National Science Foundation: A Workforce Strategy and Evaluation of Results Could Improve Use of Rotating Scientists, Engineers, and Educators

NSF has identified potential benefits and challenges associated with its use of rotators. Benefits include fresh perspectives and close connections to the scientific community, while challenges include staffing turnover and higher costs for some rotators compared with permanent employees.

GAO was asked to review NSF's use and management of the IPA and VSEE rotator programs, among other things. This report examines (1) the number, costs, and uses of NSF rotators for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017; (2) the strategies NSF has used to manage rotator costs and the results of these efforts; and (3) the extent to which NSF has a workforce strategy for using rotators and has evaluated the results of its rotator programs. GAO analyzed summary-level data on NSF's rotators; reviewed key documents; interviewed NSF officials; conducted semistructured interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of rotators and permanent federal employees selected from different scientific directorates within NSF; and compared NSF's management of the program to key principles for effective strategic workforce planning.

The numbers of rotators—outside scientists, engineers, and educators on temporary assignment—at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and their costs in proportion to other staff remained relatively stable in fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Most rotators joined NSF under its Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) mobility program. IPA rotators comprised about 12 percent of NSF's workforce and 17 percent of staff costs on average and were not subject to a federal salary cap. They remain employees of their home institutions, with NSF reimbursing the institutions for most of their salaries and benefits. The remaining rotators are considered temporary federal employees under the Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator (VSEE) program; their salaries could not exceed the federal maximum for their positions.

Beginning in fiscal year 2017, NSF adopted IPA rotator program cost management strategies expected to achieve the greatest savings with the least harm to recruitment, but NSF officials said it is too soon to determine the full results. For example, for new IPA rotators who had not yet begun negotiating their assignments, NSF began requiring their home institutions to pay for 10 percent of the rotators' salary and benefits. NSF officials told GAO they expect to issue a report evaluating the strategies in December 2018.

NSF's IPA program steering committee recommended developing a workforce strategy for balancing the agency's use of rotators with federal staff, but as of June 2018, NSF had not developed a strategy or fully evaluated the IPA and VSEE rotator programs' results, as called for by GAO's key principles for effective strategic workforce planning. NSF officials said they recognized the value of a workforce strategy but were focusing instead on other workforce planning efforts, and they had not fully evaluated program results in part because rotators are blended into the agency's permanent workforce, making a separate evaluation difficult. Without a workforce strategy and evaluation of results, NSF is limited in its ability to manage and, if warranted, adjust its use of rotators.

GAO recommends that NSF develop an agency-wide strategy for balancing the agency's use of rotators with permanent staff and evaluate the contributions of its rotator programs toward NSF's human capital goals and programmatic results. NSF agreed with GAO's recommendations.

To advance its mission of supporting research and education in science  and engineering, the National Science Foundation (NSF) brings in outside  scientists, engineers, and educators on temporary assignments to work  alongside its staff of permanent federal employees. NSF refers to these  individuals as rotators. Rotators generally perform the same work and  have the same responsibilities as permanent employees who fill similar  positions within the agency. NSF’s rationale in using rotators is that they  bring fresh perspectives and up-to-date insights about the direction of  science and engineering and help NSF maintain a close connection to the  scientific community. However, NSF’s use of rotators has also introduced  management challenges. For example, according to the agency’s Human  Capital Strategic Plan, continual turnover resulting from the use of  rotators has presented challenges in ensuring seamless staffing  transitions.

NSF recruits its rotators primarily under the Intergovernmental Personnel  Act (IPA) mobility program, which allows for details of individuals from  state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and other  organizations. NSF refers to individuals detailed under this program as  IPA rotators. Under NSF’s IPA program, rotators remain employees of  and continue to receive salaries and benefits from their home institutions.  During rotators’ assignments, NSF reimburses the majority of their  salaries and benefits under cost-sharing agreements with the rotators’  home institutions. Rotators may occasionally take NSF-funded trips to  continue research and research-related activities at their home  institutions. NSF can negotiate IPA rotator details for an initial assignment  of up to 2 years and may extend the assignment for another 2 years—for  a maximum of 4 years—if NSF, the rotator, and the rotator’s home  institution agree.

NSF also recruits rotators from research or educational institutions under  its Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator (VSEE) program and refers  to these individuals as VSEE rotators. Under this program, VSEE  rotators are considered temporary federal employees. They are on a  nonpaid leave of absence from their home institution and receive their  salaries directly from NSF. Assignments are usually made for up to 1 year  and may be extended for an additional year.

The NSF Office of Inspector General has examined several management  and oversight issues associated with NSF’s use of IPA rotators. For  example, the Inspector General identified the potential effect of the time  that IPA rotators spend at their home institutions on the rotators’ ability to  fulfill their responsibilities at NSF. In addition, the Inspector General  reported that in fiscal year 2012, NSF spent approximately $6.7 million  more by using rotators instead of hiring permanent federal employees.  That report identified opportunities for NSF to reduce the cost of IPA  rotators. In a follow-up report, the Inspector General found that both the  number and cost of IPA rotators increased in fiscal year 2015 from fiscal  year 2012.

