FR 2024-28137

The document is a notice from the National Science Foundation (NSF), published in the Federal Register, inviting public comments on a proposed information collection. This initiative is part of the NSF's efforts to evaluate its capabilities in managing data and evidence, specifically through the 2026 U.S. NSF Integrated Data and Evidence Maturity and Capacity (IDEMC) Assessment. The overarching goal is to enhance evidence-based decision-making and align with updated guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Public feedback is encouraged by January 31, 2025.

General Summary

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the NSF proposes to collect information to assess its data and evidence capabilities. It intends to conduct surveys, focus groups, and interviews with its staff to draw insights for strategic planning and compliance with federal requirements. The analysis will inform reports that will help NSF in its decision-making processes.

Significant Issues and Concerns

The document raises several issues. Firstly, the estimated respondent burden and cost are based on a general hourly rate, without a detailed breakdown. This approach may not capture the potential variances in roles or geographic differences, possibly affecting the accuracy of cost estimation.

While the abstract emphasizes continuous improvement in decision-making processes, the document lacks clear metrics for monitoring or measuring such improvements post-assessment. Additionally, although reports and data briefs are promised, there's no clarity on their public accessibility or how they will be communicated to stakeholders. Concerns about confidentiality and neutrality in handling the collected information are not addressed, leaving questions about potential conflicts of interest unresolved.

Lastly, the document invites comments on the necessity of the information collection, yet it doesn't explicitly outline how input from the public will be integrated into the final decision-making process.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, this endeavor underscores NSF's commitment to enhancing its data capabilities, which, ideally, should lead to more informed and effective policy decisions. It is a part of broader federal efforts to streamline processes and reduce bureaucratic burden. However, the indirect nature of public impact may obscure the importance of participation, unless NSF manages to effectively communicate the tangible benefits stemming from this assessment.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For NSF staff, this initiative represents both an opportunity and a burden. On one hand, they are central to providing insights that could drive improvements; on the other, the time required for participation might disrupt regular duties. Policymakers, data analysts, and stakeholders within the scientific community stand to benefit from enhanced NSF capabilities, which could improve resource allocation, project outcomes, and forecasting abilities based on robust evidence.

Conclusion

The document outlines a potentially significant step in NSF's strategic planning and evaluation processes, but it requires fine-tuning in terms of transparency, stakeholder communication, and procedural clarity. Feedback mechanisms, thorough cost analysis, and public accessibility of results will be crucial in ensuring that the NSF's effort translates into meaningful improvements.

The document from the National Science Foundation (NSF) regarding the proposed information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act includes several references to financial considerations, specifically focusing on the costs to respondents.

Firstly, the document estimates the overall annualized cost to respondents to be $46,750. This figure is an aggregate of the time and effort required by NSF staff to participate in the survey, focus groups, and interviews associated with the 2026 U.S. NSF Integrated Data and Evidence Maturity and Capacity (IDEMC) Assessment. The mention of this cost highlights the financial burden anticipated by the NSF in conducting these activities.

To provide a specific understanding of this cost estimate, the document cites an average hourly rate of $50. This rate is derived from data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), suggesting that this figure is representative of comparable federal roles, such as "Management Analysts." The document further notes that this hourly rate aligns with General Schedule (GS) pay rates for GS-12 and GS-13 employees, typical of NSF staff, including locality adjustments for the Washington, DC area.

One of the identified issues with the financial references is the lack of a detailed breakdown of how these costs are calculated beyond the general hourly rate. While the document mentions the overall cost and an hourly rate, it does not provide a precise method of how each aspect, such as the number of hours expected from each participant type (survey respondent versus focus group participant), contributes to the total cost estimate. Consequently, there may be potential variances in roles or regions that are not fully captured or explained, leaving some ambiguity regarding the financial burden's distribution.

Furthermore, while the document highlights the importance of refining the evaluation framework to enhance evidence-based decision-making, it does not delineate how the effectiveness of such financial expenditures will be monitored or measured. It remains unclear how these expenditures will translate into tangible improvements or whether the costs are justified by the anticipated outcomes.

In conclusion, while the document provides an overview of anticipated costs for undertaking the IDEMC Assessment, there is a need for a more detailed and transparent financial analysis to understand the full scope and justification of these expenditures. This would also help address concerns related to ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and that the outcomes substantiate the financial commitments.