hso promoted officer profile and promotion trends analysis ......awards • # unit usphs ... • in...

Health Services Category: Strength Through Diversity

HSO Promoted Officer Profile and Promotion Trends Analysis (PY 2010 – 2015)

CDR Kelly BrownLCDR David Hunter

LCDR Joel Richardson

HS PAC Career Development Subcommittee


• Introduction: CDR Brown• Promotable Officer Profile: LCDR Richardson• Analysis of Promotion Trends: LCDR Hunter• Conclusion, Questions and Wrap-up: CDR Brown

Agenda

1


Analysis of HSO Promotable Officer Survey Results,

PY 2013/2014, & 2015

LCDR Joel RichardsonTeam Lead,

Assessment & Analytics TeamHS PAC Career Development Subcommittee


• Introduction and Survey Specifics• Data points collected• Limitations of survey• Results• How HSOs can use this information• Conclusions

Agenda

3


• Intent of survey─ At request of HSO leadership, HS PAC tasked with

compiling a “Promotable Officer Profile” to assist HSOs in career and promotion planning

• Who received survey─ All HSOs selected for promotion (Temp and/or Perm) in

PY13/PY14 and PY15• How received

─ All promotees received initial and follow-up e-mail correspondence from HS PAC Chair

• How survey completed─ Commercial “Survey Monkey” website

Introduction and Survey Specifics

4


Data Points Collected

• Promotion cycle• Current billet grade• Current Temp and Perm

grade• # Years in USPHS CC• Overall COER score• Highest Indiv USPHS

award received• # Indiv USPHS honor

awards• # Unit USPHS honor

awards• Total # USPHS service

awards

• # Deployments• # Billet Transfers• Prevalence of officers who

are Supervisors• Commissioning Degree• Add’l Degree(s)• Compliance w/ Cont.

Education req’ment• Add’l Public Health training or

certification(s)• Involvement as Agency-level

Committee leader• Participation in HSO

Mentoring Process• Awareness of Survey/Report

5


• Self-reported data has inherent limitations• Multiple e-mail addresses for HSOs could mean multiple

survey completions for one officer• Lack of inclusion of non-selects for PY13/PY14 and PY15

─ No correlational analytics possible without this subset of overall population

Survey Limitations

6


• In the initial 2013/2014 survey 315 of 366 officers completed survey (both Temporary and Permanent for an 86.06% completion rate

• In 2015, 117 of 155 officers completed the survey for a 75.48% completion rate.─ Data grouped by Promotion Type (Permanent or

Temporary), not by Promotion Year• No significant differences found from PY13/PY14 to PY15

that could not be explained by different dataset sizes

General Survey Results

7


• Majority of HSOs commissioned with Masters degree• Majority of HSOs indicate they meet Continuing Ed. req’s, as

well as add’l Public Health training/certifications• Supervisor opportunities increase for HSOs as rank

increases• Billet transfers, Deployments and Deployment Roles appear

to increase in step-wise fashion as an HSO’s career progresses

• Committee participation increases as career progresses, but less so than other data points (Billets and Deployments)

• Bottom Line: all of above appear consistent with HSO Benchmarks

General Results, cont’d

8


• Expected results─ 94% of Temp O-4 had PHS CM or lower as highest Indiv

award; only 25% had a PHS CM as highest─ 80% of Temp O-5 had PHS CM or lower as highest award;

39% of Temp O-5 had PHS CM as highest Indiv award─ 95% of Temp O-6 reported they had a PHS CM or higher

• Unexpected results─ 43% of Temp O-6 reported PHS CM or lower as highest

Indiv award; 76% had either PHS CM or OSM as highest─ Some officers were selected for Temp O-5 and Perm O-5

with no Indiv awards• Bottom Line: overall Indiv award distributions appear to be

consistent with HSO Benchmark guidance

Individual Awards: PY 2015

9


• Recognize limitations of the study• Data suggests that those HSOs selected for promotion in

PY13 though PY15 had promotion packages that were congruous to HSO Benchmarks

• Promotion Precepts are weighted (40%) to recognize those with strong ROS writeups, not necessarily COER scores, so writeups matter, too! ─ “The primary focus in reviewing the COER should be on the

accompanying narrative rather than on the indicated value.”• Bottom line: HSOs should continue to follow HSO

Benchmarks and look for additional leadership roles at duty station and with organizations (HS PAC, PAG, et al)

How to Use This Information

10


Analysis of Temporary and Permanent Promotion Trends for Health Services

Officers, 2010-2015

LCDR David HunterProject Lead,

Assessment & Analytics TeamHS PAC/Career Development Subcommittee


Overview

• Purpose:─ To conduct an analysis of temporary and permanent

promotion statistics in order to identify and characterize current promotion trends among Health Services Officers


Methods• Collected data from CCMIS promotion info webpage, which includes

the following for each rank:─ High, low, average, and cutoff promotion scores─ Total # of eligible officers─ Total # of promoted officers─ Average precept scores of successful promotions

• Data were collected for:─ Temporary promotions to O-4, O-5, and O-6 ranks from 2010-2015 ─ Permanent promotions to O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5, and O-6 from 2010-2015

• Data analysis included:─ Calculating promotion rates for each rank for each year─ Plotting promotion rates for each rank by year─ Promotion rates were compared to the total number of eligible officers─ Reviewing results to discern any trends in the data