The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017 directs NSF to  report to certain congressional committees on its efforts to control costs  associated with employing rotators and on its progress in responding to  the Inspector General’s findings and implementing its recommendations  related to the employment of rotators. In addition, the act directs NSF to  annually provide written justification for each rotator who it pays more  than the maximum rate for the Senior Executive Service—which was  $187,000 in fiscal year 2017.

NSF’s use of rotators is one of the agency’s strategies for managing its  human capital. We have previously found that strategic human capital  management addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an organization’s  human capital program with its current and emerging mission and  programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring,  developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals. Strategic  human capital management is a pervasive challenge the federal  government faces and is one of the areas we identified in our High Risk  List. While agencies’ approaches to workforce planning will vary, we have  previously identified key principles that strategic workforce planning  should address irrespective of the context in which the planning is done,  including:

Determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed  to achieve current and future programmatic results;

Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number,  deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for  enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and  competencies; and

Monitor and evaluate progress toward the human capital goals  and the contribution that human capital results have made toward  achieving programmatic results.

You asked us to review NSF’s use and management of the rotator  programs, among other things. This report examines (1) the number,  costs, and uses of NSF rotators over time; (2) the strategies NSF has  used to manage rotator costs and the results of these efforts; and (3) the  extent to which NSF has a workforce strategy for using rotators and has  evaluated the results of its rotator programs.

To examine the number, costs, and use of NSF rotators over time, we  collected and analyzed summary-level data on NSF’s rotators, permanent  employees, and other temporary employees for fiscal years 2008 through  2017 so that we could observe any trends over the most recent 10-year  period for which data were available. Data on the number of employees  included the number of permanent federal employees, temporary federal  employees, IPA rotators, and VSEE rotators; the number of each type of  employee in executive positions; and counts of the types of home  institutions that IPA rotators came from in fiscal year 2017. We collected  data on the number of employees and rotators as of the last day for each  fiscal year for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. We supplemented this  summary-level data with data on executive-level positions held by IPA  rotators or federal employees and executive-level vacancies as of  November 2017—the most recent data available at the time of our review.  Cost data included NSF’s actual costs for IPA rotators from fiscal years  2008 through 2017, and actual costs for federal employees from fiscal  years 2009 through 2017, and budgeted amounts for cost-sharing  agreements. To adjust costs for inflation, we converted them to constant  2017 dollars using a Gross Domestic Product price index. We focused  our review on IPA rotators and reviewed VSEE rotators to a lesser extent,  in part because NSF maintains cost data on VSEE rotators commingled  with data on other federal employees and the aggregate data we obtained  from NSF did not separate out most costs for VSEE rotators.

We assessed the reliability of the data we collected on the number and  costs of NSF rotators and permanent and other temporary federal  employees by performing manual testing for missing data or obvious errors and conducting interviews with NSF officials knowledgeable about  the data. In particular, we discussed the data sources—including NSF’s  grant database, financial system, and human resources database—and  methods used to provide the data. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for reporting summary-level data on the number of  rotators and associated costs over time.

For further information on NSF’s use of rotators, we reviewed NSF’s  personnel manual, public website, and other information provided by NSF  officials on how IPA and VSEE rotators are compensated and the types of  positions they fill. We reviewed all IPA rotator agreements made in fiscal  year 2017; those agreements included information on rotator costs and  cost-sharing amounts and the responsibilities of the positions filled by  rotators. We also reviewed reports issued by the NSF Inspector General  and the National Academy of Public Administration on NSF’s use of  rotators. Finally, we reviewed regulations and policies on the IPA  program issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

To examine the strategies that NSF has used to manage IPA rotator  costs and the results of these efforts, we reviewed key agency  documentation, such as documents related to the establishment of cost- management strategies; NSF’s January 2018 report to Congress on  NSF’s efforts to manage rotator costs; and NSF’s March 2018 preliminary  evaluation of its cost-sharing pilot program. We also discussed with  knowledgeable NSF officials NSF’s cost-management strategies and the  extent to which the officials had identified any preliminary results.

To examine the extent to which NSF has a workforce strategy for using  rotators and has evaluated the results of its rotator programs, we  reviewed NSF’s workforce planning documents, including its human  capital strategic plan for 2011 to 2014 (the latest plan available) and  internal NSF documents issued in 2016 and 2017 on plans for developing  an agency-wide workforce strategy that would include rotators. In  addition, we interviewed NSF’s chief human capital officer and other NSF  officials regarding NSF’s decision-making process for hiring rotators, its  objectives for the rotator programs, its efforts to evaluate program results,  and its plans for developing an agency-wide workforce strategy. We  compared NSF’s efforts with three of the five principles from GAO’s Key  Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, which we selected  on the basis of their relevance to NSF’s efforts.

For further insight into NSF’s rotator programs, we conducted  semistructured interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of IPA rotators,  VSEE rotators, and permanent federal employees. The sample included  two individuals in executive positions (an IPA rotator and a permanent  employee who followed an in-house career path) and four individuals in  program director positions (an IPA rotator, a VSEE rotator, and two  permanent employees). We selected the individuals from 5 of the 7  scientific directorates within NSF. In addition, our sample included a  former NSF employee in an executive position. Our semistructured  interviews included questions regarding the individuals’ experiences and  perspectives on their work activities, the benefits and challenges of NSF’s  use of rotators, and the effect of NSF’s use of rotators on the in-house  career paths of permanent employees. In addition, we asked individuals  in executive positions about the effect of the NSF’s use of rotators on (1)  the ability to set directions for the agency and to achieve associated goals  and objectives and (2) succession planning. The information provided  through the interviews is anecdotal and cannot be generalized to a larger  population, but it provides illustrative perspectives and opinions of  different subgroups within NSF on NSF’s rotator programs.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to September  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

NSF relies on two programs for bringing rotators into the agency: (1) the  IPA program and (2) the VSEE program. The Office of Personnel  Management develops policies on agencies’ use of the IPA program and  promulgates program regulations.

