Final Report on the Assessment of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Bureauwide Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) Process

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Executive Leadership Team (ELT) approved the formation of the Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) Review Team in May 2017. The RGE Review Team was charged with three tasks: • Review the processes of other Federal science agencies and determine what flexibility the USGS has to make changes to the evaluation criteria provided by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) • Survey USGS scientists evaluated under Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) and Equipment Development Grade Evaluation (EDGE) processes, their supervisors, center directors, and panelists about the current processes • Recommend improvements to the USGS Research Grade Evaluation process for scientists and develop a long-term approach to inform managers on the vitality of the USGS scientific workforce The RGE Review Team had two guiding principles that team members agreed to apply to all recommendations: • The RGE review process will be fair, efficient, timely, consistent, transparent, and easy to understand • Those involved in the review process will trust peer review panels to make good decisions and will verify, through a standing advisory committee, that processes are being faithfully followed The RGE Review Team (also called the Team) conducted the first-ever quantitative assessment of the USGS workforce evaluated under the RGE process. Some clear trends emerged from this assessment, although some questions of interest could not be readily answered with the available data. Key findings from the analysis of the RGE workforce data follow: • The number of USGS scientists is declining • The number of female scientists is increasing, although male scientists still outnumber female scientists by more than 2:1 • The gender imbalance is more pronounced at higher grade levels • The gender imbalance is most pronounced at the senior scientist level • White scientists far outnumber scientists of color • The gender, grade, and age gaps are narrowing • Men and women have similar promotion probabilities • Reimbursable funding at a center slightly affects length of time to promotion • Projected retirement eligibility may significantly affect the USGS scientific workforce The RGE Review Team hosted a benchmarking meeting in March 2018 of the USGS and 11 other Federal science agencies to compare how each conducts research scientist evaluation. The agencies evaluated research scientists with either the General Schedule (GS) pay system or one of several alternative pay systems. Through the benchmarking, the Team found: • RGE guidelines issued by OPM allow more flexibility than the USGS is currently using • Second-level panels are rarely used by other agencies • The USGS peer review process under RGE guidelines has advantages over pay-band or other systems because the USGS system: • Leads to better engagement, trust, and recruitment and retention of the highest quality scientists • Is more transparent and less subject to bias than pay-band systems • Provides better data to assess workforce vitality and inform planning