1. LCDR Alfredo R Sancho SciPAC Mentoring Subcommittee USPHS Scientific and Training Symposium 21 June 2012

2. Agenda  SciPAC Mentoring Program  SciPAC Mentoring Program Survey Results  Recommendations  Questions 2

3. Evaluation of PHS-wide Mentoring  Program Evaluation began in July 2010  Goals: Improve communication and knowledge sharing Identify best practices Identify opportunities for improvement CY2011 operational plans for each of the PHS category mentoring programs Develop a white paper for review by the CPO PAC that both informs and recommends a strategic plan. 3

4. Feedback from the Expert Panel for PHS-wide effort  Expand goals to include all-around development  Formalize training  Recognize mentoring program participants  Conduct annual recruitment  Be more pro-active in reaching out to new CAD’s  Utilize senior O4’s to mentor O3’s  Formalize a periodic program evaluation process 4

5. SciPAC Mentoring Program Goals Facilitate relationship building between a volunteer mentoring officer and a mentee. 1.Recruit mentors (CAPT’s and CDR’s) 2.Successful advancement of the junior officer’s career 3.Simultaneously meeting the needs of the Commissioned Corps to best fulfill its Global Health mission 5

6. Scientists distribution by Rank Category Total as of 1 Nov 2010 = 304 6

7. Distribution by Years of Scientists with USPHS Category Total as of 1 Nov 2010 = 304 7

8. Survey respondents (n=116) 8

9. Participation in Mentoring Program 9

10. Survey key findings  Mentees fail to reach out to mentors and take advantage of the Mentoring Program  Mentors want written guidance, lessons learned, best practices, and a venue for communication with other mentors  Mentees are not clear on what they need or expect from the mentor  Mentors and Mentees want a better understanding and clarity of the Mentoring Program procedures 10

11. Survey key findings – Cont’  Mentees would like the option to select a mentor or to have a mentor suggested to them  Mentees find very little in common with mentors currently assigned by the Mentoring Subcommittee  61% of mentees indicated that their time with mentors was well utilized  65% of mentors indicated that their time with mentees was well utilized  60% of mentees were of LCDR rank and had two to four years of PHS service 11

12. Time well spent 12

13. Most Important Traits of a good Mentor  Shares the same discipline/degree 55%  Has a higher rank 45%  Works in the same geographical area 29%  Has the same career track 26%  Works in the same Agency 19%  Share similar personality type or traits 7%  Is of the same gender/ethnicity 3% 13

14. Traits of a Good Match 14

15. Most Important Needs/Objectives of Mentees  Guiding through the Promotion process 81%  Encouragement 77%  Networking 71%  Defining career goals 71%  Writing a strong SciPAC modeled CV 68%  Preparing for the annual COER 61%  Finding career/job opportunities 42%  Customizing an Individual Development Plan 32% 15

16. SciPAC Mentoring Program Recommendations 1.Update Mentor/Mentee records 2.Generate & implement written agreement between mentor and mentee 3.Generate & distribute one-page reference handout on Mentoring Program 4.Develop & distribute “Mentor’s Resource kit” 5.Implement a new Mentor-Mentee matching system 6.Develop a SciPAC Mentor of the Year Award Program 7.Revise SciPAC Mentoring Subcommittee SOP 16

17. Update current Mentor/Mentee records  The need to find out the status of all prior mentor-mentee matches was determined to be a high priority. Up until now, there has not been a systematic effort to assess if the existing mentor assignments have been active or to update their contact information. It is recommended that this be a biannual task to ensure accuracy of records.  To be completed by: Completed 17

18. Written agreement between Mentor and Mentee  The objective of this effort is to elicit a conversation between mentors and mentees in order to formalize their working relationship and develop a working structure to include format and frequency of contact and to identify what are the objectives of the relationship.  To be completed by: Implementation phase 18

19. One-page handout on SciPAC Mentoring Program  The need was identified and a one-page handout containing references to tools, guidance on roles and responsibilities of the Mentor and Mentee, and other useful information was developed by the subcommittee.  To be completed by: Completed 19

20. Implement a new Mentor- Mentee matching system  The survey findings pointed at the need to provide the mentee the opportunity to play a role in the selection of their mentor. The Mentee will be able to select from a list of possible mentors or obtain Mentor recommendations from the Subcommittee. Once a match is made, the role of the Subcommittee will be to provide advice and guidance to all parties.  To be completed by: 4 th Quarter 2012 20

21. Revise SciPAC Mentoring Subcommittee SOP  In order to support these recommendations, new duties and responsibilities are being added or revised in the Subcommittee’s SOP. The Mentoring Subcommittee will submit the revised SOP to the SciPAC Executive Board for review, voting, and approval.  To be completed by: 4 th Quarter 2012 21

22. Develop & distribute “ Mentor’s Resource kit ”  From the Mentor’s perspective, there is a need for written guidance on how to improve mentoring outcomes, make available key documents and/or identify useful resources, and setting up a communication venue for sharing lessons learned and best practices. Collaboration between the SciPAC Career Development and the Mentoring Subcommittees will be necessary.  To be completed by: 3 rd Quarter 2013 22

23. Develop a SciPAC Mentor of the Year Award Program  While not an outcome from this survey, the Subcommittee believes that there is a need to recognize the efforts by Mentors. This Subcommittee proposes to collaborate with the SciPAC Awards Subcommittee for the development of a SciPAC Mentor Award.  To be completed by: 4 th Quarter 2013 23

24. Thank You The SciPAC Mentoring Subcommittee CDR Boris Aponte (AHRQ) – Chair CAPT Diana Bensyl (CDC) – Co-Chair CDR Mark Methner (CDC) – Co-Chair CDR Angela Smith (DoD) CDR Jacqueline Sram (FDA) LCDR Adrienne Goodrich-Doctor (NIH) LCDR Alfredo R Sancho (FDA) 24

25. 25