Temporary Promotion Results


91% 90% 90% 90% 90%

72%

43% 43% 43%

26% 23%30%

29% 29% 29%21% 20% 19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

O-4O-5O-6

Temporary Promotion Rates by Rank, 2010-2015


110 118 81 102

7782

126 137

168190

226 237

68 76 82 84

102136

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

O-4O-5O-6

Officers Eligible for Temporary Promotion by Rank, 2010-2015


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015O-4 Promoted O-4 Not Promoted

Officers Promoted and Not Promoted to O-4 by Year, 2010-2015


0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015O-5-Promoted O-5-Not Promoted



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015O-6- Promoted O-6- Not Promoted



Precept Change Trends, 2012-15*

*Precept data were not available prior to 2012

0102030405060708090

100

2012 2013 2014 2015

Change in Average Successful

Performance Score by Rank and Year

O-4O-5O-6

0102030405060708090

100

2012 2013 2014 2015


Professional Development Score by Rank and Year

O-4O-5O-6


Precept Change Trends, 2012-15*, cont.

*Precept data were not available prior to 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2013 2014 2015


Officership Score by Rank and Year

O-4O-5O-6

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2013 2014 2015

Change in Average Successful Career

Progression Score by Rank and Year

O-4O-5O-6


Average Weighted Precept Scores,2012-15*

Performance (40%)Professional Development (20%)

Career Progression (25%)Officership (15%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2013 2014 2015

Average Successful Precept Scores for

O-4, 2012-2015

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2013 2014 2015


O-5, 2012-2015

0

20

40

60

80

100

2012 2013 2014 2015


O-6, 2012-2015


Permanent Promotion Results


27% 27% 20%

65%

84% 84%79%

81%

33% 40%

56.45%

69%

44% 43%

14%

28%

37.50%

28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

O-2O-3O-4O-5O-6

Average Permanent Promotion Rates, 2010-2015


Conclusions

• The previously stable O-4 promotion rate changed in 2015, indicating increased competition among O-3s

• Promotion to O-5 is competitive, but not quite as much in previous years, indicating a possible slow in the trajectory of numbers of eligible officers

• Average precept scores for successful promotion have decreased across the board, particularly in Professional Development precept

• The drop in precept scores for O-4 is puzzling in combination with a reduced rate of successful promotion

• There are no discernable trends for the fluctuation in Permanent promotion rates


Mentoring Connections to Career Progression and Advancement

LCDR David HunterEvaluationTeam

HS PAC Mentoring Subcommittee


Mentoring and Promotion

27


• Calculating the effect of mentoring on promotion is difficult• Career advancement is an important topic between

mentors and mentees

Mentoring and Promotion

28


Participants by the numbers:

Snapshot of Mentoring Program Participants (2015)

29

MenteesUnique matches 819Mentee and mentor 77Current, active matches 671Matched with more than 1 mentor 8Matched with multiple mentors 108

MentorsCurrent mentors 368Matched with more than 1 mentee 190Average mentees per mentor 1.8


Distribution of Mentors by Rank

30

O-4, 18%

O-5, 56%

O-6, 25%

O-7, 1% O-8, 0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8


Snapshot of Mentoring Program Participants, cont.

31

Proportion of Mentor Matches by Agency

Proportion of Mentee Matches by Agency


Mentee-match by State

32


Mentor-match by State

33


Nonparticipating Officers and Career Progression and Promotion

34


Analysis of Nonparticipant Survey Data

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

NoYes

Participation in the HSO

Mentoring Program (n=238) Yes

66%

No34%

Are you Familiar with the Mentoring Program? (n=106)

Yes62%

No38%

Proportion who Informally Mentor an Officer (n=106)

Proportion who have an Informal Mentor (n=106)

Yes52%

No48%


Preferred Discussion Topics between Informal Mentors and Mentees (n=95)*

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Uniform wear or policyOPF or Direct Access

Commissioned Corps policiesReadiness/deployments

TrainingCOER

Career mobilityOfficership and collaterial duties

Billets or assignmentsAwards

PromotionCareer development

Number of respondents

75%

70%


Participation in Other Mentoring Initiatives* (n=106)

37

No participation65%Agency program

12%

CAD Transition Mentoring Initiative

3%

Other Commissioned Corps program

10%

Other 10%


Reasons for Not Joining the HSO Mentoring Program*

38

• Poor match• Won’t help me• Never contacted by mentor or mentee• Not assigned a mentor or mentee• Lack of communication between

mentor and mentee• Scheduling challenges

Have an informal mentor/ mentee, 43.9%

Other, 40.9%



39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

In a different discipline or assignment

In a different agency

Other (please specify)

In the same time zone

Geographic proximity

In the same agency

Similar discipline or assignment

Number of responses

Preferred Elements for Mentorship Matching (n=103)*


Likelihood of Future Participation in the Mentoring Program (n=104)

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Very unlikely Somewhatunlikely

Unsure Somewhatlikely

Very likely

50%


Observations and recommendations• Most promoted officers participate in mentoring• Officers find value in mentoring, whether formal or

informal• Officer seek mentoring in order to help advance their

careers• Participants provided feedback that the Mentoring

Program can address to increase participating and enhance the benefit of the Mentoring Program


41


Concluding Thoughts andQuestions

42

hso promoted officer profile and promotion trends analysis ......awards • # unit usphs ... • in...

Documents