National Science Board 487th Meeting – Day 1

≫ DAN REED: All right. Welcome back, everyone. We'll pick up here after lunch. And at this point, we'll turn to approval of the open board meeting minutes. I can say these words. From the November 2023 meeting. They're in the diligent board book tabbed 2.4. Any corrections to the minutes? Hearing no corrections, they'll stand as presented. At this point, we will turn to the beginning of committee reports. And so we're going to begin with the Committee on External Engagement. And miracle

of technology, just in time, Dario has appeared approximate I'll turn the floor over to him for the beginning of the updates. Dario? ≫ DARIO GIL: Thank you very much. And to all, as you heard earlier from Dan, we're continuing to talk to Congress and others about the crisis to meet critical needs. Both across government and industry. A couple of important observations. So first, data from the board science and engineering indicators are important to illustrating the urgency. A couple o

f examples. Math assessment in 2022 captured the largest declining scores for 3rd and 8th graders. With disproportionate number of students who are Black or from low-income families. Secondly nearly 1.4 million fewer undergraduates enrolled in 2022 than before the pandemic. And community colleges enrollment fell by 351,000 students between '21 and '22. And STEM jobs continue to grow faster than non-STEM jobs. And yet we know, as the board has been discussing with Congress and others, t

hat government agencies such as the Department of Defense and industry sectors are struggling to meet needs such as semiconductors, cyber and quantum. Maureen will talk in a minute. NSB will publish its Congressionally mandated science and engineering report next month. We plan to concurrently release a policy brief that will highlight indicators data that further underscore the urgency to do more to develop domestic talent and welcome international talent. In a few minutes, Maureen wil

l lead the discussion and a draft of this brief called Talent is the Treasure. And finally, the talent working groups will work to provide additional policy briefs and key data. Such as on the skilled technical workforce that the board will then use in engaging with policymakers, industry leaders and others. And very lastly, we will hold our next External Engagement retreat on April 22nd. So, I'll give it back to you, Dan. ≫ DAN REED: Thank you, Dario. Any questions or comments on that

summary? Seeing none, I will -- well, Maureen is not quite here yet. So let me expand a little bit on a couple of things that Dario just said. We are planning to roll out the indicators next month. And at this point, we're expecting to do that in collaboration with the White House. We plan to do it with broader participation and highlighting the critical issues that Dario just mentioned. The decline in STEM performance post COVID that continues. The critical need for workforce. And

the broad set of issues around that. I think it really is incumbent upon us. And we just spent most of the morning talking about the challenges and opportunities around AI. Which that is only one critical technology for economic -- continued economic security. But also deeply tied to broader national security issues. How we ensure we have a broad, deep bench of STEM educated talent that's representative of the broad diversity of population is really critical to our future. I mentioned in m

y opening remark, our conversation with nonprofits and AAAS around this whole set of issues around how we communicate that need in a coherent way in order to move political action. With that setup, I'll hand the floor over to Maureen to talk about the SEP policy and talent is the treasure policy brief. Maureen? ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Well, thank you very much, Dan. In my report on today, I'll spend a few minutes on committee projects. So, first, an overview of some of our work and our goals for t

his board's cycle. Of course, we will cover science and engineering indicators 2024. The release of the state of the U.S. science and engineering is coming out next month. So middle of the month. And in a moment, we'll discuss and vote on policy message or messages to accompany the rollout of this policy-neutral report. But we're also looking ahead to indicators 2026 in collaboration with our colleagues at the national center for science inteng earring statistics. We're hoping to make

some pretty significant changes that will make indicators maximally useful for all of our stakeholders. And hopefully attract some new stakeholders as well. We're also trying to streamline the reports. Make them easier for people to use. And make them easier for us to produce as a way of making the data more accessible. And, finally, we're going to hear from the two SEP policy teams that have been working and are still hard at work on topics of national security and STEM talent. So,

much of the committee's effort is in support of the board's priority of addressing the national STEM talent crisis. In close coordination with the External Engagement Committee. Let's turn first to Indicators 2024. The committee and the board have all been, as I'm sure you will recall, have been hard at work reviewing and releasing the thematic reports. So many thanks to our NCCS collaborators and authors who prepare these reports. Since we last met, two reports have been released. Pub

lications output, U.S. trends and international comparisons. And the science and technology public awareness and information sources. Those two reports for our cycle are out. And I encourage everyone watching today to check out these reports and their important findings. Thematic reports on innovation, technology and intents in industries are planned for release before our next board meeting in May. So, they are in final stages of preparation. And will be going out within the next coupl

e of months. The summary report or the state of the U.S. science inteng earring, which serves as our board's Congressional deliverable, will be released mid March. This explores science inteng earring in a global context. Tracking STEM into industry and society. So I am very excited about the quality of these reports and, to some extent also very concerned about the data they present. We have some pretty depressing and important findings being reported that I think deserve a great deal of

attention for the nation and for people making decisions. We're also working on companion piece. Each cycle the committee works hard to develop a product that aligns with the board's priorities. And is deeply rooted in the data and analysis that comes out of the science and engineering indicators report. You'll find a draft of this policy piece in your board book on tab 2.6. Our tentative title at this point is Talent is the Treasure. It works to synthesize across a large number of topi

cs that we have spent a lot of time discussing and working on. So, key indicators from the indicators suite. Including the K-12 test scores that have just come out. Global comparisons of AI publications and basic research funding. All of our board's many discussions on STEM talent crisis. And talent policy messaging and recommendations that the SEP has incubated for the past few years. And training for students to enter the STEM workforce. The important role of socioeconomic status. And a

ffordability in STEM education. The skilled technical workforce that we focused on for a long while now. Addressing the missing millions. And addressing the issues of foreign-born talent. Both our reliance on foreign-born STEM talent. And the challenges in recruiting and retaining people, talent from other countries to supply our workforce. So, before we begin any discussion of this draft document, I would like to remind the board members today that our discussion should not include any

specifics about the data and analysis that are present in the indicators. So, the data contents of the documents is embargoed until March. So please limit your questions to high-level topics or data that have already been released. The math reports I mentioned earlier have already been issued in this cycle. If you have any specific details on the document, details, the data or any analysis contained in it, please send written comments to myself, to Suresh and to Amanda. So that we can

address those concerns. Also, in your board book, this is just a first draft of our policy piece. To provide a look and feel. I would like to be clear that additional edits in response to both the written feedback and any discussion we have today can certainly be incorporated. There's going to be further copy editing and design improvements, clarifications. And we will certainly do our best to incorporate any suggestions that are made today by board members. If you would like to send

written comments, please try to do so by close of business February 26th. Just so we can stay current with our production scheduling. So, with that, do we have any discussion about this piece that's in your board book? ≫ DAN REED: Julia? ≫ Julia Phillips: I'm delighted to see it. I've read -- actually, this is not the first draft. As you know, this is probably about 35th one. It keeps getting better with every iteration. I'm really pleased to see how it actually dovetails very nicely

with the last policy companion that we had. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Yes. ≫ Julie Phillips: That covered more topics but hit this one pretty hard. It also provides a cover of umbrella under the policy things that the two working groups are working on pretty hard. And so I think we have the opportunity to really get a really good one-two or one-to-three punch on those. I've always said the first time you say something doesn't get heard anyway. You might be preparing the soil. And then the seed ge

rminates with repeated telling. I like it very much. I think it's hard-hitting. I've provided some specific comments. But in general, I think it's really good. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Wonderful. Wonderful. I value your opinion quite highly. So I'm really glad to see that this is improving. And I agree with Julia. That it does provide some really good context for, perhaps, even more focused follow-up pieces from the working groups. Any other thoughts, ideas, or input? ≫ DAN REED: Any other

questions or comments? Sorry, Sureesh. suresh? ≫ Sureesh Garimella: How do we fertilize, I guess? ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I certainly plan to emphasize major points in the release of the neutral report. But any suggestions you might have, Suresh, would be very welcome . ≫ DAN REED: One of the things I have opined over the years is you try to convince, motivate action one of two ways. Either because it's straightforwardedly, obviously the right thing to do. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Yeah. ≫ DAN REED:

By a variety of metrics. Sometimes that works. In other cases you motivate it because they may not necessarily see the imperative. But they recognize it's in their interest to do that thing. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Right. ≫ DAN REED: Both are effective strategies to get action. I suspect most of us tend to fall into the first category. We'll explain our logic and position. You will immediately grasp it and pursue that. And if you don't, we will go into more detail and you will immediately gr

asp and pursue it. That doesn't work in reality. So how this gets traction is really important. That speak, in some sense, to competitiveness and national security issues. Though, I think, are the things that will get political traction. From that, we then get the ethical values that we think are important. That, I think, is sort of broadly how we need, in my humble opinion, how we strategize around that. ≫ To your question, how do we do that? The report is so important. The messengers

are important. At first thought maybe we take this to the AAU and APU president. And see if they can all add their voice. Really we want CEOs and companies to add their voice to this thing. Perhaps it's through Dario's committee or something. But I'm not suggesting we've not done this. But maybe a careful layout of fertilization plan, if you will. Or essentially getting the word out. With try to get a bunch of little CEOs to tien on. Talent is the Treasure to be used by whom? By and

large these companies, right? Of course, universities use it, too. So maybe we should think through how to get a few influential folks to pick that up, or the IBM CEO or something. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: We do have some comments on this. ≫ We will be doing the virtual press briefing that we do every cycle. Prerelease. So they will be ready it release their stories when the embargo lifts in March. And invited the board to do the release there. It certainly has the potential to have a real

big oomph. There will be the in-person option. Everyone in the world can tune in virtually. That's the plan. Finally, we are bringing back the in-person public briefings that we did pre-pandemic on the Hill. Both Senate and House side. That's the sort of short snapshot. ≫ Suresh Garimella: Is it possible to get a couple of influential CEOs to be there? ≫ Yes. In fact, we sent a proposed invite list yesterday. They'll be weighing in as well to add to that. Yes. ≫ JULIA PHILLIPS: I agre

e that getting leaders in the private sector is critically important. The other thing is I think given where we are in the world, I think we absolutely have to play the national security card as well. And so DOD, the private sector that connects with national security strongly. Because there's a huge imperative there. And, I mean, Marvi is going to talk about that a little later. Both sides -- because the security of the nation depends on both economic security and national security d

efense. ≫ Just want to echo what you said, Julia. We've heard that two years. It covers everything we talked about today from Antarctic to fellow graduateships. After Dan and I talked to APLU, one of the things they're going to consider is once Indicators is released is putting out a joint statement in support of that. Okay? That's all the VPRs. For the public universities. And also mentioning the important point. Which I think they're now getting convinced to. Research is importan

t. It's inextricably linked to workforce. And public universities where a lot of them are EPSCoR, they need to go back to their roots. Taking your line, Panch. The thing you like to say about bench to benefits. Got to get to that. They're thinking about putting out a joint statement after, you know, we release our indicators. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Wonderful. Excellent news. Thank you. Any further thought, ideas, comments? Particularly focused on the release of this companion piece. Beca

use we are going to have to have a vote on this today. So, any -- like now. Any burning issues would be helpful to discuss them. So that people can vote on a proposal that would incorporate any of their concerns. All right. Well, I really endorse everything that everyone has said about the importance of -- I hate to say the negative messaging. But the messaging that really rings an alarm. That this is not just our opinion. But it is something that impacts national security. Something t

hat impacts economic welfare and our competitiveness in an international forum. I think all three of those are going to be important things for us. In addition to it's the right thing to do. Yep. Deborah? ≫ Deborah: I think that's right. But sometimes we end up recycling the solutions that don't work in the past. That's not the mandate of this report. But I wonder what we might be doing that the reaction of this doesn't just recycle things every decade and don't really help. Maybe th

at's a broader board question. I've been thinking a lot about this. I think I raised this last time as well. It is important for people to see what the problems are. But I'm not sure it's helping them think about, A, what happens caused them. Or because of that, therefore, what it is that would help to address them. And that does feel like that's in our scope somehow. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: We talk a lot, largely on your inspiration, Deborah, putting together best practice recommendations