Rotators in NSF’s IPA and VSEE programs differ in key respects,  including their employment status and compensation.

IPA rotators. NSF enters into written agreements with rotators’  home institutions for all IPA assignments. The agreements detail  rotators’ salaries and health, retirement, and other fringe benefits  at their home institutions, as well as the cost-sharing amounts  NSF and home institutions are to pay during rotators’  assignments. NSF reimburses its cost-sharing amounts to home  institutions, which continue to pay rotators’ full salaries and  benefits. NSF does not cap the salaries of IPA rotators; as a  result, IPA rotators may receive salaries that exceed the maximum  federal salary for the position they hold at NSF. In contrast, if an  IPA rotator’s salary is less than the minimum federal salary for the  position, NSF will supplement the salary to the minimum rate.

VSEE rotators. NSF appoints VSEE rotators as federal  employees on a nonpaid leave of absence from their home  institutions. VSEE rotators receive their salaries directly from NSF  but are not eligible for certain federal benefits, such as retirement;  instead, NSF reimburses home institutions for the employer’s  share of retirement, life insurance, and health benefits that would  otherwise be discontinued. NSF’s policy is to set salaries for  VSEE rotators that are generally comparable to the salaries the  rotators would receive at their home institutions. In setting  salaries, NSF also takes into account other sources of income,  such as consulting, and allows for locality pay adjustments  applicable to employees in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan  area. However, because VSEE rotators are federal employees,  NSF caps their salaries at the federal maximum for the position  they hold at NSF.

Both IPA and VSEE rotators are eligible for certain other types of  reimbursement. In particular, rotators have the option of having NSF pay  their moving expenses to and from Washington, D.C., or receiving per  diem allowances in accordance with federal travel regulations for up to 2  years. In addition, NSF may reimburse rotators for travel-related  expenses related to their participation in NSF’s Independent Research  and Development program, which enables NSF staff to maintain their  involvement with their professional research and research-related  activities at their home institutions. Table 1 shows additional information  on IPA and VSEE rotator expenses.

Rotators are generally assigned to one of NSF’s seven directorates that  support science and engineering research and education (see table 2).  Each directorate is headed by an assistant director and deputy assistant  director. Directorates are further subdivided into divisions, offices, or  sections. Each division is headed by a division director and typically a  deputy division director, and each office is headed by an office director  and typically a deputy office director. All these positions are executive  positions at NSF. At the staff level, NSF uses program directors—subject  matter experts in the scientific areas they manage—to conduct reviews of  proposals and recommend which projects the agency should fund. With  an annual budget of about $7.5 billion, NSF funds approximately 24  percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by colleges  and universities in the United States.

In 2016, NSF established the Steering Committee for Policy and  Oversight of the IPA Program. The steering committee serves as the  primary body for considering policy on NSF’s use of IPA rotators and  overseeing common approaches to budgeting and implementation of the  IPA program. The committee’s membership includes NSF’s chief human  capital officer, who serves as the chair, and several other NSF officials.  The steering committee has established strategic principles for  management of the IPA program. These principles include maintaining a  balance between IPA rotators and federal staff and a commitment to  ongoing improvement of the program. NSF officials told us that there is no  similar steering committee for overseeing VSEE rotators. Instead, each  VSEE rotator is individually overseen by his or her respective supervisor.

For the agency as a whole, NSF’s Office of Information and Resource  Management and its Division of Human Resource Management conduct  human capital management. NSF officials stated that the head of the  Office of Information and Resource Management serves as the Chief  Human Capital Officer and develops and oversees NSF’s human capital  approaches and strategies. These officials also told us that the Deputy  Chief Human Capital Officer serves as the division director of Human  Resource Management and is responsible for administering the division’s  day-to-day operations. The Division of Human Resource Management  administers the agency’s human capital policies as set forth in NSF’s  personnel manual.

NSF Maintained a Relatively Stable Number and Cost of Rotators and Used Them in Executive and Program Director Positions

The numbers of rotators and their costs to NSF in proportion to other staff  have remained relatively stable. Most rotators were IPA rotators, and  were used in both executive and program director (staff-level) positions.  NSF generally used VSEE rotators in program director positions.

Most Rotators Were IPA Rotators, Comprising About 12 Percent of NSF’s Workforce and 17 Percent of Staff Costs on Average in Fiscal Years 2008-2017

Most rotators at NSF were IPA rotators, and the proportion of rotators  relative to other staff has remained relatively stable over time (see fig. 1).  During the 10-year period we reviewed, from fiscal year 2008 through  fiscal year 2017,  IPA and VSEE rotators comprised about 12 percent and about 3  percent, respectively, of NSF’s total workforce; and  the number of IPA rotators ranged from 162 to 190 (about 11 to 12  percent of total staff), and the number of VSEE rotators ranged  from 22 to 52 (about 1 to 3 percent of total staff).

