Analytics SubcommitteeCDR Pascale Lecuire

LCDR Aaron Grober

LCDR Roberto Garza, Chair

LCDR Alex Freiman, Co-Chair

Agenda

• HS Category Promotion Trends Analysis, 2010-2019

• 2019 HS Category Career Progression Profile Report

• Conclusion, Questions and Wrap-up

2

HS Category Promotion Trends Analysis

PY 2010-2019

CDR Pascale Lecuire

HSPAC Analytics Subcommittee

Overview

• Purpose:

• To conduct an analysis of temporary promotion statistics in order to identify and characterize current promotion trends among Health Services Officers

Methods

• Data obtained for each rank:• Highest and lowest score above cutoff (2019)

• Total # of eligible officers

• Total # of promoted officers

• Duty Station (agency and geographic location) for promoted officers

• Data analysis included:• Calculating promotion rates for each rank for each year

• Plotting promotion rates for each rank by year

• Comparing promotion rates to the total number of eligible officers

• Reviewing results to discern any trends in the data

Temporary Promotion Rates

Officers Eligible for Temporary Promotion

Officers Promoted and Not Promoted to O-4

Officers Promoted and Not Promoted to O-5

Officers Promoted and Not Promoted to O-6

Percentage of Promoted HSO Officers by Location

Officers Promoted by Rank and Location

Promotions by Agency Across all Ranks

Promotion Scores by Rank 2019

Grade High ScoreCutoff

Score

Total

Eligible

Total

Promoted

TO-4 80.63 73.81 44 24

TO-5 85.31 78.25 224 47

TO-6 82.63 77.5 205 29

HSO Category Promotion Rates, 2010 - 2019

HSO Category Overall

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Promoted 174 187 169 159 141 155 179 125 88 100

Not Promoted

130 144 162 217 264 300 332 332 344 373

Total Category Eligible

304 331 331 376 405 455 495 457 432 473

Promotion Rate

48% 56% 51% 42% 34% 34% 36% 27% 20% 21%

Basic Readiness

Grade

Not Basic Ready –

Total Number of Officers

Removed

Number of Successful Officers

Removed due to failed

readiness

TO-4 11 3

TO-5 43 3

TO-6 28 1

Summary

• Temporary promotion continues to be increasingly competitive for HS officers.

• The promotion rates in 2019 decreased for O-4 temporary promotions and were marginally improved from 2018 for O-5 and O-6 temporary promotions.

• 473 HS Officers were eligible for promotion in 2019, of which 100 were promoted, resulting in an overall 21% promotion rate for the HS category, a marginal increase from 2018.

• Basic Readiness: 82 officers were removed due to failed readiness.

Promotion Trends Report online

https://dcp.psc.gov/OSG/hso/sub-analytics-reports.aspx

HS Category Career Progression Profile Report

PY 2019

LCDR Aaron Grober

HSPAC Analytics Subcommittee

Agenda

• Introduction and Survey Specifics

• Survey Data

• Survey Limitations

• Survey Results

• How HS Officers can use this information

• Conclusions

Introduction and Survey Specifics

•Survey Intent•Guide development of a “Promoted Officer Profile”

to assist officers with career and promotion planning

•Survey Recipients•All HS Officers selected for promotion

• Only Temporary for PY 19

•Survey Delivery•All promoted officers were e-mailed a link to the

survey directly by HSPAC Chair

•Survey delivered via “Survey Monkey” website

Promotion Score Weighting

Promotion Precepts Weight Assigned

Performance 40%

Education, Training, and Professional Development 20%

Career Progression and Potential 25%

Characteristics of Career Officer and Service to Corps 15%

Response Readiness 0%* (admin check)

Survey Data

• Promotion Cycle

• Current Billet Grade

• Number of Promotion Attempts

• Current Temp and Perm Grade

• # Years in Commissioned Corps

• Professional Discipline Practiced

• Overall COER Score

• Highest Individual USPHS Award Earned

• # Individual USPHS Honor Awards

• # Unit USPHS Honor Awards

• Total # USPHS Service Awards

• # of Deployments

• Prevalence of HS Officers who are Supervisors

• Commissioning Degree

• Additional Degree(s)

• Required Continuing Education Compliance

• Additional Public Health Training or Certification(s)

• # Billet Transfers

• Involvement as Agency-level Committee Leader

• Participation in HS Category Mentoring Process

• Awareness of Survey/Report

Survey Limitations

• Self-reported data

• Multiple e-mail addresses could mean multiple survey completions for one officer

• Outdated e-mail addressed may mean some officers did not receive the survey

• Information only collected from promoted officers

Survey Response Rates

# Responded # Eligible % Completed

2013/2014 315 366 86.1

2015 117 155 75.5

2016 152 179 84.9

2017 91 125 72.8

2018 71 88 80.7

2019 73 100 73.0

Years in Corps

• Average number of years in the Corps increased with rank

3.9

9.0

12.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

O-4 O-5 O-6

Year

s

Promoted Rank

Figure A. Average Number of Years in USPHS Commissioned Corps by Rank, PY 2018

Number of Attempts For Promotion

• Multiple promotion attempts more common for officers promoting to O-5

COER Scores

• Reported overall COER scores were high across all ranks

Awards

• Individual award distributions consistent with HS Category Promotion Benchmarks

Commissioning Degree/Continued Education

• Majority of HS Officers commissioned with Masters degree

• Just over 90 and 36 percent of officers promoted to O-4 and O-5 respectively

reported not obtaining an additional degree.

Commissioning Degree Additional Degree

Current Billet Level

Current Billet Grade

Pro

mo

ted

Ran

k

Deployments

• Deployments increase as rank increases

0.6

3.4

4.7

0

1

2

3

4

5

O-4 O-5 O-6

Nu

mb

er

Promoted Rank

Figure J. Average Number of Officer Deployments by Promoted Rank, PY 2018

How to Use This Information

• Follow category benchmarks and look for additional leadership roles at duty station and with organizations (HSPAC, HSPAG, COA, et al)

• Recognize report’s limitations

• Promotion precepts are weighted (40%) to recognize those with strong ROS write-ups

• Consider strength of write ups, not necessarily COER scores

• “The primary focus in reviewing the COER should be on the accompanying narrative rather than on the indicated value.”

Concluding Thoughts

Questions?

LCDR Roberto Garza

Roberto.Garza@hhs.gov

LCDR Alex Freiman

Alex.Freiman@acf.hhs.gov