitals. It's not uncommon for many of the RAs to also have ancillary jobs. One paycheck as a Kessler RA comes shy from covering rent in or around this area. While this issue has been brought up repeatedly to upper management and is the leading reason for turnover in the position, they have failed to do anything about it and instead have tried to do anything but. They have offered promotions with more responsibilities but little increase in compensation, and they have given minor salary adjustments of a few hundred dollars at a time. Management also touts the organization's benefits, but with a reimbursement plan for dental and optical rather than an insurance plan, employees are required to pay upfront for expenses (they don't always have the means to do so), and this does not help if employees have major expenses needed, such as dental surgery. 401k matching is also not impressive, considering it is a percentage of a very-low salary. Additionally, it seems that some folks in upper management have resorted to posting their own positive reviews in response to reviews from RAs on Glassdoor or other sites. Some even occasionally pretend to be RAs in reviews. Seeing this is very disappointing, as it further discredits those who actually work in this position in order to maintain a good public image. The low pay does not prevent stretching out RAs' work duties, however. For the same pay, a single RA can be divided across 4 or 5 research studies, each being charged a fraction of their full time. The percentage an RA is on each grant is typically independent of how much work is required for that respective grant, allowing for work to be piled onto employees without any marginal reward or recognition. This is never done deliberately or without appreciation from management staff, but it still highlights a lacking incentive structure that makes no distinction between effort and performance amongst employees and inevitably results in lowered morale. Finally, giving sole responsibility to some RAs over data management for a study has often resulted in devastating results. Without a checks-and-balances system, it's become common during an audit for RAs to unearth a mountain of mistakes from previous RAs on the study.

3.0
27 Sept 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Potential for strong work flexibility, depending on scientist & workload assigned Supportive and friendly work environment Good experience in recruitment, research execution , MRI technology, and cognition

Cons

NO upward mobility Insufficient compensation for research assistance- Salaries are not competitive or reflective of work quality

3.0
16 Sept 2021
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

-Flexibility with work schedule -Research experience/ opportunities for publications -Dental/vision reimbursement system over traditional insurance in these areas -Work-life balance isn't bad. Easy to mentally clock out at the end up the day (assuming your PI is normal and understands you're not meant to be on call 24/7)

Cons

-Pay is bad. Even for a non-profit the pay is pathetically low for the area. A lot of people can't even afford to live outside of their parents houses. No difference between having an MA or a BA/S either so the extra debt for the higher degree doesn't even pay off. Raises are set, plus caps and not even based on performance (see below). They try and get around this by framing this as a springboard for grad school. That's true, but that doesn't meant there's no rent in the meantime. Higher ups are just so out of touch and think having an iPhone means you can get paid like dirt. Also a bad look when we get told how easy it is to directly donate back to the Foundation via our paychecks (yes, that is said). -Hire quality is going down. This job is uncompetitive (mostly due to pay) and management know it. The only people who they can really get are people A) fresh out of school or B) desperate. You can find some real gems of coworkers, but so many new hires are just bad and coax and end up making things harder for everyone else. It's also hard for bad hires to get fired since the labs are consistently understaffed and some directors/heads don't pay attention. Usually when someone gets let go it's after months, if not more, of screwing up and then the studies are a mess and need to be fixed by someone else. -Hard work isn't rewarded. If you're good at what you do, you don't get any more benefits (extra PTO, bonuses, higher raises, etc.). All you get is more work and then if you start to slip it's YOUR fault and reflects badly on you. There's absolutely no incentive to go above and beyond unless you're banking on a reference letter. -Because most of the new/ cycling hires are kids coming fresh from undergrad, the higher ups treat things like wearing jeans on Fridays and having the day after Thanksgiving off as some big favor. Standards taken for granted in similar professional settings are treated as luxuries. -Absolutely zero room for growth. Once you're 9 months-1 year in you've learned essentially learned everything the job offers. -Upper management doesn't seem inclined to do major changing since turn over is so high. People come in and out but typically every 2-4 years there's a mass leaving/hiring so it's like the problems never existed (until everyone else realizes again that they do). -Lack of cohesion between locations and even in offices. The West Orange location just don't operate like they're supposed to, especially regarding PHI and internal policies about discussing participants. Even amongst offices, despite trying to move toward a unifying system, PIs can have completely different systems which makes things harder for RAs and makes the data crappier. -Some people higher up are flat out unethical. They know, but don't care because they bring money in.