. Is that something that we can feasibly entertain in terms of getting an actual sort of short list of these are the things that have been tried and haven't worked. And these are the things that have been tried and have worked. ≫ DEBORAH BALL: And it may not be as binary as that. But to ensure what things are working. Repeated investments in curricula materials K-12. Curricula materials don't teach. Yet that's one of the easiest things to keep investing in. But curricula materials do m

atter. I can imagine some sort of research-based, evidence-based report that suggests why certain things do keep coming up. Investing in teacher training makes a difference. But it doesn't necessarily work in how it's implemented. So it's we need to think of new things and what happens not worked about the things that make sense to us to try? What do we know about what it to make them work? That's still what you're saying. It may not be throw all that out and try something new. But why

are the things we keep trying are not actually addressing a problem? I think we could produce such a list. ≫ MARVI RODRIGUEZ: And also what are lessons learned from the past that may not be best practices, right? Both sides are important. Maybe that's the way to convey the message. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I agree. I think that's what Deborah is saying. There may be approaches in general that are a good idea. Our their implementation has been flawed. Or the funding has been inadequate.

Or the duration has been too short to really see an impact. And so we don't want, say, teacher training to be thrown out the window. Because in some cases it's been ineffective. Because, you know, there might be reasons why it has been ineffective. Lessons learned. What we tried that we know works. We what we've tried, but maybe not in quite the right way. What we tried and seems to not be effective. All right. ≫ SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN: I just wanted to say this. Great piece of work. T

en years now. Every iteration is better than the previous iteration, clearly. But what I find is that the amount of update in terms of what is to be present through these reports has not increased a whole lot. So in terms of implementation, action items that come out of this that we'll actually make happen ppt more we're able to do in this situation, the more it will be valuable. For example, you say industry. What do we want industry to do? Yes, the people who take all the talent. But w

hat do you want them to do? Do you want them to more partner with agencies or academia? Toward what end? These are helpful conversations that come out of it. A set of action items. I think will make this report and all the efforts produced in this report be useful for the longer term. Not just the immediate update that happens. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I think Suresh was intending to have people from the private sector amplify the message. Have them add their weight behind the importance

of and need for a focus on talent. But in terms of what you want them to do, I think that is actually a really important question. ≫ Suresh Garimella: That could the one, two, three, four, five punch where maybe they support the event. And we continue to work with them about how to partner. And, you know, are they going to help us double the GFRPs or something like this? So I think that can be a follow-up thing, too. I think as part of this, to come up with ideal solutions, if you l

or increased solutions to this thing, how can we work together to make this happen? ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Well, I agree with you, Suresh. It's a well-established psychological principle that if you can convince someone to do a small favor for you, they are more likely to ally to your cause and give you a big favor in the future. Right? So I think getting industry to -- or industry leaders to commit to amplifying and supporting the message at the beginning will make them more likely and more

incline to -- it puts it on people's radar. And allows them to look -- to commit more fully to actually being partners. And so maybe that is the third or fourth punch down the road. All right. Thank you. ≫ DAN REED: Wait, there's more. ≫ SURESH BABU: We are also thinking about engaging local, state and local elements, too. Some of the data is -- for them also. Just to add on to that. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Thank you. ≫ DAN REED: Anybody else? All right. Maureen, please go ahead. ≫ MAUREEN COND

IC: Thank you, everyone. I'm going to hand the floor back to Dan for a vote. ≫ DAN REED: All right. Oh, Mel? ≫ Melvyn Huff: One has to look for robust techniques. It can't be you get exactly this amount of money and do it exactly this way with exactly this people that will work. It has to be -- participation and still work. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Yeah. ≫ DAN REED: Thank you for that. Okay. As SEP has reported to the full board, policy companion brief to the science and engineering indicato

rs 2024 release pending minor edits. Remember Maureen's -- to amend comments. Is there a motion to approve? ≫ So moved. ≫ DAN REED: Thank you. Second? ≫ Second. ≫ DAN REED: With a motion and second on the floor to approve the policy companion brief, Talent is the Treasure as presented and pending minor edits, any further discussion? All right. The motion before the board is to vote on the policy companion brief as presented, pending minor edits. Please make sure your audio is not muted. Al

l those in favor say aye. [ Chorus of Ayes ] ≫ DAN REED: All opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? Motion carried. Thank you. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Yay! Well, thank you for your support. And all the work that everyone has put into making this document. And making the message get out clearly. So, my next item is a brief report on committee discussions with NCCSS on potential changes to indicators structure and approach in 2026. So, we are likely head towards a vote on these changes at our May

board meeting. And also maybe a more extensive presentation from NCSES. What may be helpful is people have voiced concerns. We don't necessarily need to restate those concerns. If anything appears to be important as a message for NCSES and input early on in this remodeling process, it would be helpful to have it out on the table now. At our last SEP committee meeting, NCSES shared and SEP members discuss aid draft plan to streamline the reports. And to make the data more accessible. S

o the goal is to make under caters maximally useful for everyone, our current stakeholders and to expand the scope of stakeholders in the future. NCSES proposal included a vision for maintaining relevancy and maintaining breadth and depth by strategically choosing the product in which policy-relevant indicators are presented. Proposed products are three thematic reports. One on talent. One on discovery. And one on translation. One summary report, which is Congressionally mandated. The

U.S. state of science and engineering. Data dashboards that will be piloted in 2026 and continue to be improved in future cycles. And a number -- the number yet to be determined -- of short sort of quick, turnaround publications on timely topics. So one of the big advantages, in my mind, of moving indicators to a smaller format and a more electronic format is exactly the responsiveness that that will enable. When data appears and needs to be amplified, we'll have the opportunity to do

that. And the bandwidth to do it. Committee discussions were generally enthusiastic. More discussion on how current indicators will be cross-walked into will be key. This is upcoming from NCSES. Sort of a look-up table of what's currently in indicators would map to these three shorter reports without expanding them to the same length as the current nine reports. And I think some novel, analytic approaches such as indices that provide readers with how science and engineering is structure

d would strengthen the vision. If any other committee members would like to add comment, thoughts, or reflections on our discussion for the board in general, that would be helpful. Or if there's any further board discussion. Things that are important to note at this early stage. ≫ DAN REED: Any comments or question? Suresh, your hand is still up. Is that from the previous ♫ ≫ SURESH BABU: I was going to say let's move forward. That's it. ≫ DAN REED: Julia? ≫ JULIA PHILLIPS: I think it's

very important for us to understand a little more about how the taxonomy of what's being done now and the vision of the future. I'm not aware that there has been engagement with current or perspective stakeholders about this. And I think that feedback would be very important as well. I think we were pretty careful about doing that when we went from the nice, easy-to-read 2,000-page version to what we have now. And I think this other one -- I mean, it's a really drastic reduction in terms

of what kind of automatically gets put in front of people while other stuff does remain accessible. So getting stakeholder feedback is going to be very important. And so I think there's a lot of information that the committee and then by extension potentially the board needs before we're going to be prepared to make a decision. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Well noted. Thank you. ≫ DAN REED: I just want to emphasize, Vic and I heard as we met with the commerce committee. They referenced Indicators m

ultiple times per week. A great tendency to think this is a set of data that doesn't get used, it really does get used. ≫ SURESH BABU: Also use the dashboard. ≫ JULIA PHILLIPS: Not everybody uses it the same way. You need to pay attention to those who don't use it exactly the way you do. ≫ SURESH BABU: Agree. But my suggestion was people to start using. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: All right. Thank you all for the discussion. I think we have -- finally, we'll have report outs from policy team leads.

So our national security and talent teams. I would also like to thank these teams very deeply for all the work that fed into our policy companion document. So first, Marvi, heading up the national security policy team. Marvi? ≫ Suresh Garimella: Sorry. Maureen, the indicators are not easy to use for somebody from scratch. I wonder if we could have a tutorial on the website. It would take a lot of care to get it right. But it has to be short, three minutes or so. But done well in

terms of, hey, here are all the kinds of things you can get from here. Here are the kinds of ways you could use it. And the way to do it is, you know, just a little bit of navigational help. Perhaps a resource or two, if you're having trouble getting through. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I think that's very, very doable. When we released the state Indicators dashboard, we did produce a little tutorial exactly like that. I think it was about five minutes. It just walked people through some, if you w

ere interested in doing this, that, or the other. Or this is basic navigation. Here are some things that you can pull. I think we're well positioned to put something together like that. That's a great suggestion. ≫ MARVI RODRIGUEZ: Here we go. Science and engineering policy team asked our working group to identify one to two topics on national security and the science and engineering enterprise. And to incubate ideas into those areas. Our STEM talent working group has addressed this qu

est into two fronts. The urgent need for STEM workforce with security clearance. And the importance of foreign-born STEM talent to U.S. national security. We have been pursuing this goal for the past months. And contributed to the board's ideas for input into the Office of Science and Technology policy, science and technology review. And also into top-line recommendations included in the talent is the treasure brief we just discussed. Today I would like to share some of our team's thinking

with all of you to spark on open discussion. So I am expecting participation, okay? So, my goal is to get your participation and perspective on this topic. As the board prepares to deliver Indicators 2024 and accompanying policy recommendations. Your perspective can drive policy messages that the National Science Board would want to include in the rollout effort. After this meeting, the plan is to consolidate all of the ideas. Of course, this is still in discussion, right? And to inst

ill them for consensus for items to include. First, I believe there is a strong agreement in that the STEM pipeline is critical to our economic development and our national security. The first question is how can we best understand workforce demand? Then how can we ensure that our country has a robust workforce for science and engineering jobs working to secure the national defense? In the context of both these concerns to further characterize vulnerabilities and to develop evidence-b

ased policies to mitigate them, we can develop an implement systems dynamic strategies for talent recruitment by strengthening statistical and understanding. I'm talking about fact finding. And also I'm talking about predicting the STEM workforce vi Federal agencies could or can partner in the development, deployment, and replication of incentives programs for students to complete their bachelor's in STEM areas , and to join national security fields. Examples of these incentives loan forg

iveness programs, housing down payment for years of service and such. Federal Government -- the Federal Government could develop or can develop programs that can incentivize partnerships across industries. Industry and Department of Defense that accelerates masters in Ph.D. programs while maintaining high training standards. I do think we have a major opportunity for improved understanding of STEM workforce, including the technical workforce needs through the national secure data pilot that