NSF Primarily Used IPA Rotators in Executive and Program Director Positions and VSEE Rotators in Program Director Positions

NSF primarily used rotators across its seven scientific directorates, using  IPA rotators in executive and program director positions and VSEE  rotators in program director positions. The agency used rotators in these  positions alongside NSF’s permanent staff to perform day-to-day agency  operations, including managing the agency’s merit review process for  determining which projects to fund.

Use of IPA Rotators in Executive Positions

NSF used IPA rotators in executive positions such as assistant director.  According to agency officials, individuals in executive positions at NSF  are responsible for setting the direction for the scientific area they are  assigned, leading scientific and technical matters, establishing an  organizational culture, overseeing outreach and collaboration with NSF  stakeholders, and contributing to NSF and national policy development  and implementation. For example, an executive IPA rotator that we  interviewed told us that he emphasized forming partnerships with industry  when setting the direction for his directorate, including issuing joint  solicitations for research proposals with industry partners. In addition,  according to NSF officials, individuals in executive positions provide  guidance and team management for staff.

The proportion of IPA rotators to federal employees in executive positions  within NSF’s seven scientific directorates and other staff offices has  generally increased since fiscal year 2012. As shown in figure 4, from  fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2017, the number and proportion of  executive positions filled by IPA rotators ranged from 18 of 98 (about 18  percent) in 2008 to 30 of 108 (about 28 percent) in fiscal year 2016.

In November 2017, IPA rotators filled 29 of 88 (about 33 percent)  executive positions within NSF’s seven scientific directorates. At that  time, the proportion of executive positions filled by IPA rotators varied  among directorates, as shown in table 3. For example, IPA rotators filled  4 of 8 (50 percent) of the executive positions in the Directorate for Social,  Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and 2 of 14 (about 14 percent) of the  executive positions in the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical  Sciences.

According to NSF officials, NSF often pairs IPA rotators and federal  employees at the executive level so that each can benefit from the other’s  experience and perspective. For example, in all but one directorate, an  IPA rotator filled the assistant director position and a federal employee  filled the corresponding deputy assistant director position. Two NSF  executives we interviewed, including an IPA rotator and a federal  employee, commented positively on the pairing of IPA rotators and  federal employees at the executive level. For example, they said that  rotators maintain close ties to the research community and federal  employees may have more experience with NSF’s institutional history.  One NSF executive told us that IPA rotators help keep the agency at the  forefront of science because they have deep ties with the research  community and regularly publish their own research. Additionally, a  federal program director we interviewed told us that in one previous  instance in which an IPA rotator filled an executive position without being  paired with a federal employee, the rotator’s lack of institutional  knowledge of NSF and the steep learning curve for the position caused  inefficiencies during the rotator’s first year at NSF. The agency, however,  does not require pairing IPA rotators and federal employees at the  executive level, according to NSF officials. For example, in November  2017, IPA rotators filled both the division director and deputy division  director positions in the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Science and  Division of Undergraduate Education.

In our interviews with a nongeneralizable sample of NSF employees and  rotators, we found mixed perceptions about the effect of NSF’s use of IPA  rotators on opportunities for advancement for permanent employees. For  example, in response to a question about this effect, one permanent NSF  employee told us that she advanced to an executive position and that  opportunities exist for advancement within the agency. In contrast,  another NSF employee we interviewed told us that she did not feel there  were opportunities for advancement because, in her view, executive  vacancies created by the departure of rotators were exclusively filled with  other rotators. NSF officials said that the agency has no policy that  restricts repeatedly filling certain executive positions with rotators and that  such a situation is a common practice. Nevertheless, NSF officials told us  32 of the 88 executives (about 36 percent) in NSF’s seven scientific  directorates in November 2017 had held staff-level positions within the  agency before becoming executives.

Use of IPA and VSEE Rotators as Program Directors

NSF uses both IPA and VSEE rotators in program director positions,  which are staff-level positions. In fiscal year 2016, NSF had a total of 506  program directors, including 139 IPA rotators (about 27 percent) and 39  VSEE rotators (about 8 percent). According to NSF officials, program  directors are responsible for conducting long-range planning and  developing budgets for the areas of science represented by their program  and for administrating the merit review process. In particular, IPA and  VSEE rotators who serve as program directors help determine the  projects that NSF funds. To do so, they review proposals, identify experts  in their field to serve as external reviewers, and make funding  recommendations to their respective division directors.

NSF officials told us that, similar to the pairing of IPA rotators and federal  employees at the executive level, permanent and rotating program  directors frequently work together on a shared program so that each can  benefit from the other’s experience and perspective. For example, a  rotating program director we interviewed told us that she worked under  the guidance of a program lead, who is typically a permanent employee.  Another rotating program director told us that NSF’s permanent federal  employees are good at training incoming rotators.

NSF Adopted Rotator Program Cost- Management Strategies to Achieve the Greatest Savings with the Least Harm to Recruitment, but Results Are Unknown

Beginning in fiscal year 2017, NSF adopted rotator program cost- management strategies expected to achieve the greatest savings with the  least harm to recruitment, but NSF officials said it is too soon to  determine the full results because these new strategies are being phased  in for new IPA agreements only. NSF considered other strategies to  manage rotator costs, but it did not adopt them, generally because NSF  anticipated negative effects on rotator recruitment or because it estimated  the resulting cost savings would be small.

