Survival Analysis Modeling of 

Promotions in the State Department’s 

Workforce

Page 1

2022 FCSM Research and Policy Conference

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Moon Parks
Agenda 

• Explore some aspects of workforce data 

• Discuss methodological limitations of various 

approaches that have been used 

• Introduce GAO’s methodology used to answer the 

research question 

• Key results from GAO’s analysis

Page 2
State Workforce Data

• Personnel datasets of employees at State

• Covered the agencies’ Civil and Foreign Service 

employees

• Unique opportunity to get such detailed personnel data

• Contained demographic characteristics and SF-50 

actions

• 17 years of data from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal 

year 2018

Page 3
Page 4

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020
Page 5

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??
Page 6

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit
Page 7

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit
Page 8

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??
Page 9

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??

Jose

DY 1

Caracas

Jose

DY 6

Pro_C3

Jose
Search for the Methodology

• Calculating Promotion Rates for Each Year

Page 10
Page 11

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??

Jose

DY 1

Caracas

Jose

DY 6

Pro_C3

Jose
Search for the Methodology

• Calculating Promotion Rates for Each Year

• Does not capture time delay in promotion 

• Each year’s promotion pools are relatively small

• Aggregating Promotion Rates across Multiple Years

Page 12
Page 13

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??

Jose

DY 1

Caracas

Jose

DY 6

Pro_C3

Jose
Search for the Methodology

• Aggregating Promotion Rates across Multiple Years

• Does not account for censoring

• Cohort Analysis 

Page 14
Page 15

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??

Jose

DY 1

Caracas

Jose

DY 6

Pro_C3

Jose
Search for the Methodology

• Cohort Analysis 

• Sample size could be an issue 

• Cohort analysis cannot be generalized

• Standard Regression Model 

Page 16
Page 17

1995 1998 *** 2002 2003 2004 *** 2012 2013 *** 2018 2020

John

DY 1

John

DY 4

John

DY 4

Pro_C3

John

DY 1

John

DY 2

Baghdad

John

DY 6

Pro_C1

John

DY 1

John

DY 6

John

Pro??

Ann

DY 1

Ann

DY 4

Exit

Mike

DY 1

Seoul

Mike

DY 2

Kabul

Mike

DY 3

Pro_C3

Mike

DY 8

Exit

Susan

DY 1

Caracas

Susan

DY 2

Pro_C3

Susan

DY 1

Susan

Matern

ity 

leave

Susan

DY 6

Susan

DY 7

Pro_C2

Susan

DY 5

Susan

Pro??

Jose

DY 1

Caracas

Jose

DY 6

Pro_C3

Jose
Discrete Duration Analysis 

• A type of Survival analysis or other equivalent names 

include: 

• Event history analyses

• Duration analysis 

• Failure time analysis

• Reliability analyses 

• Regression analysis w/ multiple observations of same 

people

• Accounts for the time it took for a promotion to occur

Page 18
What this Methodology can Do

• Analyzes time duration 

• Combines multiple years’ promotion cycles 

• Combines multiple “cohorts” 

• Addresses censoring problem

• Accounts for factors other than racial or ethnic minority 

status that could influence promotion

Page 19
Regression Equation

Page 20
Accounted for Other Factors Associated with Promotion

• Years of prior federal government experience

• Age at the time of entering agency 

• Veterans’ preference status

• Long-term leave in the prior year 

• Transferring between Civil and Foreign Services 

• Occupation

• Overseas or high hardship work in the prior year (FS only)

• Language skills (FS only)

• Fiscal years

• Ivy League or school located in DC, VA, or MD (State FS 

only)

Page 21
What this Analysis Cannot Say

• Unobservable factors  cannot establish 

causality 

• Occupation segmentation/Occupation 

Segregation 

• We do not model the promotion process

Page 22
Promotion Outcomes for Racial or Ethnic Minorities 

in the State’s Civil Service

Page 23
Promotion Outcomes for Racial or Ethnic Minorities 

in the State’s Foreign Service

Page 24
Promotion Outcomes for Women in the State’s 

Civil Service

Page 25

State
Promotion Outcomes for Women in the State’s 

Foreign Service

Page 26
Moving forward

• Recommendations

• GAO recommended that State take additional steps to identify 

diversity issues that could indicate potential barriers to equal 

opportunity in its workforce. 

• Testimonies

• June 17, 2020, to the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 

Representatives: State Department: Additional Steps Are Needed 

to Identify Barriers to Workforce Diversity (GAO-20-515T)

• Other Outcomes

• Secretary of State mentioned our report in announcing a Chief 

Diversity and Inclusion Officer; House included requirement for 

report on workforce data statistics in 2022 appropriations bill; press 

including the NYT, The Hill, and Foreign Policy

27
Page 28

Acknowldgement 

• Key contributors to this report 

Jason Bair, Emil Friberg, Julia Jebo Grant, 

Nisha Rai, Moon Parks, Justin Fisher,

Melinda Cordero, Courtney Lafountain, 

Kathleen McQueeney, Dae Park, 

K. Nicole Willems, Reid Lowe, 

Christopher Keblitis, Camille Pease
Page 29

More Information in GAO-20-237 and Follow up report 

GAO-22-105182