The term “STEM education” includes educational activities across all grade levels—from preschool to graduate school. STEM education programs have a variety of primary objectives, which include preparing students for STEM coursework, providing postsecondary students with grants or fellowships in STEM fields, and improving STEM teacher training (see appendix I for our definition of STEM education programs). Federal STEM education programs have been created in two ways— either by law or by federal agencies under their statutory authorities. We previously reported that most federal STEM education programs overlapped to some degree with at least one other program, in that they offered similar services to similar groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives (see sidebar for definition of overlap). Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve their goals, or aim to serve similar beneficiaries. Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities exist to improve service delivery. Although those programs may not be duplicative, we reported that they were similar enough that they needed to be well coordinated and guided by a robust strategic plan. And, through its strategic planning and other coordination efforts, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council implemented our recommendations to work with agencies to better align their activities with a government-wide strategy; develop a plan for sustained coordination; identify programs for potential consolidation or elimination; and assist agencies in determining how to better evaluate their programs. Enacted in 2007, the America COMPETES Act authorized several programs to promote STEM education. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES Act) reauthorized the America COMPETES Act and addresses coordination and oversight issues, including those associated with the coordination and potential duplication of federal STEM education efforts. The COMPETES Act required the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish, under the National Science and Technology Council, the Committee on STEM Education to serve as the interagency coordination body for STEM education in the federal government (see fig. 1). In May 2013, the Committee on STEM Education issued a 5-year Strategic Plan for federal STEM education efforts, as required by the COMPETES Act. To improve collaboration across the portfolio, the Strategic Plan identified five priority investment areas and two coordination objectives, specifying national goals for each (see fig. 2). The COMPETES Act also requires that the Committee create, and periodically update, an inventory of federal STEM education programs that includes documentation of program assessments and the participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons in rural areas. In addition, the COMPETES Act requires that the Office of Science and Technology Policy publish annual reports on coordinating federal STEM education efforts. The law mandates that these reports include specific information, such as: a description of each federal agency’s STEM education programs funded in the previous and current fiscal years, as well as those proposed under the President’s budget request; the levels of funding for each participating federal agency’s programs described above; an evaluation of the levels of duplication and fragmentation of the programs described above; and a description of the progress made implementing the Strategic Plan, including a description of the outcome of any program assessments completed in the previous year, and any changes made to the Strategic Plan since the previous annual report. In January 2017, the President signed into law the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, which, among other things, amended certain provisions of the COMPETES Act. The Act added some requirements for both the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Committee on STEM Education. For example, it created new mandates for the Committee to: review the measures federal agencies use to evaluate their STEM education programs, and make recommendations for reforming, terminating, or consolidating the federal STEM portfolio. Any such recommendations for an upcoming fiscal year are to be included in the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s annual report. In 2014, the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the federal agencies that administer STEM education programs, established STEM education as a cross-agency priority goal. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation led the oversight and management of this goal, and as part of this work, goal leaders from these agencies identified milestones that aligned with the Strategic Plan’s priority investment areas and coordination objectives (see fig. 2). For example, goal leaders reported progress toward meeting key milestones associated with improving STEM instruction. In 2017, to ensure alignment with the current administration’s priorities, the Office of Management and Budget removed the priority status of all cross-agency priority goals, including STEM education; this ended the required public issuance of quarterly priority goal reports. The STEM Education goal’s final quarterly progress report was issued at the end of fiscal year 2016. Other government-wide efforts are underway to improve the transparency around federal programs in general. These efforts are not directed at the STEM education programs specifically, but may assist in managing the STEM education portfolio. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires the Office of Management and Budget to present a coherent inventory of all federal programs by making information about each federal program available on a website. However, we previously reported that, because agencies used different approaches to define their programs, comparability of programs within and across agencies on this inventory was limited. We recently identified a potential framework for the development of a useful federal program inventory. The Office of Management and Budget decided to postpone further development of the inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of related requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014. Once fully implemented, this act is expected to expand the types and transparency of public information on federal spending to make it easier to track it to specific federal programs. The act requires government-wide reporting on a greater variety of data related to federal spending, such as budget and financial information, as well as tracking of these data at multiple points in the federal spending lifecycle. Program officials from the 13 federal agencies that administer STEM education programs reported a total of 163 STEM education programs in fiscal year 2016, compared to 209 programs in fiscal year 2010. Three agencies—the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation—administered more than half of all STEM education programs in fiscal years 2010 and 2016. Despite collectively reporting fewer STEM education programs, program officials responding to our questionnaire reported spending about the same amount in fiscal year 2016 as they did in fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2016, program officials reported spending about $2.9 billion on the 163 programs. Spending by individual programs ranged from about $14,000 annually to hundreds of millions of dollars. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services programs account for about 60 percent of this spending. Figure 3 provides an agency-level summary of the number of programs and their reported spending. Appendix II contains a complete list of the 163 STEM education programs and their reported spending for fiscal year 2016. While agencies reported many of the same STEM education programs in fiscal years 2010 and 2016, the federal portfolio evolved in various ways. About half of the 209 programs previously reported for fiscal year 2010 were reported again for fiscal year 2016—accounting for about two-thirds (109 programs) of the fiscal year 2016 portfolio. The remaining third (54 programs) were newly reported for fiscal year 2016. (See appendix I for more information on changes to the STEM portfolio between fiscal years 2010 and 2016.) The portfolio underwent various changes from fiscal years 2010 to 2016, including program consolidations, creations, and terminations. According to leadership of the Committee on STEM Education, these changes were due to many factors. One key factor is the STEM Education Strategic Plan, which, among other things, calls for greater efficiency and cohesion across federal STEM education programs. Other factors include agencies’ individual priorities, including their mission and budget, and congressional interest in specific programs. For example, agencies reported: Consolidations. Starting in 2014, for greater efficiency and cohesion, the National Science Foundation consolidated a number of related undergraduate STEM education programs, including STEM Talent Expansion Programs, Transforming Undergrad Education in STEM, and Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education in Engineering. Creations. Department of Health and Human Services officials reported administering 28 new STEM education programs. These programs are housed in the Department’s National Institutes of Health, which generally bases its funding decisions on scientific opportunities and its own peer review process. One new program is the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity Initiative. This program supports undergraduate institutions in implementing and studying approaches to engaging and retaining students from diverse backgrounds in biomedical research. Terminations. Department of Education officials reported that four STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2010 were terminated before fiscal year 2016. One such program was the Women’s Educational Equity program. Congress last funded this program in fiscal year 2010. Based on our analysis of questionnaire responses, nearly all STEM education programs in fiscal year 2016 overlapped with at least one other STEM education program, in that they offered at least one similar service to at least one similar group in at least one similar STEM field to achieve at least one similar objective (see text box). Similar levels of overlap occurred among programs funded in fiscal year 2010. Similarities Among Overlapping Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs Similar Services Many of the 163 STEM education programs provided similar services. To support students, most programs (143) provided research opportunities, internships, mentorships, or career guidance. In addition, 110 programs supported short-term experiential learning activities, and 99 programs supported long-term experiential learning activities. Short-term experiential learning activities include field trips, guest speakers, workshops, and summer camps. Long-term experiential learning activities last throughout a semester in length or longer. To support teachers, 77 programs provided curriculum development and 45 programs supported teacher in-service training, professional development, or retention activities. Similar Groups Intended to be Served Many programs also provided services to similar groups, such as K-12 students, postsecondary students, K-12 teachers, and college faculty. A majority of STEM programs reported primarily benefiting postsecondary students; specifically, 103 programs intended to serve 4-year undergraduate students, 76 intended to serve Master’s degree students, and 83 intended to serve doctoral students. Most programs also intended to serve multiple groups; 137 of the 163 programs served two or more groups. Similar STEM Fields More than 75 percent of programs focused on specific STEM academic fields of study. The most common fields were biology (85 programs), technology (75 programs), engineering (72 programs), and computer science (71 programs). Of those programs that focused on specific STEM fields of study, about 55 percent (68 programs) focused on 5 or more different fields. Similar Objectives Many STEM