NSF Adopted Three Strategies to Manage IPA Rotator Costs in Fiscal Year 2017 and Has Not Yet Determined Their Full Results

NSF has adopted three strategies to manage rotators’ costs in fiscal year  2017, but, NSF officials said it is too soon to determine the full results  because these new strategies are being phased in for new IPA  agreements only. All three of these strategies relate to IPA rotators; NSF  officials told us that they have not considered or adopted any cost- management strategies related to VSEE rotators. The officials explained  that any such strategies could affect NSF’s entire federal workforce  because VSEE rotators are federal employees. The three strategies are:  (1) obtaining a minimum 10 percent cost-share from each IPA rotator’s  home institution, (2) limiting IPA rotators’ paid trips to their home  institutions to 12 per year, and (3) no longer reimbursing IPA rotators for  consulting income that they forgo while at NSF. NSF officials told us they  expect to issue a report with the results of evaluations of all three  strategies in December 2018.

In October 2016, NSF implemented a cost-sharing pilot program that  requires institutions covered by the program—those who entered into  negotiations for new IPA agreements in fiscal year 2017—to pay for at  least 10 percent of the IPA rotators’ salaries and fringe benefits.  Implementing this cost-management strategy, and the other strategies  that NSF adopted, was consistent with recommendations from NSF’s  steering committee for oversight of IPA rotators. This cost-management  strategy targeted NSF’s costs for IPA rotators’ salary and fringe benefits,  which constitute the largest component of IPA rotators’ costs. For  example, these costs were about $34.7 million, or about 89 percent of  IPA rotator costs in fiscal year 2017.

Previously, according to NSF officials, the agency requested an optional  cost-share amount of 15 percent from rotators’ home institutions, but it  typically received less because of variations in the amounts that home  institutions provided. According to an October 2016 report from the task  force on fiscal oversight, NSF decided on 10 percent for the cost-sharing  pilot program because, historically, few home institutions provided the full  15 percent and NSF believed a requirement of 10 percent would not  significantly affect its ability to recruit and hire IPA rotators. If a home  institution is unable to provide the full 10 percent, the institution may  request that NSF waive the cost-sharing requirement. According to NSF  officials, such requests must be signed by a senior administrator at the  rotator’s home institution and include the rationale for not being able to  provide the required amount, the financial impact on the institution if it  were to provide the full 10 percent, and associated documentation,  among other things.

Changes made in implementing this strategy, and the other strategies  that NSF adopted, applied to new IPA agreements made in fiscal year  2017. These changes did not apply to IPA rotators with agreements made  prior to 2017—even if those agreements are subsequently extended or  renewed—or that were being negotiated at the time of the policy change,  provided that the rotators’ appointment memoranda were already being  reviewed by NSF’s Division of Human Resource Management.

NSF officials told us that as of March 2018, the agency had not  conducted full evaluations of this strategy or the other strategies because  it was too soon to determine their full effects and NSF had not yet  collected enough data to do so. Instead, NSF issued reports in January  and March 2018 containing its preliminary analyses. In general, these  preliminary reports found that the cost-management strategies resulted in  savings to NSF. Similarly, our analysis of data from NSF found that cost  sharing as a percentage of IPA rotators’ salary and fringe benefits  increased from about 7 percent in fiscal year 2016 to about 8 percent in  fiscal year 2017.

NSF officials told us that of the 55 IPA rotators who were subject to the  cost-sharing requirement in fiscal year 2017:  the home institutions for 54 rotators met or exceeded the 10  percent cost-share requirement, and of those, 16 exceeded the  cost-share requirement; and  the home institution for 1 rotator did not cost-share because the  rotator was from a Federally Funded Research and Development  Center and NSF waived the cost-share requirement because cost- sharing would not decrease the overall federal cost.

In November 2017, NSF decided to extend the cost-sharing pilot through  at least the end of fiscal year 2018, to ensure a full evaluation could be  conducted. In particular, NSF officials told us that they need more data  and experience with this pilot program to better understand its effects,  such as the ability to recruit potential IPA rotators. For example, one IPA  rotator that we interviewed expressed concern with the cost-sharing  requirement’s potential effect on small or publicly funded universities,  which may lack funds to contribute to the cost of an IPA assignment.  According to NSF officials, their evaluation will include an analysis of the  cost of IPA rotators under the cost-sharing requirement and its effect on  the IPA program, including recruitment.

Limitation on NSF-Funded Trips to IPA Rotators’ Home Institutions

Beginning in fiscal year 2017, for IPA rotators who entered into  negotiations for new agreements in that fiscal year, NSF placed a limit of  12 agency-funded trips per year that rotators may take to their home  institutions under the Independent Research and Development  program. In our analysis of data from NSF, we found that NSF’s costs  for IPA rotators under this program decreased from about $1.5 million  (about 3 percent of IPA rotator costs) in fiscal year 2016 to $1.1 million  (about 3 percent of IPA rotator costs) in fiscal year 2017.