NCSES is standing up and I look forward to what possible there. I know Vic, in this board, one of our working group members, has a lot of passion in making sure that we have the appropriate supply for our clear technical workforce. Vic, do you want to comment? ≫ VICTOR McCRARY: Sure, thank you, Marvi . The skilled technical workforce, every time we go up on the Hill, the -- we are -- we hear that the board is really commended for what we have done with the skilled technical workforce

and putting workforce up there. Putting aside the political polarization, this is one thing workforce development at all levels, they commend the board and both side of the aisle are on, and they recognize it is both a economic as well as national security challenge. Two years ago, Marie who we know here said fine, you're working well but the bigger problem is cleared technical workforce, because these folks have to be U.S. citizens. One of the things, in a couple of meetings both Dan and

I as well as a lot of Dod meetings, we hear things at very high level , we need 3 million for AI, and 2 million for cybersecurity but what level is that. For example, to maintain the large language models people talk about , people talk about hacking and ha Luse congratulations that you see in that, maybe those are two who need one degree level or certification as opposed to those developing those systems to protect it or advance it in terms of research. So, one of the things, I talked to

mar vaned propose, that what we might want to do as we deal with the STW many years ago, we need to go and listen and ask pointed questions to the national security sector, so , not just only the government but in fact the industrial base. Because it will also help us given credibility to what we're doing with both EPSCoR and RIE because a lot of places these award have been, there's also a national security feature to that. That's where we're having the conversations. If we're talk

ing 3 million cybersecurity. Is that Space Force? Is that Air Force? How much does Boeing need? How much does Lockheed Martin need? How much does that affect DoD, D HS in the national security sector. Thank you, Marvi. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Vic, any other comments from the board on this topic? Maybe just a quick comment, I'm not sure we're getting there, but one of the topics we have heavily discussed in our meetings is the fact that other nations are well ahead of us, r

ight? If you look at Canada, if you look at Australia, they already have those policies, for the last couple of years, and they focus on the -- I would say early retention, so, when student are still in grad school, they can get potentially residency and again we can duplicate those efforts here, but there's urgency, we already completed with places that are a little more friendly, so to speak. One of the items we emphasize and this is in S&P indicators is look for talent in those emerg

ing economy, right ? We've been classically looking for India and China for so many years and we're exclusively dependent on those, I think it was a great recommendation coming out of the group which aligns with what Maureen was saying today. Let look into other geography, really, those economies have enormous talent. If you look at South America, Africa, it speak volume, right? We have missing millions there as well, not just in this country . ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Are there other c

omments, ideas ? Go ahead, Suresh . ≫ SURESH GARIMELLA: Thank you. This aligns with emerging technologies, just last week, also. Your idea of getting mathematical model of demand and supply would be very nice, too, so we can forecast where we need to invest on these particular technology, I think that discussion we can have more on that . ≫ JULIA PHILLIPS: Just quickly and playing off and expanding on Dorota was talking about, looking the more broadly on emerging economies and partners

in the future, if you look at the list in the draft policy companion, that's an interesting collections of countries. And actually, some of them are probably viewed at least as negatively as China right now , so -- and, you also look, that group you see a lot of shifting sands which suggests you want diversity in terms of where you are placing your bets for international talent. So, I think that needs to be a please that we have not explicitly mentioned aside from getting away from the h

uge dependence we have on two countries right now. As you broaden, just don't pick a couple , just be much broader in your purview. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Other thoughts, Suresh ? ≫ SURESH GARIMELLA: I'm curious if this is an NSB thing or if there are specific things you're proposing NSF can do in those spaces, there are very good reasons why we used to have Japanese students and Japan got very affluent, and that stopped, South Korea, that stopped -- well, didn't completely stop --

China, India , et cetera. There are many reasons why we got a lot of students from those countries. Part of the reason being the population being very high . Are you proposing something that NSF should or could do to expand recruitment from some of the countries that you mentioned? ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: So, the first idea of, you know, the recommendations that we can provide , because I understand these potential recommendations are still in caution and very much in draft, right, is to

actually understand much better the mathematical problem , and, you know, put it on the record that it is my very n nerdy way to solve the problem. This idea of intersecting system data and analytics to under at a national level, supply and demand of workforce , in critical areas, you know, in a way that you could actually make decisions based on not just correlations of the data in the past, but also potential predictions, right, which will be something to venture forward, is something tha

t I believe we should invest on, right? So, there's that -- it's utilizing data to make decisions. And then, after that, is what can we -- so, we as a board, we have, of course, the responsibility to provide oversight to NSF, but we also have the responsibility to provide policy recommendations. And so when we see the data from indicator, and when we see, you know, the position that we are today, a delicate position , me where we are in terms of STEM talent and how we are nurturing, in s

ome cases or not, right, our STEM talent, then the next thing is, how do we react to that information. There are two basically -- these pieces of recommendations are bucketed into the frame way, first is domestic talent and what do you do , short and long term when it comes to domestic talent, these partners with universities, and then the second side of this which is, actually I'm about to talk about this and I'm glad Julia , Dorota brought it up, too. And what are the potential policy

recommendations there. ≫ SURESH GARIMELLA: That's great. When you mention decisions we're not making the decisions here. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Correct. We provide recommendations. ≫ SURESH GARIMELLA: I mean the U.S. isn't making these decisions broadly. So, we used to have amazing students from Venezuela at one point. It doesn't happen anymore, for good reason, right? I guess I want to keep in mind as we make proposals , where is this control? I mean, what makes it happen? What

would drive it. Kendra, for example , does a great job working with coordination and cooperative agreements. But those are not going to move this needle that much . I'm just curious about big changes in these numbers, and how one can bring those about, or, is it feasible for us to? After all, NSF doesn't support international student even, right ? ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: It's a free market, right? Academia is not really an exception, and the most important thing, actually is for t

he U.S. education system to continue to be as attractive as it is, right ? You know, you can contribute to that, Suresh, right? So, the idea is -- [ Laughter ] -- the idea is that to continue to actually make sure that the education system is as attractive, like you can -- there are policies that we have that can help us, or , maybe be obstacles, right, to understanding how open we are to the expansion of enforcement, reinforcement of our STEM workforce . ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: A

comment and question, mostly to Panch, and what NSF can do. I recall we had a briefing about global centers a couple months ago, I think it is a potentially polite platform to extend this to the initial subject, so to speak, but I'm not familiar to suggest what policy need to be changed and what needs to be influenced to allow NSF to expand this group of partnerships to those emerging economies. ≫ DR. PANCHANATHAN: Let me be clear about this, NSF does support international student beca

use people who get grants in universities do hire international students. We don't support them directly. We don't give them fellowships, like NIT and stuff like that, that's only reserved for U.S. citizens. NSF, again, supplement ports U.S. investigators who can hire students that they need for them to conduct their research. So, we're not restricting them in that sense, accept for GRFPs, it is clear expectation that it is for U.S. citizens. But let me ask you this question: We get 20,

000 GRFP applications domestically, close that that. We're able to fund 10,000, 12,000, whatever the number is, but we have 20,000 domestic student. Who are very good. How do I make the case GRFP to extend to international student, right? It is the problem with the size of budget we have. We do support them through different mechanism, not through these mechanisms . ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: Just a quick discussion we had this conversation just before lunch, can we justify this fo

r national security purpose? There are a number of areas where we can ask for more money to NSF, right, specifically to increase the pull, because if we're now spreading the same bucket of money to, let's say , incentivize AI, right, then we are losing it in other area, so, again, I'm not -- I'm not a proponent of always give us more money, but we need to also think how to spend this money in the better, more effective way. So, I think both -- ≫ DR. PANCHANATHAN: Dorota, I agree with y

ou, I was asking the question, when talking about industry, we should challenge our industry partner, right? Co-invest, in the GRFP program, if they coinvest and those resources can be used for hiding students, that industry needs to be successful in these areas, too , I think we need to think what to do with NSF, we should not give up but create ways saying what is the special areas, be are more emphasis but we should think what are other mechanisms we can hire these people in sort order

. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I agree, I think investment would be extremely helpful. Relatively speaking it is a small ask. We would not need -- sub porting students is a fairly low budget [ Laughter ] -- requirement or request for many industries. They have a direct interest in making that happen. All right. In the interest of time, I think we're going to move on to -- ≫ DAN REED: We have one more -- ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: One more question ? Of ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: The report to. ≫ MAUREE

N CONDIC: Okay . ≫ SCOTT STANLEY: I was the reviewer on the STEM labor force , and one of my top-level asks was ask k we get a number for demand at the top STEM level, because the content, while it was great, just talks about the demographic mix. And we know anecdotally, we would like more STEM graduates in any number of field, but just to use round numbers, if we graduate a thousand STEM undergraduates, we don't know if the demand is 1. 3 million, or 1 . 01 million. If we want to make an

impact to get more money for fellowships, on any number of things, we need to know that demand. I was very glad to hear you saying, look , we need to under exactly what the need is, but that's a subset of the larger picture at the top level of do we have the capacity academically to produce that number of graduates , no matter who pays for it. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Right. In addition that totally does not incorporate the question of future demand. What is the projected growth of these fiel

d. We need to be training people now to what the need will be five years from now. ≫ SCOTT STANLEY: They have to be domestic, under the current policies they are going to fulfill the national security need . ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Right. ≫ SCOTT STANLEY: Certainly we can backfill -- ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Marvi indicated she still has half of her report to go through. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: It's less than half. ≫ DAN REED: I'll encourage us to try to be brief. We're already behind schedule

. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: The discussion was encouraged. I appreciate it and discussion is important . On the demand versus supply, remember, that the demand actually comes from both commercial and defense, and your commercial demand actually affects basically what you can supply for your defense, you know, demand. Okay, so, the nation -- or, I should say, I should start with this , the board has been sharing for many years that foreign born STEM talent is of immense value to the U.S. sc

ience and engineering enter prize. The nation is so reliant on its talent in number, that continuing to attract and retain talent is a national security imperative. As the work of the external engagement committee has made clear, our dependence on foreign talent in critical field is actually a serious risk to our country. So, this is true in STEM field, but it is particularly acute in many field underlying critical and emerging technology, such as advanced computing, AI, advanced engine

ering materials and quantum information and so on. A key entry point is student and trainees who come to the U.S. to learn, and generally have a high rate in the U.S. STEM workforce, as we have mentioned before. This is specially true for post graduates, masters and Ph.D. s, as have seen, one of the ideas is to proactively broaden the talent pool attracted to the U.S. to study and train. Ways to pursue this goal is to first align potentially to align strategies for attracting and retain

ing foreign born STEM talent with evidence-based projections of workforce need , and the evaluation of other countries, practices and policies, just as Dorota mentioned before, especially in critical and emerging technologies. Another potential idea that has surfaced in our discussions is to improve retention of international STEM talent by increasing Visa numbers in critical and emerging technology areas, strategically. Right? And this way, we recruit student in earlier studies by simpl

ifying streamlining currently lengthy processes he without sacrificing security streamlining processes and leveraging national waiver processes and finally to perhaps think about broadening the international talent pool was it was mentioned before I believe by Julia and also Dorota, especially emerging science partner countries and strategic collaborators. These are some topics we have been discussing in our committee, I really think the committee members -- this is actually a small --

a tiny , mighty team, the national security team, and all of your contributions are -- and inputs have been great. Are there any other comments that you -- for committee members that you would like to share at this moment? And my committee members are Julia, Suresh , Dorota and Vic . ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Wanda has had her hand up. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Go ahead, Wanda. ≫ WANDA WARD: Briefly in response to your request for full board participation. Thank you for the document you prepare

d. A lot of it has focused on attracting and retaining foreign born talent. One of the things that the Foundation has addressed for years is the benefit of wheat been referred to as brain circulation versus brain drain, and that is the benefit, even to U.S. security, of foreign born students who are trained in the U.S. at the highest level, and for whatever reason, return either to their home or go elsewhere . But there can still be some benefits to our national security by keeping consi

deration of brain circulation. Thank you. ≫ MARVI MATOS RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Wanda. Okay. I'll return the discussion to you , Maureen. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Thank you, Marvi, thank you, everyone for the very helpful discussion. I'm going to turn the floor over to Julia for the talent development team. ≫ JULIA PHILLIPS: Are there questions? [ Laughter ] Okay, well, half, almost half the board is on the talent development team, which is a remarkable demonstration of the importance that the b

oard attaches to it, specifically we have Vic, Suresh Babu , Deborah, Bev, Vickie, Keivan, Marvi plus myself T. Is nearly half of the board. We are divided into several groups, and focusing on pre-K through 12 STEM education. That sort of Foles up on the ESKE work. The financial obstacles to getting a STEM bachelor 's degree, the role of Community Colleges growing the STEM workforce all of the way from skilled technical workforce to advanced courses for high school student in underserved

areas to those heading on to bachelor's degrees and beyond . And then specifically, focusing on the skilled technical workforce. So, we're covering a lot, and we are very much focussed on both the identification of relevant data, and analysis of that data available, as we move forward . In the interest of time, I'm going to -- and we've been fairly acquiesce end on the national security work. However, we're going to be wrapping up and the one effort that they would have loved to have

yesterday if we had it, is a complement to the previous work that's been done on the skilled technical workforce. I'm not going to -- you have already access to the previous report, so, I'm not going to go over that right now . There's been a lot of progress on the four recommendations that came out with that report, and just as one example, we're building out stronger NCSES data sets so we can more fully characterize and track the skilled technical workforce, and certainly what you saw i

n this cycle of indicators is a dramatic expanse of what what available in previous versions. STW is central to conversation as round the domestic STEM talent on Capitol Hill, here and everything in between, and so, at this point, it is appropriate to grow and revamp the message, revisit the message that we had before and perhaps expand it, and that team is -- the sub group working on that is led by Vic and also Keivan and myself on it. And so we will be -- you will be seeing something on

that in the relatively near future. And we hope to have draft text by the end of this month, and a mock-up that will be hitting your inboxes for a vote before very long, after it goes through SEP. So, thanks very much, and in the interest of time, that conclude my report, unless there are comments or questions . ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Any quick comments or questions? If not, thank you so much, Julia. And, Mr. Chair, this conclude my report. ≫ DAN REED: Thank you, Maureen and thanks to every

one for that thoughtful discussion. Workforce is the engine that drives everything. People are a mechanism that everything happens, so, it is critical that we ensure that we have an adequate supply of talent, that I sometimes tell people die buy definition, well educated talented people are always in short supply, and advantage accrues to those regions and societies that capture a disproportionate percentage of that talent. And that's what we have to continue to focus on, which is a good

segue, actually, to our next conversation, which is -- we're going to hear a presentation from NSF's chief diversity and inclusion officer, Chuck Barber, and Chuck, we hoped would be here at the previous meet bug some unexpected circumstances intruded but but we're delighted that he is here today . You know, it is worth remembering that the CDIO position was required as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, and Chuck is going to offer some some perspectives on strategy as we work on the Mis

sing Millions in Steph, meeting priority goals and EPSCoR targets and a whole host of other things as well. Chuck, I want to thank you for meeting with MRX and providing information on broader impacts criteria. And hold it over to Panch who will do yet another introduction of Chuck. ≫ DR. PANCHANATHAN: I'm going keep it short, I've fortunate to have Chuck's leadership as CDIO at NSF. He's put together a number of things, including the culture of the innovation it after and the important

issues Chuck is addressing. I would be remiss if I didn't say already Chuck in a short time is looked upon as somebody at OMB, OPM and other agencies look up to, on the Hill look up to in terms of how to frame this the right way to get the outcomes we seek. Over to you, Chuck. Thank you so much. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: Can you all hear me okay? Clicker's not working. You want to see all of that yet. Good afternoon. I'll try my best to be concise and mindful of the time. But as Dan said I

was supposed to have this conversation in December, but unfortunately I was not able to. But I am very grateful to be here with you this afternoon. And I'm want to anger a little on this first slide here. Because this slide here is going to kind of set the stage for the rest of the conversation. But as you're aware we're in the middle of interesting times. DEIA laws continue to pop up across the country . When I checked this morning we're at 73 bills introduced across 26 states right

now. That and SCOTUS decision on affirmative action, and then to kind of add to the con pounding complexity, language in this space changes so much that we can never have consensus what is truly acceptable or appropriate. So, when you think about all of these things, given amplified complexity and sensitivity, how do we future -proof this work so it is sustainable so this work is not just a moment in time but a movement in time. In my humble opinion, it start with the focus on organizationa

l change, needed to really get to those outcomes that we're seeking. We're going to have to get to a point to where we view DEIA as the outcome and not the pros e-and we can have that north star mindset, it is easy to unify others into looking how we assess our policy instruments for any unintended consequences, how we move past looking at diversity by the numbers and start to look at underrepresentation as levelling strategy and also as equity issue in the talent management systems. It

s also being able to leverage the full spectrum of diverse talent society has to offer within our organization force be a part of those decision-making conversation , problem solving strategy and other discussions. DEIA is more than an acronym. It is a gateway to psych logical safety and organizational change to get to outcomes we're seeking. DEIA also helps link this work to culture . Culture is the underpinning to everything we're doing with DEIA work and underpinning what we're doin

g with organizational effectiveness. I was keeping a tick mark in the back of the room about how many times I heard the word culture or DEIA mentioned today. It was mentioned quite a bit. You kind of think about those things and packaging these things into a culture strategy, that's how we move past, you know, looking at this work simply as remedy work but more so as that structural diversity work, to move us in the direction to get to the impact we want to achieve. It is also about us

ing data . Both quantitative and quality Tateive data to make sure these conversations are evidence-based and not just opinion based and also how we make this data actionable. So, I'm going to get into this on subsequent slides, we developed two models to help us get to this. I know Marvi will get really excited about this, she and I talked about this pretty extensively. One of those is maturity model. That's basic will I a five-phase continuum, that uses quantitative and qualitative d

ata and 30 pieces of assessment criteria to really assess the efficacy of DEIA capabilities within the organization and I'm going to get into more detail as we progress through the slide here. We also developed an underrepresentation tool. This is one of the efforts that I'm probably the most proud of , because we basically have taken every job series within the Federal Government and linked them to analogs provided by the American community survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Depar

tment of Labor and can tell you the level of diversity that can be achieved if that were available at society level and the occupational level. We predicted analytic because we baked in pro echt whied BLS information and now we can tell you when we can reach population parity for each of those job series as well. So it is a really powerful framework. And to get around some legal scrutiny, and , Panch, I'll probably ask for forgiveness for doing it, I took that model to the D. C. Court and

briefed the Chief Justices, because I wanted to get their reaction whether or not that tool would be perceived as affirmative action or quote toe, and I kind of walked them through how we looked at researching 30, 40 years of case law and having good conversation was Angel in the back of the room who keeps me honest from a legal perspective and that model was very well received. We were able to demonstrate how it was in the spirit of the SCOTUS decision on affirmative action, so thinking h

ow you can navigate legal challenges and scrutiny, that becomes more important particularly as we want to diversify our STEM talent. And before I move to the next slide, I would also kind of say, you know, if -- Vic signs me up to a lot of stuff, I can never say no to Vic, and one of the things -- yeah. [ Laughter ] And one of the things I said to that group, everybody in that room kind of represents civic symbols of democracy, as civic symbols of democracy, we can show love and profit in t

his country while we reconcile for past indiscretions and vice versa. As I think of that in the vein of polarity thinking. That's where we're taking most of the things you're hearing me talk about today. And I won't get into this again, but this is the underrepresentation model you heard me talking about. And I have a data visual on the next slide that kind of demonstrates how we're initially pulling all of this data together and maybe at an appropriate time I can demonstrate the tool to

you to see how the confidence factors and those things come into play, and I also want to thank Miss Amelda Rivers and her team, as we build these tools also. Just superb collaboration across the agency as we build this out. But in thinking about some congressional scrutiny, we have to generate on an annual basis something called management directive 715 report. That's basic will I aa report that depicts participation rate by grade levels and occupational specialties, what we've done

with this tool, we built that tool so it serves as a bolt-on capability to MD -715 report. So, linking that model to a congressionally mandated report helps you to really get around the scrutiny. In a recent conversation I had with Secretary Del Toro at the Navy, one thing I mentioned to him , he said Chuck, if you had to give me the elevator speech about the tool what would it be. I said the tool helps you harmonize diversity and merit tockcy, this cannot be instance any more where i

t has to be one or the other. This is another example of polarity thinking where it can be both and, harmonizing democracy and meritocricity. This walk you through the steps where it enhances analysis. Where you run information, if you're underrepresented in females, where the model is going to ask you to look at historical trend did you have a chance to leverage hiring flexibilities or targeted hiring event. It is also going to tell you to compare your position descriptions or job criteria