education programs had similar objectives. An objective of a majority of programs (115) was to provide training opportunities for undergraduate or graduate students in STEM fields. Most programs (139) also reported having multiple primary STEM objectives. Despite these similarities, overlapping programs may differ in meaningful ways, such as their specific field of focus and those programs’ stated goals. For example, a primary objective of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Cancer Education Grants program and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s National Space Grant College and Fellowship Project is to provide training opportunities for undergraduate or graduate students in biological sciences, among other fields. However, these programs have different program goals: The Cancer Education Grants program aims to develop innovative cancer education programs and cancer research dissemination projects. The National Space Grant College and Fellowship Project encourages interdisciplinary education, research, and public service programs related to aerospace. Although many STEM education programs are designed to provide similar services to similar groups, some programs serve distinct populations within those broader groups, such as minority, disadvantaged, or underrepresented groups. Within the broad group— middle and high school students, an individual program may focus on serving only minority, disadvantaged, or underrepresented students. For example, the Department of Transportation’s Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education program focuses services on students who are girls and minorities, whereas the Department of Education’s Upward Bound Math-Science program aims to serve students who are economically disadvantaged. The Committee on STEM Education and the Office of Science and Technology Policy reported managing overlap in the portfolio by coordinating with other agencies through a: Cross-agency priority goal. Project management and oversight of this goal provided an additional mechanism to facilitate coordination. Goal leaders published quarterly progress reports describing their efforts to achieve each of the five priority investment areas and two coordination objectives. Federal coordination subcommittee. Creating a federal coordination subcommittee and various interagency working groups helped to advance goals identified in the Strategic Plan. Committee leadership structured working groups to connect agencies with similar programs (see fig. 4). The Committee on STEM Education and Office of Science and Technology Policy have not fully met their responsibilities to assess the STEM education portfolio. Specifically, the Committee on STEM Education has not reviewed performance assessments of STEM education programs to ensure effectiveness—a primary function of its authorizing charter. Committee leadership acknowledged that they have not conducted such reviews. Overall, the Committee made limited progress advancing its strategic goal of increasing the use of evidence- based approaches because, according to Committee leadership, they focused on achieving other strategic goals. By reviewing programs’ performance assessments, the Committee could leverage existing performance information to identify and share promising practices that agencies could use in designing or revising their programs. Moreover, in doing so, the Committee could further its strategic goal of increasing the use of evidence-based approaches across the portfolio of STEM education programs. We previously have reported that managers can use performance information to identify and increase the use of program approaches that are working well. Additionally, such a review could help the Committee meet its new responsibilities under the 2017 American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, including reviewing the measures federal agencies use to evaluate their STEM education programs and making recommendations for terminating, consolidating, and reforming programs in the federal STEM education portfolio. Further, the Committee on STEM Education has not met the COMPETES Act requirement to document the performance assessments of STEM education programs in its federal STEM inventory (see sidebar). In 2011, the Committee on STEM Education reported summary information on programs’ performance assessments, including the total number of programs funded in fiscal year 2010 that had been evaluated since 2005. However, the information provided was not program- specific; therefore, it is unclear which programs were assessed for effectiveness. Further, that information is outdated, as the STEM education portfolio has changed considerably since 2010, as we have discussed in this report. Committee leadership said they do not have plans to update the summary information provided in 2011, noting that agency budget justifications include program performance assessments. However, we reviewed the budget justifications for 10 STEM education programs that program officials reported had been recently evaluated and found that 8 had no information on performance assessments. By periodically documenting in its federal STEM education inventory whether programs have been assessed for effectiveness, the Committee can enhance communication of performance information among agency officials and stakeholders. This could facilitate the use of performance information by agency managers and lead to greater public awareness regarding the effectiveness of many of the nation’s STEM education programs. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has not done everything required of it either. It has not described the outcomes of programs’ performance assessments completed in the previous year in its annual reports, as required by the COMPETES Act (see sidebar). Office of Science and Technology Policy officials said that they have not reported on recent program assessments, and added that many STEM education programs were not mature enough to provide sufficient data for a definitive assessment. However, many of the 2016 programs that we identified were at least 7 years old and had been assessed. Specifically, 67 percent (109) of the programs reported by program officials for fiscal year 2016 had also been reported for fiscal year 2010. Of the programs in existence since 2010, 49 percent (53) have been assessed, according to program officials’ questionnaire responses. By reporting information on the outcomes of performance assessments completed in the previous year, the Office of Science and Technology Policy could enhance awareness of promising practices in federal STEM education programs. The Committee on STEM Education has not reported STEM education programs’ participation rates of groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields, although broadening participation of those groups is one of the Committee’s strategic goals. Moreover, the COMPETES Act requires that the Committee report the participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons in rural areas in its inventory of federal programs (see sidebar). Committee leadership acknowledged they have not reported these data, and added that such participation data are not fully available across all STEM education programs. However, we found that such participation data were generally available. an inventory of federal STEM education programs that includes documentation of participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons in rural areas. In response to our questionnaire, nearly three-quarters of STEM education programs (120 of 163) reported tracking participants in fiscal year 2016. Of those programs, many also tracked specific participant characteristics. For example, 61 percent (73) of programs that tracked participants also captured whether their participants were women and 54 percent (65) documented those who were African American. Programs primarily intended to serve minority, disadvantaged, or underrepresented groups tracked participant characteristics at higher rates than programs that intended to serve broader groups of beneficiaries (see fig. 5). In addition, 7 of the 13 administering agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that they tracked participation in fiscal year 2016 for at least two-thirds of their STEM education programs. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services said that the department maintains data for many of its STEM education programs in a database that captures individual participants’ demographic data, including race and gender, and aggregates such information for internal reporting. Officials also said they use this information to evaluate whether individual programs are meeting their goals of serving particular groups. Although we found that many agencies reported collecting data on participants in their STEM education programs, the Committee on STEM Education has not reported such information in its inventory, as required. Reporting information on the participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons in rural areas could help the Committee assess whether STEM education programs have broadened participation to groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields—a key goal of the Strategic Plan. Committee leadership said they measured progress toward this goal with general performance indicators, such as the number of women who earned STEM degrees, regardless of participation in federal programs, because such data were readily available. However, those performance indicators are influenced by various factors, including some external to federal STEM education efforts. For example, the number of women earning STEM degrees could be affected by broader economic factors or college enrollment trends, rather than the activities of the agencies. The federal government continues to invest billions of dollars annually in STEM education programs to enhance the nation’s economic and educational competitiveness. Since 2010, the federal portfolio of STEM education programs has evolved considerably. The Committee on STEM Education reported that, through its leadership and strategic planning efforts, it fostered coordination among agencies administering STEM education programs, which helped them implement the STEM Education Strategic Plan. Such efforts to encourage interagency coordination can help ensure efficient use of resources, particularly given the overlap of programs in the STEM education portfolio. The Committee on STEM Education and the Office of Science and Technology Policy have not fulfilled their responsibilities to review, document, and report performance information on STEM education programs. Reviewing performance assessments of the many programs in the federal STEM education portfolio is a vital management responsibility that could, for example, improve the Committee’s ability to disseminate information on promising practices or make recommendations that agencies can use to make well-informed decisions about designing or revising their programs. Further, documenting programs’ performance assessments in the Committee’s federal STEM education inventory and reporting the outcomes of recent assessments in the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s annual reports could enhance the availability of performance information. In addition, the Committee falls short in reporting required information on programs’ participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons from rural areas. Without such information, it is unclear whether the federal investment in STEM education is ultimately supporting its strategic goal of broadening participation to groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields. Moreover, as the Committee on STEM Education begins to implement its new responsibilities prescribed by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, its efforts to review programs’ performance assessments could improve its capacity to make well-informed recommendations to further enhance the portfolio of STEM education programs. We are making a total of four recommendations, including three to the Committee on STEM Education and one to the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Specifically: The leadership of the Committee on STEM Education should review performance assessments of federal STEM education programs and then take appropriate steps to enhance effectiveness of the portfolio, such as by sharing promising practices that agencies could use in designing or revising their programs. (Recommendation 1) The leadership of the Committee on STEM Education should improve public awareness of information on programs’ performance assessments by documenting program-level information on performance assessments in its federal STEM education inventory. (Recommendation 2) The leadership of the Committee on STEM Education should report required information on the participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons from rural areas in federal STEM education programs that collect this information. (Recommendation 3) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy should report the outcomes of programs’ performance assessments completed in the previous year in its annual report. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education and the Office of Science and Technology Policy for review and comment. These entities jointly provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV, and technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. They agreed with all four of our recommendations and noted initial strategies for how they would implement three of them. Regarding implementation of the fourth recommendation to report on participation rates of underrepresented groups in federal STEM education programs, they noted plans to examine confounding factors inhibiting the reporting of the information required under the COMPETES Act. Gaining insight on the challenges agencies face collecting this information is an important first step. However, to comply with the requirement of the COMPETES Act and help ensure programs reach populations historically underrepresented in STEM fields, we continue to believe that the Committee should report the participation rates of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons from rural areas in federal STEM education programs that collect this information. To do so, the Committee may also need to develop strategies to help agencies overcome some of these confounding factors. We are sending copies of this report to leadership of the Committee on STEM Education, and the Assistant Director of STEM Education at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. To identify the programs that should receive our questionnaire, we sought input from the 13 agencies that administer federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs. We provided each of the agencies with our definition of a STEM education program and asked agency officials to identify programs funded in fiscal year 2016 that met this definition (see text box). We also asked agency officials to provide information on the status of the 209 STEM education programs we included in our previous report on STEM education programs. Specifically, we asked whether the programs were funded in fiscal year 2016 and, if not, whether they were consolidated or terminated. Definition of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Program GAO defined “STEM education program” as a program funded by allocation or congressional appropriation. An organized set of activities was considered a single program even when its funds were also allocated to other programs. A STEM education program that met the definition had one or more of the following as a primary objective: attract or prepare students to pursue classes or coursework in STEM areas through formal or informal education activities (informal education programs provide support for activities that offer students learning opportunities outside of formal schooling through contests, science fairs, summer programs, and other means; outreach programs aimed at the general public were not included); attract students to pursue degrees (2-year, 4-year, graduate, or doctoral degrees) in STEM fields through formal or informal education activities; provide training opportunities for undergraduate or graduate students in STEM fields (this can include grants, fellowships, internships, and traineeships that are intended for students; general research grants that involve hiring a student for lab work were not considered a STEM education program); attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields; improve teacher (preservice or in-service) education in STEM fields; improve or expand the capacity of K-12 schools or postsecondary institutions to promote or foster education in STEM fields; and conduct research to enhance the quality of STEM education programs provided to students. Programs designed to retain current employees in STEM fields were not included. Programs that fund retraining of workers to pursue a degree in a STEM field were included because these programs help increase the number of students and professionals in STEM fields by helping retrain non-STEM workers to work in STEM fields. Also included were health care programs that train students for careers that are primarily in scientific research, but not those that train students for careers that are primarily in patient care (e.g. those that trained nurses, doctors, dentists, psychologists, or veterinarians). Lastly, GAO considered STEM fields to include any of the following broad disciplines: agricultural sciences; astronomy; biological sciences; chemistry; computer science; earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; engineering; material science; mathematical sciences; physics; social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, cognitive science, economics, behavioral sciences); and technology. GAO used this same definition of STEM education program in its 2012 report. However, in the current report, GAO explicitly specified astronomy and material science as STEM fields and also revised “mathematics” to be “mathematical sciences” based on feedback from agency officials. We reviewed the information agencies submitted and took steps to corroborate it, such as by reviewing