NSF officials told us that the new limit applies only to an IPA rotator’s trips  to their home institution and does not limit travel to other locations for  fieldwork or scientific conferences, among other things. These officials  explained that NSF chose not to limit trips to these other locations  because they are considered fundamental to IPA rotators’ research and  are infrequent—occurring one to three times per year, on average, per  IPA rotator. Additionally, rotators are permitted to use annual leave, leave  without pay, or flexitime to take trips using non-NSF funds for activities  performed on a rotator’s own time.

In adopting this cost-management strategy, NSF sought to balance the  benefits of IPA rotators’ travel with the travel costs. According to the Task  Force on Fiscal Oversight’s October 2016 report, NSF’s support for travel  benefits the agency by providing a way for program directors and  executives to stay current in their scientific fields, conduct outreach with  scientific communities, and provide oversight and stewardship of NSF’s  programs and awards. NSF officials told us that the agency sought to  control travel costs under the Independent Research and Development  program by setting a reasonable limit to NSF-funded trips that would  cause the least harm to rotators’ research so as not to discourage them  from coming to NSF. As a result, NSF decided on a maximum of 12 trips  per year under this program because, historically, more than 80 percent  of the IPA rotator participants traveled to their home institution less than  once per month.

Elimination of Reimbursement for Lost Consulting Income

In fiscal year 2017, for IPA rotators who entered into new agreements in  that fiscal year, NSF ended reimbursements for consulting income that  the rotators forgo as a result of their assignment to NSF. Previously,  when an IPA rotator discontinued consulting activities during an IPA assignment, NSF would reimburse the rotator up to $10,000 a year. IPA  rotators who entered into negotiations or agreements with NSF prior to  this change may still receive this reimbursement. In fiscal year 2017,  NSF’s cost for lost consulting reimbursements to IPA rotators was  $150,000. This amount represented a decrease of about $160,000, or  about 52 percent, from fiscal year 2016. NSF made this change because  it determined that doing so would not negatively affect the IPA program.  In particular, NSF found that other federal science agencies typically did  not reimburse IPA rotators for lost consulting income and it concluded  that IPA rotators typically do not expect NSF to offer reimbursement.

NSF Did Not Adopt Certain Cost-Management Strategies It Considered Because of Small Cost Savings or Potential Negative Effects

In addition to the three adopted strategies, NSF’s Task Force on Fiscal  Oversight identified other potential cost management strategies for the  IPA program. The task force reviewed various data on the costs that  make up the IPA program, such as the number of IPA rotators who  received a particular form of compensation or who would be affected by  the potential strategies. In addition, the task force took into account  anecdotal and other evidence on how IPA rotators might react to the  strategies. Using input from the task force, NSF opted against the other  potential strategies because it either (1) expected the resulting cost  savings to be small or (2) anticipated potential negative effects from  implementing them, such as increased difficulty in hiring IPA rotators.  These potential cost-management strategies primarily related to IPA  rotator compensation, as described below.

Capping IPA rotators’ salaries. NSF decided against  establishing a salary cap for IPA rotators at various levels  between about $185,000 and $240,000 annually. The task force  found that salary caps at lower levels would have greater cost  savings because of the higher number of individuals covered by  the cap, but that the caps would also pose a significant risk to  NSF’s ability to recruit IPA rotators. In particular, the task force  found that salary caps at lower levels would disproportionately  affect IPA rotators in two of its directorates—the Directorate for  Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the  Directorate for Engineering—because of the higher salaries of  individuals in positions associated with those fields. As a result,  the task force recommended that NSF first assess the effects of  its cost-sharing pilot program before proceeding with any cap on  IPA rotators’ salaries.

Reducing or eliminating IPA rotators’ supplemental pay. NSF  decided against reducing or eliminating the supplemental pay that  IPA rotators receive when their salary at their home institution is  below the minimum for their NSF position. In fiscal year 2017,  NSF’s cost for IPA rotators’ supplemental pay was $1.0 million  (about 3 percent of IPA rotator costs). The task force  recommended against this potential cost-management strategy  because it would disproportionately affect IPA rotators in two of its  directorates—the Directorate for Biological Sciences and the  Directorate for Geosciences. In addition, the task force expected  that any cost savings associated with this strategy would be  small.

Reducing IPA rotators’ per diem payments. NSF decided  against reducing or eliminating per diem payments for lodging  (excluding taxes), meals, and incidental expenses incurred during  the length of rotators’ assignments. In fiscal year 2017, NSF’s cost  for per diem payments was $3.1 million (about 8 percent of IPA  costs). The task force concluded, based on its analysis of per  diem costs and anecdotal evidence, that many IPA rotators would  opt to depart NSF if NSF did not provide per diem payments. As a  result, the task force recommended against this strategy.

NSF Has Not Developed a Workforce Strategy for Using Rotators or Fully Evaluated Rotator Program Results NSF Has Not Developed an Agency-Wide Workforce Strategy for Balancing Rotators and Federal Staff

As of June 2018, NSF had not developed an agency-wide workforce  strategy for using rotators, as its IPA program steering committee  recommended. In addition, NSF has not fully evaluated or developed  plans to evaluate both IPA and VSEE rotator program results in terms of  progress toward NSF’s human capital goals or programmatic results.