, but what we see in the Federal Government to what you see in the private sector. Do you have opportunity to modernize your position descriptions. And when you look at it from that approach this tool kind of helps the agency stay competitive with the private sector because it's modernizing the workforce. From culture, it will take a look at see if this particular occupational specialty, has it been subjected to a high number of sexual harassment complaint or other types of complaint

systems. It does a good job taking analysis to the next level. Pvp so , hopefully you can see this chart. But this chart represents what our visuals look like. They progressed since we developed this. Take a look at this, this represents the Black and African Americans here at the national science Foundation and stem specialties. We can aggregate the data but for sake of conversation we aggregated the information to see how the information kind of falls out. The blue bar represents wha

t the benchmark would look like once you integrate all of the data within the bureau of labor statistic, Department of Labor and right now you see it as a static benchmark, it is showing 3. 7 percent. We kind of advanced this a little bit. Now that projected benchmark is dynamic so it changes over time based how we have the data put together. But as you look at this, as you look out through 2030 based off historical hiring trend and information pulled together. You can see that gap is goi

ng to increase over time if we don't do something about it. Here's where our partnership with NCSES becomes so invaluable. They've given us research methodology to help refine us a bit. So, we've looked at four levers that we can pull to change the trajectory when we reach top last parity . If you look at a position description update or targeted hiring event or policy update, how does it change the trajectory over time? We don't want to put data together and put it on the slide and ad

mire the data, we need to make it actionable and putting controls in the fabric of the organization to make changes over time. We know diversity is deliberate outcome that won't happen overnight. I'm confit dents with controls we're putting in place with folks of organizational change, it will absolutely make a difference . I should probably also note that Bev, gave us a -- Dr. Cooke from APLU, gave an opportunity from ACE, back in the fall was very well received , I think I adopt some met

hodology, and look at assessment in our engineering community. Really excited about that. These models are not just applicable in the government sector, it can be used in academic sector as well, so, with your partnership, we absolutely hope to expand some of this work. The next model that I want to talk to you about is maturity model. So, this maturity model is designed to really help organizations better operationalize, inclusion, and I don't want to use inclusion and belonging inte

rchangeably . Inclusion is that signature behavior you want to see. Belonging is the outcome you want to get to. So this model is intended to help orgs get to that shift to move through the continuum. And the model has five phases. It has compliance, which is the basic DEIA understanding, and moves you up through evolving acceptance , cohesive and inclusive. So, once an organization runs through the mechanics of the model, the model will generate an assessment report and show how they

rate a policy area, how they rate in the talent management area, how they rate in operational capabilities area and how they rate in culture and model aggregates that information and will show where you fall on the continuum, I'll show on the next graphic what the continuum looks like but the model doesn't stop there it generates a get well plan to help move organizations from compliance to fully inclusive. I had an opportunity to deploy this model with the Department of Navy. When we f

irst did it we launched it across 20 naval command and on average they all fell right in the middle of the acceptance range when we first launched it. Each of the organizations took the get well plan that the model generates and we did a subsequent assessment. It was between 6 to 9 months later and each. Organizations moved to the right and department average moved from acceptance to cohesive within a nine month span. I was real proud of that. Pvp I look at this model like a reversible

T-shirt. While I can assess as organizational level we can assess at individual leadership level as well . We have leadership tool . Janice's organization was the first to pilot the leadership tool. We move from it being automated PDF, it is now fully automated in Qualtrics, once we integrate these models with our partners that this is a tool to bake in being part of executive development programs to help and build and bolster inclusive leadership across the Foundation. There's probably

another area that I want to touch on that you don't hear a lot of CEOs touch about. Rhonda and I have a conversation about this, the way this leadership reflection tool is established it does a good job operationalizing restorative practice. A strong component with this tool which are centered to be able to demonstrate what restorative practice looks like. Before I move offer this slide you see a bullet that talked about sexual orientation and gender initiatives. We look how to capture S

OGI data . Part testify is because we have not done our job making the environment comfortable enough for members not to want to report gender identity or sexual orientation . We have done a good job to make our environment comfortable with reporting . We're in partnership with OPM , they are looking at NSF to help policy recommendations how the government can capture SOGI data over time . We're really excited about this initiative. Here's what the continuum looks like. You heard me ta

lk about the five phases and, again, once an organization goes through the mechanic, they will get a report that shows exactly where they fall on this continuum, and there's definitions here for each of these phases and I'm happy to provide additional information because I know it is hard to read on the slide. It gives a sense of what I mean when I say moving an organization from the left to further to the right on the continuum. All right. You heard me mention about culture be dependent t

o all we do. Whether linking this work, DEIA work to culture or trying to improve organizational effectiveness. Here at NSF, we recently just launched a culture assessment at NSF, and we had an opportunity to gain insights into what we can do to review our mission statement, and some of our strategic plans should we have complete alignment as we move forward. We got insight how to improve consistency, so we have opportunities to incorporate process governance to increase transparency and

build trust across the agency . Involvement, that's a close link to inclusion , and I want to dig into that a bit more, but we have opportunities to improve there as well, and adapt act , how we are responding to emerging requirement, or changing the environment, so, we're going to have an opportunity to brief these results to our workforce early next week, but I'm really proud of our team leadership sitting in the back of the room, so in order for us to get better, we have to get real a

bout the challenges that we face in order to get to that point we're getting better. This is a good first step what we're doing at NSF to improve organizational effectiveness and ensure we give our workforce the right resources to be successful on what they do on a day-to-day basis. All right. Yes, ma'am ? ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: Thank you so much. It a great presentation . ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I have one more slide . ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: I'm sorry. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I'm

be right you to. I want to highlight what we did with other Federal agencies. We have monthly conversations with NASA , DoD, NIH. We talk about the same things we put in place, what I briefed to you today, these are things we're considering to see how we can broaden across our partners within the Federal Government as well. So, you know, Panch and I talk a lot about quitting opportunities everywhere, so, when time talking to this group, I say, hey, we want to create opportunities eve

rywhere for everybody. I kind of broaden the statement a little bit. To continue to have those conversations with partners and CIO colleagues, that's important. Now we're to the point we're having conversations with OSTP, how to formalize informal conversations we've been asking. I talked enough this afternoon, probably tired of hearing the country twang. I'll pause. Ma'am, I'll come back to you, I know you had a question . ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: Yes, thank you. No, we're never ti

red of listening about this great stuff. I was wondering, if you can comment on this, you discussed this five-step model, right? How do we know when the organization transitioned between those steps, and when do we think or maybe we know for secure if NSF is on the scale of one to five. Plus, we also appreciate a lot your explanation set in terms. Because I notice in some academic circle, people don't use the word inclusion because belonging is preferred but you made it very clear that

a mindset of inclusion transitions to the mindset of culture of belonging. Thank you so much for the explanation. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I'm a stickler for differentiating the measure of performance to measure of effectiveness. You hear me talking about being outcome based thinking . Differentiating inclusion to belonging falls within that vein. Back to the question of understanding when the organization transitions, it will be different for other organizations. When I launched this to

the Department of The Navy, some organizations were eager to be reassessed within six months, some wanted to bait nine months, some wanted to wait 12 months. It is important when we walk organizations through the mechanics of that model I don't want them to think this is an I gotcha test or another compliance drill, this is Chuck Barber and his team walking shoulder to shoulder with you, to help you get better. So, just depending on the leadership's priorities. I don't want to be disr

uptive when doing this kind of work but I let them decide when they want me to many could back in and make that assessment but the model does a good job showing how you make progress between assessment psychments. The criteria wrote a 50-page technical model that walks you through the mechanic, criteria, approach how we do it, it's a very rigorous approach how we make those assessments. And I can't say where NSF is right now, because we haven't launched this -- at NSF, we have a number of

initiative NBC play right now. You know, we launched the culture assessment. We lunched the survey results , some pulse results, we don't want survey fatigue the organization. Or get to Na point. But I want to get to a point with Panch's and Karen's approval where we do a top level security assessment. To see where we fall as an agency. When we do that, we'll get back to you and see where we fall. ≫ Chuck, great presentation, you mentioned sort of performance versus effectiveness and

something like that, essentially inputs versus output, so, I'm curious, on campuses, for example , our campus we do a climate survey, and you know, we try to do it and look at the results longitudinally, and see, at least directionally, whether we're going in the right direction or not, et cetera. There are confounding factors, for example, if we make it as we have recently much, much easier to report bias, or report sexual harassment and search earlier, you get an uptick of reports. So

, I guess all of that to say, I'm curious how -- how accurately you think one can assess the impact of the things you're doing, especially since there's no granularity of it. How do we know those things are working, I guess? ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I think regardless what we do, we'll have conjecture. I say we probably won't. I think we to v to continuously assess not just organizational climate, but now just organizational culture. One will show the perceptions of how an employee feels about th

e organization, and one is going to talk more about the experience, and I think through continuous assessment through those, I think we're going to see some trend . And I'll just think -- thinking about our results and cultural results we did here, while the measurement approach is different from both instruments you see trend in both instances we can work on. So, it is a matter of continuously being able to look at both of those areas and really identifying the trend, the driver analysi

s that will drive some of those changes within the organization. ≫ DR. PANCHANATHAN: Just for people, FEVS is Federal employee viewpoint survey . ≫ SURESH GARIMELLA: Is there such as thing as survey fatigue? How often can you survey people ? ≫ CHARLES BARBER: There is survey fatigue, we have to make those surveys actionable. We can't have the workforce take the survey, and not talk actions about what we're taking. One of the things Karen is pushing me to do is develop a reporting mec

hanism. Once we develop that agency level action plan to report back to the workforce on a continuous basis, hey, we heard you, here's what we're doing about it, and to be able to kind of -- I'll give an Cal example I first launched in back in 2018 and whendy ittens p the response rate was 14%. And really showing the output of action plans, by the time I left DLA in 2018, the response rate went up 75 percent. I think showing actionable -- ≫ DAN REED: General reminder, please raise your h

and. People are jumping ahead of others waiting patiently. Maureen, Wanda, and Deborah . ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: Thank you, for your report and I love your graphics . I'm curious, given the rise over the last several years in anti-Semitism, Christian harassment bigotry, harassment and violence, a very large percentage much Americans , maybe 70 percent identify with one of those three groups . What, if anything, is NSF doing , kind of analogous to SOGI initiative, maybe there should be a ROFI,

religious association, faith identity initiative to try to address the concerns of people who, in many cases really do feel frightened in some environment because of their religious afall yeggs . ≫ CHARLES BARBER: Also you're touching on a key point, eventually we have to move away from acronyms and look at culture at large. From that very exact reason, we're going to run the risk of excluding the group or leaving the group out if we don't do that eventually. We had recent conversation

with OPM, to be honest with you, a lot of organizations are struggling how to address the topics that you just raised. So it is my hope as we continue those conversations we put concrete things in place so we can accurately address it in the midst of the scrutiny in the midst of it as well. Hopefully I have a better answer next time we talk . ≫ WANDA WARD: Briefly, thank you very much , Chuck for the evidence-based approach to the DEIA issue. It is quite informative. I was struck by you

r characterization of this being a gateway to psychological safety. I think that captures things very, very nicely and those from diverse backgrounds can inherently resonate to that. I also like your characterization of using data quantitatively , qualitatively, and actionably. The actionable part is especially important. I have one simple question. You passingly mentioned that a demo exists . Is it possible to have access to that demo so that one could see it in action? I don't kno

w if you have a link or anything like that. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: Wanda knows I'm not going to say no to her either . Wanda, we'll get you a demo, I promise you, yes, ma'am . ≫ DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL: Thank you for that presentation , do you aggregate the identity. We see different result how the climate and culture is -- ≫ CHARLES BARBER: You said disaggregate by -- ≫ DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL: By race. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: There's a lot of disaggregation. ≫ DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL: Do you see

differences? We often see major differences by group. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: We do. But, again, we're still in the early stages of really dissecting the analysis of those result but we absolutely do see some friend in all of the different disaggregation approaches that we've taken . ≫ DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL: That probably will be important in order to not mute the effects of different groups or people or different offices like you said . The second question I have, it seems like what I

