LCDR Alfredo R Sancho
SciPAC Mentoring Subcommittee
USPHS Scientific and Training Symposium
21 June 2012
Agenda

SciPAC Mentoring Program

SciPAC Mentoring Program Survey Results
Recommendations
 Questions
2
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
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
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
Scientists distribution by Rank
Category Total as of 1 Nov 2010 = 304
6
Distribution by Years of Scientists
with USPHS
Category Total as of 1 Nov 2010 = 304
7
Survey respondents (n=116)
8
Participation in Mentoring
Program
9
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
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
Time well spent
12
Most Important Traits of a
good Mentor







Shares the same discipline/degree
Has a higher rank
Works in the same geographical area
Has the same career track
Works in the same Agency
Share similar personality type or traits
Is of the same gender/ethnicity
55%
45%
29%
26%
19%
7%
3%
13
Traits of a Good Match
14
Most Important
Needs/Objectives of Mentees








Guiding through the Promotion process
Encouragement
Networking
Defining career goals
Writing a strong SciPAC modeled CV
Preparing for the annual COER
Finding career/job opportunities
Customizing an Individual
Development Plan
81%
77%
71%
71%
68%
61%
42%
32%
15
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
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
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
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
Implement a new MentorMentee 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: 4th Quarter 2012

20
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: 4th Quarter 2012

21
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: 3rd Quarter 2013

22
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: 4th Quarter 2013

23
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