	Background

Since 2005, there have been several efforts to inventory federal STEM  education programs and reports that call for the need to better coordinate  and evaluate STEM education programs. In addition, the National Science and Technology  Council (NSTC) was established in 1993 and is the principal means for  the administration to coordinate science and technology with the federal  government’s larger research and development effort. In our January 2012 report on STEM education, we defined a federally  funded STEM education program as a program funded in fiscal year 2010  by congressional appropriation or allocation that included 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, 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 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. 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—the Department of Health and Human  Services, the Department of Energy, and the National Science  Foundation (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 five programs having  obligations of more than $100 million each. Beyond the 209 programs identified in our review, federal agencies  carried out other activities that contribute to the overall federal STEM  education effort. Most STEM Programs Overlapped to Some Degree

As we reported in 2012, and as figure 2 illustrates, in fiscal year 2010, 83  percent of STEM education programs overlapped to some degree with  another program in that they offered at least one similar service to at least  one similar target group in at least one similar STEM field to achieve at  least one similar objective. In addition, many programs served multiple target groups. Biological sciences and technology  were the most selected STEM fields that programs focused on. However, even when programs overlapped, we found that the services  they provided and the populations they served may differ in meaningful  ways and would therefore not necessarily be duplicative. Limited Use of Performance Measures and Evaluations Hamper Ability to Assess Effectiveness

In 2012, we reported that in addition to the fragmented and overlapping  nature of federal STEM education programs, 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. Program officials varied in their ability to  provide reliable output measures—for example, the number of students,  teachers, or institutions directly served by their program. In addition, most agencies did not use outcome measures in a way that is  clearly reflected in their performance plans and reports—publicly  available documents they use for performance planning. Work with agencies, through its strategic-planning process, to identify  programs that might be candidates for consolidation or elimination,  which could be identified through an analysis that includes information  on program overlap and program effectiveness. In February 2012, NSTC  published Coordinating Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and  Mathematics (STEM) Education Investments: Progress Report, which  identified a number of programs that could be eliminated in fiscal year  2013. Agency and program officials would benefit from guidance  and information sharing within and across agencies about what is working  and how to best evaluate programs. In addition, STEM education was named as  an interim crosscutting priority goal in the President’s 2013 budget  submission; however, it will be important for NSTC to finalize its strategic  plan, which should include guidance for how agencies can better align  their performance plans and reports to new governmentwide goals.
Why GAO Did This Study

STEM education programs help to enhance the nation's 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.
This testimony discusses (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 overlap; and (3) the extent to which STEM education programs measured effectiveness and were aligned to a governmentwide strategy. This testimony is based on several previously published GAO reports and includes updates on actions taken in response to these reports.

What GAO Found

In fiscal year 2010, 13 federal agencies invested over $3 billion in 209 programs designed to increase knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and attainment of STEM degrees. The number of programs within agencies ranged from 3 to 46, with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation administering more than half of the 209 programs. Almost a third of all 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 scope--serving 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.
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 measures--for 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. In addition, a majority of programs did not conduct comprehensive evaluations since our prior review in 2005 and the time of our survey in 2011 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. In naming STEM education as a crosscutting goal, the administration is taking the first step towards better governmentwide coordinated planning; however, it will be important to finalize a governmentwide strategic plan so agencies can better align their performance plans and reports to new governmentwide goals. GAO previously recommended that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should direct the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to work with agencies to better align their activities with a governmentwide strategy, develop a plan for sustained monitoring of coordination, identify programs for consolidation or potential elimination, and assist agencies in determining how to better evaluate their programs. Since GAO's report, OSTP released a progress report that identified some programs for elimination, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) named STEM education one of its interim cross-cutting priority goals.

What GAO Recommends

GAO previously recommended that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should direct the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to work with agencies to better align their activities with a governmentwide strategy, develop a plan for sustained monitoring of coordination, identify programs for consolidation or potential elimination, and assist agencies in determining how to better evaluate their programs. Since GAOs report, OSTP released a progress report that identified some programs for elimination, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) named STEM education one of its interim cross-cutting priority goals.