thought -- let me put it this way. There are different kind of arguments that can be made for diversity . I've been talking about inclusion and culture here. But, when I think about the teacher workforce, for example, which is something I spent a lot of time looking at and why it is important to have a more diverse teacher workforce, they are both extremely strong arguments for that that are subtle and important and some that are sort of taken for granted and I am sure curious what the a

rgument being made across this by why it is important to be diversifying in all of these sectors what the argument is for diversity. I couldn't quite figure that out whether bass assumed it was better and if so, what is the reasoning being pushed for this. If it is not clear I can explain. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: It is very clear. The business case comes up in every conversation I have . To be honest that's why I put the organizational model in place. Once I continue to pull the levers on th

e underrepresentation model and other things will help diversify the workforce here and people' see changes in the organizational effectiveness model as well. Yeah, we can talk until we're blue in the face about how diversity improves business, how it improves readiness, but I also want to make sure we keep the humanity piece at the front of it, too. But I don't have the data for you right now. But I think over time we will have it but I think there is a big case to be made how diversi

ty does improve organizational effectiveness . ≫ SURESH BABU: I have a question. I really like you talking about moving forward. I liked it through collaboration and dialogue we can develop a culture. What is the best practice or practical way doing it in the organization. Talk about the best practices, with all of the social media going on how do we get dialogue going. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: In terms much increasing -- ≫ SURESH BABU: Awareness where we are, how to improve together and all tho

se things. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I keep going back to, again, how you future-proof this work. So, we can -- linking the work more so to culture. You know, to me, that kind of helpses to remove any perception of this work being divisive or any perception of the work being solely focused on activism. I tell you what when I had conversation was folks on the Hill, whether left or right, and linking the conversation to culture, that's so much well received. I cannot express enough that culture is t

he underpinning to all we do here. And I'll always talk about the models, they don't have anything to do with quote toes or affirmative action, this is about how you helped the organization remain competitive, for the sake of national security, for the sake of advancing science, so, just keeping the conversation -- again, data to make it evidence-based, that always helps, and I hope that answers your question. ≫ SURESH BABU: More informal collaboration within an organization, like every d

ay , how do we increase that amount of dialogue and collaboration . ≫ CHARLES BARBER: I tell u-with everything you saw here it can't be the office of CIO doing it alone . OGC will take -- OGCR , going to take NCSES, so, having that north star with harmonizing diversity and meritocr acity. Conversation with Erwin, with James Moore, all of us doing it having that north star thinking , that outbased thinking that keeps it all unified . ≫ DAN REED: Marvi, Dorata and Merlin . ≫ MARVI MATOS RO

DRIGUEZ: First of all thank you to appealing to my nerdy side and building a database model to go about the problem, right, in a what that we can use data to make decisions. Second, my second question, maybe challenge point for u-is going to be start with a why , which you did, and then my third point was going to be like what are you doing to actually collaborate with other agencies which you mentioned, too, and I actually don't have any other questions . Because -- yeah, because I re

ally wanted to point this out. This is actually an important moment for me, anyway , because I can see how you are taking and learning from the different meet that is we have had, and how you're taking the inputs from the board and building something that is powerful, informative and that people can use to actually use to make decisions. So, congratulations on your work, and I think it's pretty cool and excellent. Thank you. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: Marvi, you hit on something important, and I

don't want to give you a question, for sure, but with this work, we're collaborating with the academic communities well. The University of Arkansas, me being from Arkansas, and Dan has the same ties that I have -- [ Speaker off mic ] [ Laughter ] ≫ CHARLES BARBER: They asked me to author an open textbook used across the country, these concepts you heard me talk about will be published in open textbook not just across agencies but other academic institutions can use as well. ≫ MARVI MATOS R

ODRIGUEZ: At the end of some of your comments you mentioned culture. Which is also, for data, we forget is actually about culture, all point taken and all points marked. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: All right . ≫ DOROTA GREJNER-BRZEZINSKA: Just a comment for Deborah, but she left. I thought she was asking for scientific proof, value of diversity. There's a series of McKinsey report and there are numbers therely are very, very telling. But I'll send her an e-mail . ≫ You mentioned there are trend.

The only reason I'm asking that, if we address it, it is helpful fordifferent agencies that have trend. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: One key trend this, is with how we have to respond to external pressures and things of that nature, perceptions of misalignment in our mission statement, are we moving away from basic research? Are we moving more toward innovation? Well, the answers to all of this, should be, yes, we need all of that, so, this gives us an opportunity to collaborate as a leadership

team an agency to really look at our mission statement and look how we're developing our strategic plan to make sure we're -- remain in alignment. To me that's good constructive tension to give an opportunity to improve how we move forward. And in some cases, you know, as a leadership team, we have to make decisions, you know, that may not necessarily -- we -- not necessarily for the folks below us, may not necessarily have the factors, all of the decision point with some of the decisio

ns we make, and in some cases gives a perception of a gap in leadership trust, things of that nature, we have opportunities to address how we want to improve leadership and trust moving forward as well. Those are two key areas. ≫ DAN REED: Vic and I are going to take prerogative of Chair and Vice Chair. ≫ VICTOR McCRARY: I want to share with the conference last week, he was on the stage with a representative who has as much money as James Moore , if not more from from the Undersecretary of

defense to the press of American chemical society and VP from Abbott Labs because we're all wrestling with this, despite what we hear in the news. Your presentation is so compelling, you know, once you have those seminars, I feel bad with other people. Everybody was lining up to ask questions, at this conference a large number of CEOs and VPs because the whole big thing is about workforce and to your point , yes, there's all of this demand in these areas, in the STEM areas but the issue

of culture and how we quantify that and how we're making the culture better to have retention and those things are extremely important. I commend you. ≫ CHARLES BARBER: Thank you. ≫ DAN REED: I was going to say a version of the same thing, Chuck, thanks for all you're doing. Maybe a question. Obviously CHIPS and Science created this new role not that the Foundation was not action continuely involved in these areas before but as you sort of look at the mandate that CHIPS and Science laid

out , what can we most do to help you, and what do you see as sort of the biggest challenges going forward ? ≫ CHARLES BARBER: For me the biggest challenge is going to be the legal and political scrutiny. That's the one thing, Dan, that keep he's up at night. You know, even when I'm here at work, I keep the TV on CNN because I want to see what's flashing across the ticker what state will pop up a new law and what bill will be enacted into law. So, I think being able to be involved in di

scussions like this, you know, with this so much genius in this room, the support you give, that's the biggest thing you can do right now. Just continue dialogue, I say in terms much CHIPS and Science, I think , as my role continues to evolve, you know, I think you're going to start to see my role have I adifferent balance what I'm doing internally and externally, my colleagues, Panch, Karen , they give me autonomy to do things from a external perspective. They've only been here 13 mont

hs now, I think as the role evolves, I'm going to see some other good things coming down the pipe. ≫ DAN REED: All right. Thank you, thank you for the presentation, thanks for the discussion. [ Applause ] We are going to take a short break, ten minutes, and so , we'll reconvene at 2:45. Thanks, everyone. [ Brief break ] ≫ OPERATOR: Recording stopped. know Renee FerrantI as been on the ice, but come back with a lot more learning, even more importantly a great partnership with OIG on the

ice. A lot of things to share with us, in terms of of the status report as well as where we're heading into the future. Over to you, Renee . Review criterion. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: Sorry about that. So, the slides . Are they -- there we go. Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on our progress to date about the SAHPR program, which -- sexual assault, harassment, prevention and response, which I will refer to as SAHPR, the H being silent for the rest of the

presentation. It's been quite a while wind , a hundred days-ish, I started before the last meeting with you all, and had the opportunity to hear some of your thought at that time, and then throw in the holidays and what not, and then I just did also get the opportunity to go on the ice. So, it has been -- I feel it was just last week we all met. I'm grateful to share the space with you today. I'll be sharing operational updates, a synopsis of my recent trip , as well as our program framew

ork moving forward. I know over the last year, NSF has been working with the board to keep you aware of the progress on NSF's action plan to address the SAHPR program, which was the responsibility of the Director's Task Force on SAHPR, over the last few board meetings we shared with you the intent to develop strategic framework for the SAHPR program that will support Enterprisewide effort, applicable not only to USAP but where NSF activities are conducted testimony is important to broade

r our perspective and get a forward looking view with respect it to our goals. That's what I'll over gopher with you today during the second half of the presentation. Before we begin i-would like to reiterate the agency mission, to enable the student and engineers the agency must be team work, fairness and exit with, investing in science, technology and education for the nation's future necessitates a safe environment free from any form of environment and one that costers equal opportunit

y for all. Finally NSF is committed to creating safe and inclusive research environments where everyone can thrive. And I'm honored to follow Dr. Barber who really laid that foundation during the last presentation as well. So, operational updates . To begin, I'd like to touch base on the regular coordination and collaboration that we have with our partners . And to start, the Director, meets with the Director, the CEO of Leidos, Mr. Tom Bell and this ensures the opportunity to share fe

edback on incidents of sexual assault and and harassment. So that communication occurs. Additionally, COO and LeidosVP meet, and I had a chance to meet with that team before I left the ice. That was incredible insightful as imI'm learning and trying to under where we started and where I am now and able to hear from that team as they support the NSF intent. Since I came on board, there's been quite a bit of coordination, and connection with key stakeholders, most notably, during my Trip

p on the ice, I had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of the Air Force, for man power and reserve affairs, Mr. Wagner, his deputy, Mr. McIntosh and sole Nell Henigin. I was lucky to spent a few hour with them as we discussed the SAHPR efforts and how best to collaborate. There's a lot of crossover there. Mr. Wagner was the chief of staff of the Army when I was still working with the Department of Defense years ago. So, I'm very familiar with his initiatives and his vision for prog

rams like the sexual assault prevention response program within DoD. We have a follow-up meeting scheduled for March 5th at the Pentagon . And the Colonel hosted an all female lunching to get a pulse check. She noted there were no concerns from that group. She noted limited counseling options, and there's only one licensed counselor on ice at any time but her and I will continue to sync moving forward as needed. I met with and continue holding quarter letter meetings with the Pacific r

esponse forward Nater. She's the regional SARC for coordinating care for service member victims in Antarctica. Some things changed since I worked for the Department of Defense. For example, sexual are hasment is a crime under UCMJ. Which is different how we manage something specific to sexual harassment for Federal -- a member of the Federal service, or a contractor, or even someone from academia. So, one of the things we want to ensure is communicated, is that if the offender of sexual

harassment incident is a service member that we reported properly through those channels and, of course, if there's a victim of assault or sexual harassment that we also do that proper coordination. Lastly, I had the opportunity to meet with several Amentum HR representative, including one of their general counsel, to talk about how we can best coordinate when they receive incidents reported to them directly. The OIG investigator joined me for that meeting as well, and that was also incr

edibly informative . HR is not -- human resources are not necessarily trauma inform, trained , how to investigate these very specialized traumatic incidents. And they expressed concern about wanting more training in that area, so, when they do receive disclosure, they know how to manage that appropriately and not cause more harm. They did advice that Leidos had provided a training last year, offered to all of the HR personnel, however, it was optional, not required. So, I've since shared

language with DACS to ensure that we have language in the future contract that does require specific training for our HR personnel, supervisors and manager, as well as the general population, all very rule specific to address areas of sexual assault and harassment with regard to bystander intervention, reporting, and how to properly respond when you receive a disclosure. So, what is working? We know there's been so much effort in the last year and a half , put into this SAHPR program.

