Rotators in NSF’s IPA and VSEE programs differ in key respects,  including their employment status and compensation. However, because VSEE rotators are federal employees,  NSF caps their salaries at the federal maximum for the position  they hold at NSF. 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. 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. 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 officials told us they  expect to issue a report with the results of evaluations of all three  strategies in December 2018. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.