In 2014, the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of  2014 (RAMI Act) was enacted as part of the Consolidated and Further  Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. Selected Federal Programs Reported Supporting U.S. Manufacturing by Fostering Innovation, Strengthening Competitiveness in the Global Marketplace, and Assisting Workers

		Federal Programs We Identified Reported Supporting U.S. Manufacturing

We identified 58 programs in 11 federal agencies that reported they  support U.S. manufacturing. Based on our review of survey responses,  these programs support manufacturing by fostering innovation, helping  manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, helping workers  enhance skills and obtain employment, and providing general financing or  general business assistance. Reported obligations for these  programs ranged from $750,000 to $203,568,000 in fiscal year 2015. Twenty-six other programs reported using funding to support  manufacturing—in additional to other sectors—and provided ranges of  estimates for the obligations directly supporting manufacturing. The remaining 11 programs  either did not provide an estimate of their support to manufacturing or  reported zero program obligations in fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year 2015, this program obligated $3,223,434,  according to agency officials, and provided grants to approximately 12  educational institutions, which supported about 140 students and  other individuals conducting research. Supporting the enhancement of job seekers’ skills. Our analysis of survey  responses shows that more than two thirds of programs are addressing  the shift toward advanced manufacturing, approximately half of the  programs are taking steps to address increased globalization and  competition, and less than half are addressing the need for a higher  skilled workforce. Programs reported addressing trends in  several ways, including providing funding and resources, sharing  information, and promoting coordination. Most Programs Reported Goals or Measures Related to Support of Manufacturing, and an Interagency Group Has Not Identified the Information It Needs to Report on Progress in Supporting Advanced Manufacturing Most Programs Reported Having Performance Goals or Measures Related to Supporting Manufacturing

Most of the 58 programs reported having performance goals or measures  related to the support of manufacturing. Apart from agency efforts to assess the performance of  individual programs, a federal interagency initiative coordinates activities  and assesses progress in the area of advanced manufacturing. Developing the workforce. The study concluded that, among  other things, the NSF, through the MME program, has positively  “contributed to the emergence of additive manufacturing over the last  25 years.”

		An Interagency Subcommittee Coordinates Agencies’ Advanced Manufacturing Efforts but Has Not Identified the Information Needed to Report Progress toward Achieving Strategic Objectives

Apart from these efforts to assess the performance of individual  programs, there is an interagency subcommittee—the Subcommittee on  Advanced Manufacturing (SAM)—which was tasked by the NSTC’s  Committee on Technology with, among other things, coordinating federal  agencies’ activities and reporting on the federal government’s progress in  a particular area—advanced manufacturing. SAM is co-chaired by OSTP. The strategic plan identifies potential measures that could be used to  measure progress toward these objectives but does not specify what  information should be submitted by agencies. Without specifying the  information it will collect from federal agencies, SAM may lack consistent,  comprehensive information that would help it fully report on the progress  in achieving the objectives of the National Strategic Plan for Advanced  Manufacturing. Recommendation for Executive Action

To enhance the ability of the Executive Office of the President to  implement RAMI Act requirements related to reporting on advanced  manufacturing, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Science  and Technology Policy, working through the National Science and  Technology Council and agency leadership, as appropriate, identify the  information they will collect from federal agencies to determine the extent  to which the objectives outlined in the National Strategic Plan for  Advanced Manufacturing are being achieved. While we agree that the SAM charter provides for periodic updates on the  implementation of the strategic plan, the focus of the draft  recommendation was on the need to identify the specific information to be  collected from federal agencies to report on progress made in achieving  the objectives of the 2012 strategic plan. OSTP also suggested revising the recommendation to specifically  mention the SAM. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) how selected federal programs  provide support to U.S. manufacturing; (2) how selected federal tax  expenditures provide support to U.S. manufacturing; (3) how, if at all,  selected federal programs address manufacturing trends and what, if any,  challenges they face; and (4) the extent to which federal agencies  measure performance and assess effectiveness in supporting  manufacturing generally, and advanced manufacturing specifically. We  identified 11 agencies that administered programs that support the  manufacturing sector. GAO-12-930.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. manufacturing sector—representing about 12 percent of the economy and employing 12 million workers in 2015—has undergone changes over the last several decades. With increased productivity and technological innovation, the sector experienced a decreasing number of jobs and share of the economy. GAO was asked to examine how the federal government supports manufacturing.
This report examines (1) how selected federal programs and tax expenditures provide support to U.S. manufacturing; (2) how programs are addressing manufacturing trends; and (3) the extent to which agencies measure performance and assess effectiveness in support of manufacturing generally, and advanced manufacturing specifically. GAO reviewed selected programs with a focus on manufacturing, among other criteria, and conducted a survey of these selected programs to collect data on their budget, activities, and effects. GAO also reviewed reports and interviewed agency officials and experts.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 58 programs in 11 federal agencies that reported providing support to U.S. manufacturing by fostering innovation through research and development, assisting with trade in the global marketplace, helping job seekers enhance skills and obtain employment, and providing general financing or business assistance. Twenty-one of these programs reported using all of their obligations in fiscal year 2015 to support U.S. manufacturing. For these 21 programs, obligations of each program ranged from $750,000 to $204 million in fiscal year 2015, the most recent full year of data. Twenty-six other programs reported using funding to support manufacturing—in addition to other sectors—and provided ranges of estimates for the obligations directly supporting manufacturing. The remaining 11 programs either did not provide an estimate of their support to manufacturing or reported no program obligations in fiscal year 2015. GAO also identified nine tax expenditures that can provide benefits to manufacturers, amounting to billions of dollars in incentives for both the manufacturing sector and other sectors of the economy.
Most (51) of the 58 programs reported addressing trends toward an increase in advanced manufacturing (e.g. activities using automation, software, or cutting edge materials), the need for a higher-skilled workforce, and more global trade competition for U.S. manufacturers by providing funds and resources, sharing information, and promoting coordination. Survey responses from the 58 programs indicated that more than two-thirds of them are addressing the shift toward advanced manufacturing, approximately half are taking steps to address increased globalization and competition, and fewer than half are addressing the need for a higher skilled workforce.
Forty-four of the 58 programs reported having performance goals or measures related to the support of manufacturing, but agencies that comprise an interagency group have not identified the information they will collect from agencies and use to report progress in supporting advanced manufacturing. Ten of the 11 agencies that administer programs GAO reviewed participate in a federal interagency initiative to coordinate activities and report on progress in the area of advanced manufacturing. The Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing—co-chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and that coordinates advanced manufacturing efforts—supports the updating and reporting on a National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. The plan, which was published in 2012, identifies objectives and potential measures that could be used to assess progress. The subcommittee plans to report in 2018 on progress in achieving the strategic plan's objectives, as required by the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014. However, OSTP has not worked with the subcommittee member agencies to identify the information needed to report progress in achieving the strategic objectives, such as what measures will be used. While subcommittee officials said the subcommittee does not provide top-down direction to federal agencies on how to measure effectiveness, specifying the information it will collect from federal agencies would better position it to report consistent and comprehensive information on the progress in achieving the plan's objectives.

What GAO Recommends

OSTP should identify the information it will collect from agencies to determine their progress in achieving the objectives of the National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing. In commenting on a draft of this report, OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation and suggested alternative language. In response, GAO revised the recommendation to focus on the identification of information, as discussed in the report.