How do we know if it is effective or useful or if people are finding it valuable? I was really happy to hear this morning that the feedback from the members sharing -- from their visit that they felt the victim advocate was a very positive aspect that has been added, and I do personally feel that's an incredibly important resource and step in this process. We've also implemented the subcontractor and contractor notifications to SAHPR science. So, to share how that is working, in the last

quarter , rather FY-24 quarter 1, October through December 2023, we received 12 notifications from Leidos using the community incident form they developed that was provided to SAHPR science to ensure there is that streamlined communication, notifications occurring. This is one of the things I'll continue to work with with the ASCLeidos team. In that quarter we had three individual reach out to SAHPR science directly seeking assistance for information and reporting -- and information ab

out available resources . On-ice support. Again, the victim advocate being a critical element of victim and survivor support when they've expartied sexual violence, during that same time, quarter one, the on-ice victim advocate had approximately 100 client contacts with the community members. I think that's pretty impressive. Now, that's telephonic, in-person, virtual, and that does not mean -- new incidents or new report. Those are client contacts of a variety of means . It could be m

ultiple with one person who has come forward , made a report and sought support during that process, or just a one-stop shop to find out information and resources. It's also worth noting that they shared -- they also received inquiries about other issues that they've assisted with redirecting an individual to the appropriate HR or other resources as needed because some folks just don't know how to navigate those various systemses on the ice. I think reflecting back to the discussion th

is morning that concept of something like an ombudsman, that's where that service would be provided normally. Additionally, from October through January, the on -ice victim advocate facilitated 25 in-person trainings reaching approximately 1400 individuals. They conducted two South Pole visits totally 20 days and conducted numerous work center outreach presentations and dozens of arrival outreach brief. They are present at every areembodyal brief so they can put a face to the role of th

e victim add row cat and built rapport as soon as someone arrives. One area we're working on is ensuring standardized definitions and language about sexual assault and sexual harassment across all of the notification mechanisms . Internally, with contract, the many layers from subcontractor, and even within academia , often some of these definitions vary, and so I am hesitant to say we have to be really careful about stating we have X number of types of report until we have clear guide

lines on that, everyone is referring to something the same way. We must all be on the same page when talking about this, and sharing information. We've shared with you previously that we are pending OMB approval on the USAP sexual harassment sexual assault climate survey and happy to say we have received, recently received that approval. We are now finalizing the communications for the roll-out. We must be very sensitive and mindful about the execution of the survey. We don't want to

cause more harm to those who have been impacted by sexual violence whether related to NSF or not. While it is a climate survey t-is focussed on individual experience of sexual assault, sexual harassment, reporting and safety concerns that occurred while deployed on the ice, but this could certainly trigger historical or other traumas. As microcosm of society, we know statistically, many community members experienced some form of trauma specifically sexual violence. A little later in my

presentation, we'll talk about the importance of being trauma inform and how that needs to be the approach to all efforts not just reporting and responding to a victim, but training, data collectionsing, messaging and how we talk about this information, how we talk about this issue internally and externally must come through a trauma inform lens. Lastly, but incredibly important, facilities improvements. We heard some of those concerns this morning , and some of those efforts are actively

under way, including the construction of the new dorm, upgrading the existing dorms to include new mattresses and higher quality bedding, the renovation of the shall lay which will provide additional lounge and recreation space, and a new coffee house setting. And, finally, the Frosty Boy the ice cream machine replacement which is called the space man, it arrived with me on my flight, although I take no credit for that. [ Laughter ] So, my visit to Antarctica . I have to say, honestly, t

hose aren't word I ever thought I would say, although I never thought I'd live in Jabuti for 13 months either. This is literally the polar opposite. This transitions perfectly as I just returned last week. I had what some would say was a true Antarctic experience. My first three days -- my first three flight, rather, were canceled, so three days in a row , and Terry carpenter can attest to that. We were together during this adventure. On the fourth day, we finally departed, and about five

hours into our flight, thinking we were more than halfway there, you felt the plane bank, and found out we had to turn around. So, ten and a half hours later on a C-13 we were back in Christchurch. I had the full experience to those in OPP who are laughing in the back. So, anyway, you will see in the top corner, the first photo is the SPACEMAN. You'll see someone took it so seriously that they constructed a box representing the Frosty Boy with wings and a halo representing its passing. S

o, it is funding when you're in these austere environment the little things that become symbolic or iconic to the community including Ivan the terra bus in the bottom right corner. I had an opportunity to ride on Ivan from the airfield to the station when I arrived. Someone mentioned this morning about the three folks from Vermont that you met while Antarctica . Well, I met two people from Rhode Island, my home state, and I'm like, I don't know who -- that was just amazing to me. B

ack to the program. And sharing my experiences. I with also like to note that four members of the SAHPR program staff also conducted visits in October and never including the visit to Palmer station. Unfortunately with my visit getting cut short with the flight day, I was note able to get to the South Pole as expected . So, I do hope that's something I can do in the future. We did have a SAHPR member, SAHPR team member from OCR attend or, rather, go to Palmer stake last year, and I thi

nk these visits helped instill some trust in the existence of a program leading up to me arriving. It basically gave people behind this program. It is not just a hotline or one victim advocate they see or some obscure e-mail address but people behind SAHPR science and they are using the community feedback to help improve this program. I had the opportunity to have many one-on-one meetings with community members. Some dropped in during office hour, others directly reached out to me to ma

ke sure we could fine an opportunity to connect while I was there. And, again, I could hear from them, you know , that the -- that they were grateful to be heard in that moment. Along with the OIG ininvestigators who happened to also arrive, because of my delay they arrived with me over on the ice as well, so, we were able to partner while there. And we met with a medical clinic personnel, including the South Pole physician, and outgoing McMurdo physician, and during that meeting we were r

eally focused on sexual assault forensic exams what we refer to as safe. In the event it is necessary, it is incredibly important that the victim of sexual assault has opportunity to have evidence collected and that forensic exam, because it is evidence , has -- we needed strong processes for storage , chain of custody and the coordination with DOJ. So, that requires that strong partnership with OIG to make sure all of those things are taken care of and there's not evidence lost during th

at process. I also met with the Navy chaplain, the deputy commander Colonel Ford spent quite a bit of time with the victim advocate . Spend time with the outgoing station manager, the NSF station manager, unfortunately his replacement was on the flight in so I didn't have the opportunity to meet the incoming and I had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Air Force, also I did not mention previously but Lieutenant general Lowe Director of air National Guard, who is in the bottom

right photo, he is part of the group I was able to spend time with and talking about collaboration and how to coordinate with the DoD resources . A participated in the NSF town hall which is their weekly leadership meetings ASC leadership meetings, attended two sessions of reporting and response training that the victim advocate provides and supported OIG investigators with outreach session. This allowed us to show the collaboration between SAHPR and OIG so individuals know that if th

ey come forward to report a sexual assault as a crime, that they also have the SAHPR office to support them. And I do want to share my kudos with the office of Inspector General. Because the investigator they brought on a few months before I joined NSF , Carrie Hartman was brought on specifically to address these issue, she's wonderful. And well versed in victim survivor centered responses . And this makes our partnership incredibly prolific. I've had the unfortunate opportunity to wo

rk with some law enforcement and investigators that are not quite as skilled, and honestly, that can cause so much more harm in the system, harm to the victim, harm to the whole process, so I'm very excited to have the partnership we have with OIG. We heard a lot of observations that morning from the members on their recent visit, and mine really do feel generally aligned with what others shared. And I would like to continue to stress the content of prevention as it relates to getting to th

e root causes of sexual violence. We need to focus on the environment as a whole and morale of the community, not just responding to bad actors. If not, you're never getting ahead of the curve. And I think, again, back to Dr. Basher's presentation, you know, that was very evidence how important, you know, community and diversity and inclusion are. We have to focus on what is within NSF's control and sphere of influence, and we need to strengthen the support for the impacted person. That

needs to be the driving factor for any response , which is considered secondary prevention for those -- I'm looking at this through a public health model which we could spend a whole session on talking about. But secondary prevention, if an Ince lent occurs we do not want to retraumatize or cause more harm. Accountability comes in many different forms and is often unpredictable with law offices, HR, prosecutions that may or may not go forward. But what we can control, in between portions w

here an individual feels safe enough to come forward and we can support them through that process. So, the feedback from the monthly meetings with the contractor, subcontractors, my recent visit and your valuable insight from the recent visits have all validated my vision for the way forward , which I'll share with you now. I would like to walk you through the components of the framework that I'm establishing at NSF. The elements of framework are driven by evidence and research inform best

practices in the sexual violence field . Many of you may be aware this evolved over the last couple of decades. We learn and we do better. That's the most important piece. Often, unfortunately, learning from survivors who have had these experiences . So, what I will be sharing with you is based on my personal experience in multiple Federal agencies in variety of positions from boots on the ground and responding in the middle of the night to oversight. I worked with other agencies pri

or to coming to NSF and continue to do so participating on several interagency working groups . The framework include standards that many of our -- that have already been implemented across the Department of Defense, NOAA, the Coast Guard , Peace Corps, USAID and others . In addition to my experience the SAHPR team conducted extensive benchmarking across agencies as well that support moving in this direction. Additionally, most of these are tied to congressional mandates that have occurred o

ver the last 15 years, to those same named Federal agencies as well. So, beginning with the approach. Moving forward, the SAHPR program will use the following core expectation toss support the development of enter prizewide program. Intersectional. We must continue to have intentional, thoughtful coordination and collaboration with ≫ ECR, and DEI to address the root causes of sexual violence. Addressing these issue was a public health prevention lens cannot be done in a vacuum or throu

gh one office. It must be a collective effort. And when I say root cause, research globally shows that sexual violence occurs where there is inequity and power dynamics. Our focus on equitable inclusive research environments supports this approach. We just heard from Dr. Barber about the importance of equity becoming the fabric of our organization, and that contributes to this as well. Response processes he will be multi disciplinary, it is critical to have everyone who has a role in re

sponding to -- has a role in responding, working together to ensure the safety of the individual and the community . These efforts span across the program operational office, HR, OIG, legal , all is depicted in the graphic. And this is just a quick chance of the internal coordination . As noted previously we have a lot of external coordination as well. Next the victim and survivor centered approach . You see SAHPR, again, at the enter. Somewhat as an umbrella. And we put the victim and

survivor at the center of that. We must strive to always place the right, confidentiality, wishes, needs, safety and well being of the victim at the center of all prevention and Sprinz efforts. We must promote their autonomy. And the chart preps key response mechanics I the in place . Criminal justice process, HR process, medical care and action sense to the victim advocate to can help navigate these systems. The impacted person needs to know their options and they must drive the train

