Update on the RGE and EDGE Processes Office

Update on the RGE and EDGE Processes Office of Science Quality and Integrity (OSQI) October 2019 Version 1. 0 RGE mailbox rge-edge@usgs. gov U. S. Department of the Interior U. S. Geological Survey

Outline n RGE and EDGE overview n RGE / EDGE Review Team n What is not changing n What is changing n Time for questions 2

What are RGE and EDGE? n Research Grade Evaluation n Equipment Development Grade Evaluation n Periodic review of research or development positions Review of grade classification q Professional science series (fish biologist, geologist, space scientist…) q Permanent positions** q Review of requests for conversion to RGE or EDGE q **Center Directors may request to have term RGE or EDGE employees reviewed by a panel. 3

What are RGE and EDGE? RGE-EDGE • • • Research only OPM Guide Panel of Peers Grade Classification Periodically ≠ Performance Review • • • Total job Performance Plan Supervisor Performance awards Annual Different processes with different objectives and outcomes However, poor performance ratings may delay RGE – EDGE reviews • Contact HR with specific questions 4

What are RGE and EDGE? n RGE is covered by Office of Personnel Management RGE Guide through GS 15 q USGS-specific guidance for Senior Scientist (ST) level q n EDGE is covered by Office of Personnel Management EDGE Guide through GS 14 q USGS-specific guidance for GS 14+ q n Posted on RGE web site q usgs. gov/rge-edge 5

RGE and EDGE at the USGS ~1100 RGE and 45 EDGE scientists n Maintains scientific reputation and credibility of the USGS n “…the Bureau’s scientific reputation largely depends on its commitment to the highest standards in the RGE-EDGE process…” (USGS RGE Advisory Group Report, 2011) “Throughout its history and ingrained in its culture, the USGS has placed a high value on scientific peer review. The RGE/EDGE process is guided by a peer review ethic and has been the standard for the classification of these positions in the USGS. ” (RGE Review Team Final Report, 2019) 6

RGE and EDGE at the USGS n Administered by OSQI in collaboration with the Office of Human Resources n Reviewed by panels of scientific peers who meet in person for 2 or 3 days and reach consensus n Two review cycles each year Spring cycle - March 21 standing due date q Fall cycle - September 21 standing due date q n Or the following Monday when these dates land on a weekend 7

RGE/EDGE Review Team - Charter n Chartered May 2017 to: q q q review research evaluations in other agencies, identify current flexibilities, gather feedback regarding current practices, assess current practices, recommend improvements to RGE processes, and recommend a long-term approach to obtain feedback on the health and vitality of USGS science workforce. 8

Review Team - Membership n Suzette Kimball – Chair n Research Scientists q Manuela Huso q Jingle Ruppert q Carol Finn q Jayne Belnap (ST) n Center Management q David Lytle q Anke Mueller-Solger q Randy Orndorff q Ken Rice q Chris Zimmerman n Mission Areas q Virginia Burkett q Bill Guertal q John Thompson n Headquarters Offices q Chris Johnson – OSQI q Eleanour Snow – OSQI q Regina Neal-Mujahid – Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity q Tamara Lamb-Ghenee – Human Resources n ELT Sponsors q Craig Robinson q Aimee Devaris q Geoff Plumlee q Virginia Burkett q Roseann Gonzales q Regina Neal-Mujahid 9

Review Team – Findings n Final (draft) report provided to OSQI, summer 2019 ~15 Key Findings q ~29 Key Recommendations q Full report to be published n Special ELT briefing in August n n Resulting changes to process are being implemented over time 10

NOT changing - OPM Guides n RGE and EDGE guides establish the scoring criteria n These guides are governed by OPM n Outside the authority of the USGS review team 11

Changes to Process n n n n n Panel Chairs no longer used RGE Checklist no longer used Center Director contact now required Second-level panels no longer used Single ST finding required Balance outputs and impact Review frequency New Feedback format New Scientist Record format More to come… spring 2018 fall 2018 spring 2019 fall 2019 2020+ 12

Panel Chairs no longer used As of spring 2018 n Was an undue burden on scientists n Led to imbalance in panel participation n Now OSQI staff handle all coordination n q q q n Panel Member Identification Panel Logistics Training Meeting Facilitation Feedback Completion We encourage panel participation! 13