program descriptions and budget documents. Based on our analysis of this information, we sent a web- based questionnaire to 198 programs (see table 1). To develop the questionnaire and collect the data, we used recognized survey design practices to enhance data quality. For instance, we ordered the questionnaire appropriately and ensured the questions were clearly stated and easy to understand. The questionnaire solicited information on federal STEM education programs, including programs’ objectives, intended groups served, services provided, STEM fields, and obligations. We did not conduct pretests because most of the questions were included in our prior questionnaire and had already been pretested. On May 8, 2017, we sent an email announcing the online questionnaire to the officials responsible for programs identified as STEM education and also notifying them that the questionnaire would be activated that week. On May 10, 2017, we sent a second message to officials informing them that the questionnaire was activated and providing them with unique usernames and passwords. As necessary, we followed-up with program officials by telephone and email. We collected responses through August 31, 2017. Based on our analysis of the questionnaire responses and other information we received from program officials, we excluded 35 programs from our inventory. (See table 2 for a summary of those 35 programs and the reasons we excluded them.) Nine of the 35 excluded programs had been reported by agency officials as STEM education programs in our previous report. In most cases (8 of 9), we excluded these programs in this report because the programs did not include STEM education as a primary objective in fiscal year 2016. In the remaining case, we excluded the program because it was a component of another fiscal year 2016 STEM education program, and thus would be duplicative. We confirmed this information and the programs’ exclusion with the administering agencies. After we completed our analysis, we identified 163 programs as STEM education for fiscal year 2016. Programs officials responsible for all 163 of these programs completed our questionnaire. We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to these completed questionnaires. We also used recognized survey design practices to process and analyze data collected via the questionnaire. For instance, we performed automated checks to review the data and identify inappropriate answers. We also reviewed the data for missing or ambiguous responses and followed up with program officials when necessary to clarify their responses. We did not verify all responses since we had applied recognized survey design practices and follow-up procedures, and had determined that the data used in this report were of sufficient quality for the purposes of our reporting objectives. In addition to the contact named above, Bill J. Keller (Assistant Director), Kathryn O’Dea Lamas (Analyst-in-Charge), Morgan Jones, and Karissa Robie made significant contributions. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah Bland, Charles Culverwell, Jill Lacey, Sheila McCoy, James Rebbe, Kathleen van Gelder, and Sarah Veale.
Education programs in STEM fields are intended to enhance the nation's global competitiveness. GAO reported in 2012 that there were more than 200 federal STEM education programs in fiscal year 2010. Since then, this portfolio of programs has changed. GAO was asked to review the landscape of federal STEM education programs. This report examines (1) how the federal investment in STEM education programs changed from 2010 to 2016, and (2) the extent to which the STEM education portfolio has been assessed.To answer these questions, GAO administered a web-based questionnaire to all federal STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2016 and analyzed the results. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents, examined the implementation of relevant assessment requirements, and interviewed officials from relevant federal agencies. The federal investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs remained relatively stable from fiscal years 2010 to 2016, although the number of programs declined from 209 to 163 (see figure). While agencies reported that many of the same STEM education programs existed during this time period, the portfolio underwent various changes, including program consolidations, creations, and terminations. Nearly all STEM education programs in fiscal year 2016 overlapped to some degree with at least one other program in that they offered similar services to similar groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. The Committee on STEM Education, an interagency body responsible for implementing the federal STEM education strategic plan, reported it managed this overlap through coordination with agencies administering these programs. The Committee on STEM Education has not fully met its responsibilities to assess the federal STEM education portfolio. Specifically, the Committee has not reviewed programs' performance assessments, as required by its authorizing charter, nor has it documented those assessments in its inventory, as required by law. Such efforts could encourage the use of evidenced-based practices across the portfolio—a key national goal of the STEM education strategic plan. These efforts could also enhance public awareness of the administering agencies' efforts to assess programs' performance. In addition, the Committee has not reported the participation rates of underrepresented groups in federal STEM education programs, as required by law. By reporting this information, the Committee could better assess whether programs are broadening access to groups historically underrepresented in STEM fields—another key goal of the strategic plan. GAO is making four recommendations, including three to the Committee on STEM Education to review performance assessments of STEM education programs, document those assessments, and report programs' participation rates of underrepresented groups. The Committee on STEM Education agreed with GAO's recommendations.