As of June 2018, NSF had not developed an agency-wide workforce  strategy that includes use of rotators, as NSF’s IPA program steering  committee had recommended. In an August 2016 report on the IPA  program, the steering committee stated that NSF did not have an agency- wide workforce strategy; instead, each directorate made decisions on its  own about when and how to use IPA rotators in executive and program  director positions. According to the report, an agency-wide framework  would enable NSF to ensure an optimal balance of federal and rotator  executives and program directors, which is a strategic principle that the  steering committee developed for the IPA program.

In February 2017, the committee issued an internal report to agency  leadership that recommended expanding what was originally envisioned  as a workforce strategy for the IPA program into a comprehensive  agency-wide workforce strategy. The report stated that expanding the  scope of the workforce strategy would have the greatest impact across  the agency and would help NSF leadership in making strategic human  capital decisions. The report outlined a process for developing a  workforce strategy with various steps, including the following:

Job analyses. The report recommended job analyses to review  the roles and responsibilities of executive and staff-level positions  and to identify the skills and capabilities required for successful  performance of the work. According to the report, the steering  committee’s working group for developing a workforce strategy  found, based on its initial efforts to review position descriptions  and roles and responsibilities, that some functions may be better  served if performed by permanent federal employees and other  functions by rotators. However, the working group concluded that  NSF should obtain additional input and evidence before initiating  large-scale changes in its workforce.

Analysis of workforce gaps and surpluses. The report stated  that identifying gaps and surpluses in the demand and supply for  federal and rotator scientific staff would inform opportunities to  optimize recruitment and retention efforts. The report  recommended separate analyses for executive and scientific staff- level positions.

Development of strategies to close workforce gaps and  address surpluses. According to the steering committee’s report,  examples of strategies include succession planning and  rebalancing the mix of permanent federal staff and rotators to  ensure an optimal workforce with the skills, experience, and  capabilities to accomplish NSF’s science-related work.

According to NSF officials, the agency’s Division of Human Resource  Management was responsible for implementing the steering committee’s  recommendation. In particular, it undertook an effort to work with senior  leadership to develop a broad strategic workforce plan for the agency.  However, in June 2018, NSF officials told us that they shifted their focus  from developing a separate workforce strategy in order to focus instead  on (1) development of a human capital operating plan, which agencies  are required to develop and approve annually, and update as needed,  under OPM regulations that went into effect on April 11, 2017; and (2) an  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum issued in April  2017 directing agency heads to develop reform plans that identify ways to  improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of their  respective agencies. The NSF officials explained that they recognized the  value in having a workforce strategy, but they did not consider it  appropriate for the Division of Human Resource Management to develop  a workforce strategy at the same time that the agency was completing the  OPM and OMB plans.

NSF did not specify how its efforts to complete the OPM and OMB plans  would address the need the steering committee identified for an agency- wide framework that would enable NSF to ensure an optimal balance of  federal and rotator executives and program directors. In particular, NSF’s  human capital operating plan, which it approved in April 2018, does not  discuss NSF’s use of rotators or include information on balancing the agency’s use of rotators with permanent staff. Furthermore, NSF has not  yet determined how it will address its use of rotators as part of its agency  reform plan. In particular, NSF officials told us in June 2018 that they may  address the agency’s use of rotators under the workforce focus area of its  reform plan, but that they were only just beginning to identify and select  initiatives under this focus area and that these initiatives have not yet  been finalized.

The process the NSF steering committee laid out in its internal report,  when implemented, would align with two key principles GAO has  identified for effective strategic workforce planning. Specifically, it would  align with the principles of (1) determining the skills and competencies  that are critical to successfully achieving missions and goals, and (2)  developing human capital strategies to address gaps and enable the  contribution of critical skills and competencies needed for mission  success. By incorporating the NSF’s steering committee’s  recommendation for a workforce strategy—and the process outlined by  the steering committee for developing this strategy—into its human  capital operating plan or agency reform plan, NSF could better manage  its use of rotators and balance them with its permanent staff.

NSF Has Not Fully Evaluated the Rotator Program’s Progress toward Human Capital Goals or Their Programmatic Results

We have previously found that high-performing organizations recognize  the fundamental importance of measuring both the outcomes of human  capital strategies and how these outcomes have helped the organizations  accomplish their missions and programmatic goals. However, as of May  2018, NSF had not fully evaluated and did not have plans to evaluate the  results of its IPA and VSEE rotator programs in terms of progress toward  human capital goals and the contributions the programs made toward  achieving programmatic results. One of GAO’s key principles for effective  strategic workforce planning states that agencies should monitor and  evaluate progress toward the agencies’ human capital goals and the  contribution that human capital results have made toward achieving  programmatic results. In particular, we previously found that evaluation  activities can improve the effectiveness of workforce strategies by  identifying shortfalls in performance and other improvement opportunities.

OPM also requires agencies to develop a human capital operating plan  that will support the evaluation of the agency’s human capital strategies.

In March 2014, NSF published a summary of the results of focus groups  with IPA rotators and their supervisors. This summary outlined benefits  and challenges of the program from the perspectives of both groups, such  as the benefit of bringing fresh perspective and new ideas to NSF and the  challenge of recruiting and retaining qualified IPA rotators. However, the  summary did not provide the agency’s assessment of progress towards  programmatic results and human capital goals. For example, it  summarized the benefits of the program from the standpoint of rotators  and did not provide NSF’s assessment of how individual IPA rotators or  the program as a whole contributed to NSF’s scientific mission. In  addition, the summary did not provide an assessment of the extent to  which the current workforce balance of federal and rotator executives and  program directors is aligned with NSF’s work. In our semistructured  interviews with federal staff and rotators in executive and staff-level  positions at NSF, most were comfortable with the current balance, but  three individuals raised concerns about the use of rotators in executive  positions, suggesting that NSF could benefit from further analysis of its  balance of rotators and federal staff.