RGE Checklist no longer used n n n As of fall 2018 “Green Text” Formerly used to “define” Levels B and D Nothing similar used by other RGE agencies Seen by RGE Review Team as artificial barrier Now only use the OPM RGE Guide, with guidance on how to score Levels B and D 14

Center Director contact required As of spring 2019 n Formerly direct supervisor was the only required contact for primary reviewers n Center Directors expressed interest in having more direct input into process n Now require reference checks with BOTH direct supervisor and Center Director n q n If same person, no additional contacts required Please be available when contacted! 15

Second-level panels no longer used n n n n As of spring 2019 Formerly used as consistency review 2 nd review performed for any promotions above GS-13, and all below-grade findings Nothing similar used by other RGE agencies Added significant time to process Second-level panel composition was not peers Now one panel review determines outcome regardless of grade 16

Single ST finding required n n n As of spring 2019 Formerly two consecutive panel findings with an ST scores were required Added significant time to process Now a single ST level finding (56+ points) refers a scientist to the Senior Scientist Review Panel SSRP is expected to meet annually 17

Balancing outputs and impacts n n n As of spring 2019 Factor 4: Former tendency to over-rely on numbers of publications and reputation of outlets Provided a limited perspective Panels now encouraged to consider all of the scoring criteria, not just publications Panels must work to balance impact with outputs Impact may be scientific and / or societal 18

Balancing outputs and impacts n How and to what extent does the work advance scientific understanding? Geographic, Disciplinary, Methodological, Technological, Importance of lines of research n How and to what extent does the work advance the USGS and DOI Mission? USGS/DOI priority information need, Informing policy, Geographic applicability n How and to what extent does the work protect and advance the health, safety, economic vitality, or ecological integrity of the US and other parts of the world? Health benefits, Safety benefits, Economic benefits, Ecological benefits 19

Review frequency n n n As of fall 2019 Formerly a standard 4 -year review frequency Average time to promotion increased with grade Many other agencies use a sliding frequency New standards: Up to GS-13: 4 years q GS-14: 6 years q GS-15: 7 years q Options remain for early and delayed reviews q 20

New findings format As of fall 2019 n Former panel feedback focused on what the panel observed in a review n Did not explain what was NOT observed n New “Findings” format n How the factor score was determined q Why the higher score was not awarded q No longer a comments section q Attempt to be more explicit, less subtle q 21

New scientist record format Planned spring 2020 n Current format can be redundant, hard to review n Some sections not useful (e. g. technical training) n Tested new format in fall 2018 n q n Will allow scientists to write narrative directly to the four factors q n Positive feedback Narrative length limits will be enforced! Will retain much of the supporting information (presentations, bibliography, recognition, etc. ). 22

New scientist record format Narrative sections will need to be substantiated by the supporting information n Different templates for RGE and EDGE n q RSR and DSR New guidance for handling data releases n New format and associated trainings will be available ~December for spring 2020 cycle n 23

More coming (spring 2020) n Changes to the RDSR cover sheet q n Improve clarity and intent Change from portal to email submission Simplify process q Designated RGE submission email box q n Request for early and delayed reviews will need Center Director agreement q Increase communication with management 24

Expectations for Panel Results Working to have results out quickly after each panel n Specific timing depends strongly on the overall schedule of panels n Results distributed to Center Directors for action n n Fall 2019: Will review about 85 scientists in about 12 panels q Panels should run November – January/February. q 25

If CD Disagrees with results n Disagree with remain-in-grade finding? Contact RGE staff q Option for Early review q n Disagree with promotion finding? Contact servicing HR office q Discuss change of assignment q 26

Roster Checks Coming n We are performing the annual update of our scientist database. n It will include the new 6 - and 7 -year cycle information for GS 14 s and GS 15 s. n Please help us keep our information is current. This ensures scientists receive the information they need about upcoming reviews. 27

Resources www. usgs. gov/rge-edge n Will be updated as new formats and information are made available n OPM’s RGE Guide and EDGE Guide EDGE and ST checklists Training materials on RDSR development Current RDSR template and required coversheet RDSR submission guidance n n 28

Contacts n RGE Coordinators Steve Hilburger shilburger@usgs. gov q Cara Campbell ccampbell@usgs. gov (acting) q n Shared RGE mailbox rge-edge@usgs. gov n Human Resources related to RGE q Tamara Lamb-Ghenee tlamb-ghenee@usgs. gov 29