Since then, several other efforts have been conducted to identify federal  STEM programs and provide recommendations to improve both  coordination and program evaluation as well as reduce potential  duplication. Overlap occurs when multiple programs offer similar services to  similar target groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar  objectives. Agencies reported that they developed the majority (130) of  these programs through their general statutory authority and that  Congress specifically directed agencies to create 59 of these programs.The number of programs each agency administered ranged from 3 to 46  with three agencies—HHS, the Department of Energy, and NSF— administering more than half of all programs—112 of 209. Almost a third of the  programs had obligations of $1 million or less, with 5 programs having  obligations of more than $100 million each. In addition, many  programs served multiple target groups. However, even when programs overlapped, the services they provided  and the populations they served may differ in meaningful ways and would  therefore not necessarily be duplicative:
There may be important differences between the specific field(s) of  focus and the program’s stated goals. Although 83 percent of STEM education programs overlapped to some  degree with at least one other program, only 33 percent of programs  reported coordinating with other agencies that provide similar STEM  education services to similar program beneficiaries, not including basic  governmentwide inventory efforts. Limited Use of Performance Measures and Evaluations May Hamper Ability to Assess Effectiveness

		Programs Varied in Their Ability to Provide Information on Populations Served

Program officials varied in their ability to provide reliable information on  the number of students, teachers, or institutions directly served by their  programs—which is a type of output measure. Outcome Data Are Not Clearly Reflected in Agencies’ Performance Plans and Reports

Agencies in our review did not use outcome measures in a way that is  clearly reflected in their performance plans and performance reports— publicly available documents they use for performance planning. This  may hinder decisionmakers’ ability to assess how agencies’ STEM efforts  contribute to agencywide performance goals and the overall federal  STEM effort. While nearly all of the STEM education  programs that reported completing an evaluation reported using different  mechanisms to disseminate results, they did not always share results in a  way that facilitated knowledge sharing. NSTC’s ongoing strategic planning efforts  provide an opportunity to develop guidance on how to incorporate STEM-  and program-specific education goals and measures in agencies’  performance planning and reporting process and align their STEM  education efforts with a governmentwide STEM education strategy. However, most agencies  have not conducted comprehensive evaluations since 2005 to assess the  effectiveness of their STEM education programs. 3. Work with agencies, through its strategic planning process, to identify  programs that might be candidates for consolidation or elimination. OSTP provided technical comments that we  incorporated as appropriate. OMB had no concerns with the report. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our report were to determine (1) the number of federal  agencies and programs that provided funding for science, technology,  engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs in fiscal year  2010; (2) the extent to which STEM programs have similar objectives,  serve similar target groups, provide similar types of services, and, if  necessary, what opportunities exist to increase coordination; and (3) the  extent to which STEM programs have measured their effectiveness. To  inform all of our objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations. Definition of STEM Education Program

For the purposes of our study, we defined a federally funded STEM  education program as a program funded in fiscal year 2010 by  congressional appropriation or allocation that includes 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 provided by a variety  of organizations that offer students learning opportunities outside of  formal schooling through contests, science fairs, summer programs,  and other means; outreach programs targeted to the general public  should not be 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 targeted to students; general research grants  that are targeted to researchers that may hire a student to work in the  lab should not be considered a STEM education program), attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields,  improve teacher (preservice or in-service) education in STEM areas, improve or expand the capacity of K-12 schools or postsecondary  institutions to promote or foster education in STEM fields, or  conduct research to enhance the quality of STEM education programs  provided to students.
Why GAO Did This Study

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs help to enhance the nations global competitiveness. Many federal agencies have been involved in administering these programs. Concerns have been raised about the overall effectiveness and efficiency of STEM education programs.
GAO examined (1) the number of federal agencies and programs that provided funding for STEM education programs in fiscal year 2010; (2) the extent to which STEM education programs have similar objectives, serve similar target groups, and provide similar types of services, and, if necessary, what opportunities exist to increase coordination; and (3) the extent to which STEM education programs measured effectiveness. To answer these questions, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and plans; surveyed federal STEM education programs; analyzed programs STEM evaluations; and interviewed relevant federal officials. An electronic supplementGAO-12-110SPprovides survey results.

What GAO Found

In fiscal year 2010, 13 federal agencies invested over $3 billion in 209 programs designed to increase knowledge of STEM fields and attainment of STEM degrees. The number of programs within agencies ranged from 3 to 46, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Energy and the National Science Foundation administering more than half of these programs. Almost a third of the programs had obligations of $1 million or less, while some had obligations of over $100 million. Beyond programs specifically focused on STEM education, agencies funded other broad efforts that contributed to enhancing STEM education.
Eighty-three percent of the programs GAO identified overlapped to some degree with at least 1 other program in that they offered similar services to similar target groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. Many programs have a broad scopeserving multiple target groups with multiple services. However, even when programs overlap, the services they provide and the populations they serve may differ in meaningful ways and would therefore not necessarily be duplicative. Nonetheless, the programs are similar enough that they need to be well coordinated and guided by a robust strategic plan. Currently, though, less than half of the programs GAO surveyed indicated that they coordinated with other agencies that administer similar STEM education programs. Current efforts to inventory federal STEM education activities and develop a 5-year strategic plan present an opportunity to enhance coordination, align governmentwide efforts, and improve efficiency of limited resources by identifying opportunities for program consolidation and reducing administrative costs.
Agencies limited use of performance measures and evaluations may hamper their ability to assess the effectiveness of their individual programs as well as the overall STEM education effort. Specifically, program officials varied in their ability to provide reliable output measuresfor example, the number of students, teachers, or institutions directly served by their program. Further, most agencies did not use outcomes measures in a way that is clearly reflected in their performance planning documents. This may hinder decision makers ability to assess how agencies' STEM education efforts contribute to agencywide performance goals and the overall federal STEM effort. In addition, a majority of programs did not conduct comprehensive evaluations since 2005 to assess effectiveness, and the evaluations GAO reviewed did not always align with program objectives. Finally, GAO found that completed STEM education evaluation results had not always been disseminated in a fashion that facilitated knowledge sharing between both practitioners and researchers.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that as OSTP leads the governmentwide STEM education strategic planning effort, it should work with agencies to better align their activities with a governmentwide 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. OSTP provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. OMB had no concerns with the report.