In April 2018, NSF adopted its human capital operating plan which  identifies specific, short-term actions that the agency will take to achieve  its human capital goals. In its plan, NSF identified strategies derived from  NSF’s commitment to ongoing improvement, such as reviewing and  realigning its workforce to meet future needs. Also, NSF’s process for  developing a workforce strategy, outlined in the steering committee’s  February 2017 internal report, included recommendations to conduct an  assessment of the outcomes of workforce strategies and the impact of  these outcomes on helping NSF accomplish its scientific mission and  related programmatic goals. However, plans for this assessment did not  include an evaluation of the agency’s rotator programs. Moreover, neither  the steering committee’s February 2017 internal report nor NSF’s April  2018 report committed to conducting such an evaluation or specified how  assessments described in its reports would address NSF’s rotator  programs. For example, neither report specified how NSF would evaluate  the extent to which the rotator programs have achieved NSF’s objectives,  which we identified through our review of NSF documentation and  interviews with NSF officials. These objectives include: bringing fresh perspectives from across the country and across all  fields of science and engineering supported by NSF; helping influence new directions for research in science,  engineering, and education, including emerging interdisciplinary  fields; providing scientific leadership and management of NSF’s research  and education programs; and providing opportunities for researchers to gain first-hand  knowledge of the philosophy and mechanisms of federal support  for research and bring this knowledge back to their home  institutions.

According to NSF officials, the agency has not separately evaluated the  results of its rotator programs in part because rotators are blended into its  permanent federal workforce, making it difficult to evaluate the results of  its rotator programs separately from those of its overall workforce. In our  December 2003 report on key principles for effective strategic workforce  planning, we found that federal agencies in general have experienced  difficulties in defining practical and meaningful measures that assess the  effects human capital strategies have on programmatic results. However,  without an evaluation of the extent of the rotator programs’ contributions  toward NSF’s human capital goals or programmatic results, NSF is limited  in its ability to demonstrate the programs’ benefits to external  stakeholders, such as the Congress, and to adjust the programs, if  warranted. Such adjustments could include increasing or decreasing the  use of rotators overall or in certain types of positions, such as executive  or staff-level positions.

In recent years, NSF has recognized the need to think more strategically  about its use of rotators and has taken positive steps to manage its  rotator programs. For example, beginning in fiscal year 2017, NSF  adopted several strategies to manage the cost of rotators. However, as of  June 2018, NSF had decided against developing a separate agency-wide  strategy for balancing its use of IPA rotators and federal staff, as NSF’s  steering committee for the IPA program recommended in February 2017.  NSF officials said that they recognized the value in having a workforce  strategy but wanted to focus instead on addressing OPM and OMB  requirements related to workforce planning. By following through on the  steering committee’s recommendation for a workforce strategy, NSF  could better manage its use of rotators and balance them with its  permanent staff.

Moreover, as of June 2018, NSF had not fully evaluated the results of the  rotator programs, as called for by key principles for effective strategic  workforce planning. NSF officials told us they have not done so, in part,  because rotators are blended into NSF’s permanent federal workforce,  making it difficult to evaluate the results of its rotator program separately  from those of its overall workforce. However, without an evaluation of the  extent of the rotator programs’ contributions toward NSF’s human capital  goals or programmatic results, NSF is limited in its ability to demonstrate  the programs’ benefits to external stakeholders, such as the Congress,  and to adjust the programs, if warranted.

We are making the following two recommendations to NSF:   The NSF Director of Human Resource Management should complete the  development of an agency-wide workforce strategy for balancing the  agency’s use of IPA and VSEE rotators with permanent staff as part of  NSF’s current agency reform planning efforts or updates to its human  capital operating plan. (Recommendation 1)

The NSF Director of Human Resource Management should evaluate the  contributions of the IPA and VSEE rotator programs toward NSF’s human  capital goals and the contributions the programs have made toward  achieving programmatic results. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to NSF for comment. In its written  comments, which are reproduced in appendix I, NSF concurred with our  recommendations and stated that implementation of the  recommendations will enhance efforts to fulfill the agency’s mission and  strengthen its workforce. NSF also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies to the appropriate Congressional Committees, the  Director of the National Science Foundation, and other interested parties.  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the National Science Foundation

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Joseph Cook (Assistant  Director), Nkenge Gibson, Kathryn Smith, and Douglas Hunker made key  contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Antoinette  Capaccio, Serena Lo, Timothy Guinane, Cynthia Norris, and Sara  Sullivan.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) brings in outside scientists, engineers, and educators on temporary, rotational assignment to work with its staff of permanent federal employees to help decide which projects the agency will fund.

NSF wants to take a more strategic approach to managing its rotating staff. However, these rotating staff are blended with permanent staff, making it difficult to evaluate the cost and benefits of their contributions to NSF projects.

We recommended that NSF develop a strategy to balance the use of rotating and permanent staff and evaluate the benefits of using rotating staff.