Compensation
Limits: For anything over $600, the subject must submit FW9 form to accounts payable. In fact, anything around $500, accounts payable is interested in.
There are cases where subjects (this is particularly true of students) participate in more than one study a year and cumulative compensation may approach that $600 mark, or be over it. Thus, this question should be added to any screening/consent form where compensation is being added: “Have you participated in another LBNL study within the last calendar year? [yes/no] If so, how much was your compensation? _____________”
Note to researchers: If the total compensation for the year exceeds $600 you must report the name and contact information of the subject to the accounts payable office ( Aphelp@lbl.gov .) so that the subject can be sent an FW9 form for IRS purposes. This can be awkward because of course it blows away any idea of anonymity and makes protection of privacy that much harder. Researchers should think long and hard if that want to exceed, or even approach, that $600 mark.
Allowability: In some cases those in authority such as DOE program managers, will question the use of federal money to compensate subjects. This is allowed, or at least not unallowed. Here are some notes from the Financial Office on the allowability of compensation to subjects:
- Far Part 31.2 doesn't exclude them
-
As long as the incentive cost follows the rules for allowability it is acceptable:
- Reasonableness,
- Allocability
- Applicable Cost Accounting Standards (CAS); otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and practices appropriate to the circumstances.
- The terms and conditions of Contract 31.
- Any rules or limitations described in FAR subpart 31.201-2 as supplemented by DEAR subpart 970.31 and/or specific clauses in Contract 31.
- Paying research subjects in exchange for their participation is a common and, in general, acceptable practice per the FDA. Health and Human Services Dept. says that the IRB (the LBNL Human Subjects Committee) should review both the amount of payment and the proposed method and timing of disbursement to assure that neither are coercive or present undue influence. Although LBNL is not under either agency, it can be assumed that these costs are not explicitly unallowable as there is substantial information about the existence of such payments and the concerns around undue influence and coercion.
Needless to say, the Human Subjects Committee takes our duties seriously in terms of possibly coercive payments and compensation mechanisms.
Can I offer a cash or prize incentive to research participants who are employees of Berkeley Lab? The Human Subjects Committee would have no objection and in fact encourage offering Lab employees the same incentive as any other participant for participation that occurs outside of normal working hours. However, other offices at Berkeley Lab have prohibited payments to Lab employees. Please contact your divisional Financial Officer for clarification.
Can I use a lottery to incentivize research participation? Maybe, but researchers must be aware of California state law in this area. The following was excerpted from the U. C. San Diego Recruitment and Advertising Guidelines for human subjects research:
According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs, “California law prohibits lotteries. A lottery is any scheme for the disposition of property by chance among persons who have paid or promised to pay any value for the chance of obtaining the property, with the understanding that it will be disposed of by chance.” There are three exemptions to this prohibition including the California State Lottery, bingo for charitable purposes and a raffle conducted by a non-profit, tax-exempt organization for charitable purposes.
“Courts have used certain rules to decide whether a scheme includes consideration because it is not always clear. If a person is eligible to win a prize without purchase, there is no consideration and the contest is legal. In such a case, if some people may pay money - for example, an admission charge or a product - there is not necessarily consideration if other people may enter without such a purchase (emphasis added). If eligibility to win a prize is limited to those who have paid money, however, there is consideration. Alternatively, if some persons must pay in order to have a chance at a prize while others do not, there is consideration.” Being required to complete the research participation in order to 'earn' a lottery chance is a form of consideration. In addition, there is concern that most people overvalue their likelihood of winning, and therefore, offering a valuable prize may serve to undermine the process of informed consent. In light of this information, the Human Subjects Committee will decide on a case-by-case basis if lotteries, raffles, and/or drawings may be used to recruit or retain participants.
In order to ensure informed consent and avoid violating California state law, researchers should include all the following elements in the lottery-like research compensation plan and associated consent forms:
a) A procedure to ensure that any individual who is asked to participate in the research study but declines, who consents/assents to enroll in the study, or who fails to complete the study, will be given equal compensation by having an equal chance of winning. In other words, if an individual is eligible to participate in the study, and therefore the lottery, raffle and/or drawing, they do not have to participate in the study to be eligible to participate in the lottery, raffle, and/or drawing;
b) A procedure for inclusion of an individual who is not asked to participate in the study but wishes to be included in the lottery, raffle, and/or drawing;
c) A fair method of choosing the winner and an explanation of how the winner will be notified; and
d) A disclosure of the approximate chance of winning (e.g., “No less than 1 in 1000”).