avatar
Kessler Foundation Response
4y
Kessler Foundation is interested in feedback from employees in any forum, and takes such feedback extremely seriously. With that in mind, we wish to respond to this post. We are troubled by the type of working experience described by this individual, given that it contrasts greatly with the positive culture we strive to maintain. As a nonprofit organization, particularly one in a high-cost geographic area, we acknowledge that pay levels are not as high as one would find in a pharmaceutical company or other for-profit entity. Similarly, we are attuned to the fact that entry-level employees, typically in research assistant (RA) positions, are often understandably focused on that issue. As a result, we took several steps in recent years to address their concerns, including (1) salary adjustments above the annual merit increases, (2) the implementation of a benefit in which our organization makes monthly payments on employees’ student loans, (3) the introduction of a Senior RA title to recognize accomplishments, and (4) the promotion in the last 18 months of five individuals to Research Coordinator positions, an advancement opportunity made increasingly possible by our organization’s growth and success in obtaining new research grants. Additionally, other means of financial recognition – such as spot bonuses and gift cards – have been available for many years to enable managers/supervisors to further reward employees. It should be noted that the research field is one in which advanced degrees are required for senior-level positions, and most individuals wishing to pursue a career in research will move on after a few years to attend a full-time master’s or doctoral program. The experience that they gain during their time with us, along with the relationships they build, can serve to assist them in their future endeavors (both academic and professional), as well as to help them determine what they want their future focus to be, whether in research, medicine, or perhaps an entirely different field. The majority of RAs indicate to us that they leave their positions in order to continue their education. The turnover to which the commenter referred occurs almost exclusively for this reason, rather than as a result of dissatisfaction with any aspect(s) of their experience working here, as he/she suggests in the post. The commenter is correct that many of the RAs join us right out of college. That is intentional and it is indeed an entry-level position. He/she is incorrect, however, in disparaging their abilities by stating that they are “desperate”; on the contrary, they typically join us with impressive research experience from school and/or internships, and in some cases they choose our organization among multiple job offers. Most RAs are eager to learn and get involved, and are very highly regarded by their supervisors. They also enjoy the camaraderie of working with a cohort of fellow recent grads. While the person who posted these comments speaks for him/herself, and we believe that everyone’s opinions are valid, we want to point to a broader perspective. We have approximately 50 RAs at any given time. About 14-17 leave each year, and the overall experience for almost all of them has met or exceeded their expectations, according to their direct feedback. In fact, several have left and later returned. Like all public charities, our organization employs a wide variety of fundraising approaches. For any of our employees who wish to do so, donations can be made via payroll deduction. This information was brought to employees’ attention at a meeting several years ago. It is not something that has been mentioned again, and there is no pressure for any employee to make a donation, ever. We also take issue with the statement that jeans, pizza lunches, and similar aspects of our work culture are looked upon as “some big favor.” We simply try to provide as many such amenities as possible, and our employees seem to enjoy them. By no means are they “treated like luxuries” or spoken about in such a manner. We are disappointed to hear about a disconnect between our two locations. Without further specifics from this individual, we are unable to determine what the actual issue may be. With regard to different systems (our assumption is that the reference is to research participant data), it is our expectation that a recent implementation of REDCap software will resolve remaining worries, if any, among current employees. At Kessler Foundation, we take great pride in our mission and in our core values. Integrity is key. When conducting research involving human subjects in particular, ethical conduct is absolutely paramount. An allegation that anyone in our organization acted unethically is of tremendous concern to us. Any employee (current or former) who has reason to believe that unethical behavior is occurring needs to bring it directly to the attention of our CEO, our Senior Vice President of Research, or another member of management, if applicable, so that it can be properly investigated. Without specific information, it is not possible to ascertain whether or not there is truth to such a claim. Kessler Foundation is committed to ensuring that our employees have a positive working experience in a professional, friendly, collegial environment. While it is our firm belief that the views expressed by this individual are not representative of the overall culture/climate of our workplace, we are taking these comments to heart, to seek avenues for further improvement.
Viewing 1 - 3 of 54 Reviews

Glassdoor has 58 Kessler Foundation reviews submitted anonymously by Kessler Foundation employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Kessler Foundation is right for you.