. We must remember that this happened to them, not to us. Last, is the trauma-inform program attic approach. So, what does this mean? We can do entire session on being trauma informed as well. To some it may be buzz word or jargon, but it has been proven to be critical in the field of sexual violence. For those who may not be familiar what it means to be trauma inform encourage you to reflect in your own organizations, because I'm sure it is growing awareness as well there. SAMHSA desc

ribes the trauma inform approach as acknowledging the wide spread impact of trauma and creating a safe environment. Physical and emotional safety. And seeks to actively resist retraumaization to achieve optimal outcomes, so that should always be our goal, to never cause more harm and make every effort to support through a process, understanding everyone comes to the table with trauma, especially now, post COVID, there's all sort of different traumas individuals have experienced , and that d

idn't go away just because you get on a flight from Christchurch. Even though it does feel like you're kind of leaving. We have to ensure all NSF personnel and collateral stakeholders under the prevalence and impact of trauma and ensure appropriate response to traumatic incidents. When I -- we must make every effort to protect individuals from retraumatization, that's why that piece with OIG when investigating or asking questions throughing that true a trauma inform lens is incredibly i

mportant. We must mitigate institutional harm. When I refer to institutional harm or institutional betrayal, research has shown a response by an institution to sexual violence can often be more harmful than the incident itself. If you reflect back on the media reports, not just NSF media report but others, where you think back to the survivor stories from the November meeting, you'll hear how they feel betrayed by the institution that they've chosen to dedicate a portion of their life t

o , not just the incident itself, which is, of course, horrible and should never happen. But, again, what we can control is how we respond to that, and support them when something does happen, and make every effort to prevent it in the first place. So, the foundation. I showed you the approach. Now let's dive into more tangible aspects of the framework. Comprehensive prevention and response procedures. I really am big on standards, and we need to standardize language, not just from the

NSF lens, but ensure that spread down through the contractor, subcontractor and academia when communicating about this problem. We have to have clearly defined roles and response acts for both prevention and response efforts. That transparency we talked about this morning as well. Everyone should know what's going to happen when, if something were to happen to them, when they choose to report, what that process looks like. This begins with our leadership and institutional commitment made

by NSF. Prevention must address the attitudes, behaviors and norms that promote sexual violence , we can do this by enhancing existing protective factors that support a positive, safe, equitable environment and mitigate the risk factors. And that's back to that intersectional approach named onment previous slide. Response procedures, as I said, must be trauma inform and victim centered and that does require a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to provide optimal support to the indiv

idual and ensure accountability. And of course this must be sustainable . The Director and COO have already dedicated staffing, resources and funding to enhance the capacity of the SAHPR program showing commitment to ensure that program and this problem remains a priority for all leaders, managers and supervisors. We will continue to increase awareness internally and externally with collateral partners and continue to Foster meaningful take holder relationships across eek academia, Fed

eral and civilian partners . And of course continuous quality improvement. Unfortunately the work never stops. I never thought I'd be doing this almost 30 years later. I wish I wasn't but here we are. We will continue to use lessons learned to help us move forward. Feedback is critical from survivors as well. That survey, sexual assault, sexual harassment survey will also help contribute to this process. To determine the effectiveness of the program requires ongoing quality review an

d the equipment to improve at needed . There will continue to be growing pains, because this is incredibly challenging. It is a global pervasive issue with no off-the-shelf solution, so it is going to take hard work, continued hard work. So, next steps. I've spoken at length through the presentation about the various ways we are currently strengthening and expanding SAHPR functions. As we build the program out to include bringing on additional expertise, of course we'll continue to sh

are those mile stones with you. To that end we will continue refining and improving reporting and notification processes and follow-up procedures. Just yesterday, the ASC HR rep reached out to share an undated incident notification template that's been revised based on collaboration. We identified gaps and modifications necessary for them to accurately share information when they receive report. That's an example of, we're going to keep evolving and improving . I'm working with my co

lleagues to continue to build on the progress they've made on internal reporting and case management of report made through the SAHPR science e-mail. That have been schooled by OPP, OPR and others so the SAHPR program will have oversight of all victim services and all programmatic efforts. It is important that the SAHPR program which will have the expertise on victim centered interventions, serves as the single point of focus for any services related to sexual assault and sexual harassmen

t that the NSF provides. I already mentioned the critical partnership with OIG, and we also continue to have regular working group meets to enhance and ensure that coordinated response. And finally, just an example of the interagency working groups. Next week, USAID is hosting ant interagency executive roundtable on sexual misconduct in the Federal workplace. This is a working group insat on while I was with the Peace Corps and transitioned here and continued to serve as well . And we'

re coming together next week to talk about the challenges, all of the Federal agencies are facing in this space , again, especially when sexual harassment is so pervasive and that balance between , or determining those lines between what is a criminal offense, versus something that can be handled administratively, that's really a challenge in the Federal space. I'll be attending with the COO and SAHPR program manager. And just a quick reminder, as I close , we won't be meeting again until

May and April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I guarantee all of our institutions and organizations will be doing something in honor of SAAM . I urge you to participate. Teal is the color for sexual assault awareness. Wear teal on Tuesday, denim on denim day to support survivors or any other activities, signing a proclamation, showing support is incredibly important, not just in April. We should be having this discussion all of the time. But anyway, you can support your organizatio

n in April is incredibly helpful. And I'll close. Thank you, again, for this opportunity to share my vision, and intent and support that helps -- your support that helps drive us through what we need to do for our community. ≫ DAN REED: Thank you, Renee, I see Matt has his hand up? ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: Hi. Thank you very much for that. You mentioned you can not control accountability, but you certainly do know about it, it is very relevant here. I asked this question last year, but I kind

of asked it the wrong way. Just to be clear, I do not want any names , no identifying information of anything, not even exact numbers, maybe just rough numbers here, if you look back over the last half year, or whatever time frame you want, you have a rough idea of hue how many people you regrettably accused , bad actors, accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault, how many of them received some negative consequences, whatever they might be ? For example, maybe they got demoted. Maybe t

here was an official reprimand, or they were removed from the ice. Did they make an official apology to anybody. This would include cases in progress. We don't know that. Just a rough estimate how many people people we're talking. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I can't speak do that. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: You don't know? ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I personally don't know. Again when we lump things together when it is administrative versus -- ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: You can lump those together for me . ≫ RENEE FERRANTI

: I'm prefacing someone can face accountability through HR based on performance , based on allegations of others , you know -- ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: That's interesting, performance covers all kind of things. So nobody might ever know if it was because they were guilty of sexual harassment as long as it doesn't rise to criminal. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: If it doesn't rise to criminal , we are unable to find out specifics about HR actions against individuals , legally. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: We can't get sta

tistic. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I can put a thread of numbers we collected of incidents that we are aware of. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: That's a start. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I have to check to see if the most obvious would be if someone was removed from the ice. Other than that I don't know specific numbers. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: Do you know half dozen people removed from the ice, ballpark it? ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I can't speak to that. Not that I won't, I personally cannot. I would need to -- ≫ MATTHEW MALK

AN: To your knowledge, it was not zero, though, I guess. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: To my knowledge, I don't believe it is zero, no . ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: So you think you could get -- I realize you might not be the person, but do you think you can get that information or somebody can get that information for me? ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: I hear the push. I want to caution. You said something that caused me a bit of pause. Did they require an apology. Do you know how -- that would be an incredibly inap

propriate thing to do. So -- there's trauma inform ways of having to deal with this, and what I want to shift, of course , accountability is incredibly perform, and it comes in all different forms, the SAHPR program if we put the victim at the center of this issue, our goal isn't that end state. That person may not even want to press charges, that American may not even want to pursue a formal report. They may want to get counseling, and continue with their job. They may want to go home a

nd cut their time short . They may want to pursue criminal charges. They may not want to pursue criminal charges unfortunately think it is only an HR issue, and find out that, oh, no, he or she is going to be charged with a crime, and be like , I don't want to participate in that process. None of it is black and white. So I would really be hesitant to give the numbers you're asking for. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: That's a good point. This is just a small one. Then, do you know -- and I thin

k I know the answer -- do you know if anybody would be like in management or whatever, suffered any, any negative consequences at all, for retaliating against a victim , you know, anything. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: Again, I think in my tenure, I have to speak with others if there's awareness of what -- in this case , I think if it were internal to NSF, we would have concrete information we could provide. If it is contractors we would have to look into what legally they would be able to share a

bout that type of accountability. ≫ MATTHEW MALKAN: Appreciate that very much. Thank you . ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: If I can follow up on Matt's question if you don't mind . I know I'm going out of order. One of the advantages of having an office like mine, I can follow up with victims and taking a perfectly victim- led process, determine from them whether they are satisfied with the resolution of their situation . And I think that would speak to the question that Matt's getting at. However

they, the victim, chooses to resolve it. You know, are they satisfied with -- ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: Sure. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: -- the assistance and services they received to bring it to a point where they can say, I'm good with this. Yes, I had a trauma. I'm good with how it was handled. I'm good how it was resolved, regardless what that looks like. This is good for us to know, because we need to have some objective idea of the effectiveness of the management of this situation through the

NSF. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: Sure. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: I believe that's what Matt's trying to get at. And I think there are ways are doing it that do not impinge on the privacy and security and diversity of the ways that victims might choose to resolve it, but nonetheless, would provide us as a board with objective assessment of effectiveness. ≫ RENEE FERRANTI: Sure, that is to me, I feel your question was very different than his question . Finding out accountability statistics of an offender fr

om an allegation is a very different question than finding out if a victim survivor is satisfied with the service and support they were provided. ≫ MAUREEN CONDIC: One of the advantages of being Ombudsman I'm good at translating. If that's your goal, I definitely want to agree with you and want to get there I think the USAP survey will help drive news that directions. I know that Peace Corps and Department of Defense , it is sometimes challenging to get feedback from a victim about the

services. You know, we had a response quality survey in the Peace Corps that would go out to a victim within two weeks of the time they made a report asking just five top left questions and it was about that level of, did you feel immediately supplement ported? Did you feel fear of retaliation when you made your report? Some of those very key questions and we could gauge -- unfortunately very low response rates, on that type of request. DoD struggled with for many years, I don't know i

f they reached a point, we even tried to break it down into portions of services. For example the victim advocat, the medical treatment, the investigator, to determine if each layer was functioning appropriately . That was very challenging with low response rate. I think as we tighten up our process , that's an area I want to know. We need to know if we're making valuable impact on the individuals who have had these experiences and can support them. So, absolutely. That's a direction I wo

uld like to pull the thread more, but I do feel the question was a little different. Thank you . ≫ DAN REED: I want to make a suggestion here, we're scheduled to go into closed plenary discussion, and I would suggest, and we're behind schedule, I suggest we do that , perhaps if there are other questions, we can follow up then . I'm going to ask if Andy will move us from opened to closed . So, hang on, while we chase the photon down .