SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY, 

ENGINEERING, AND 

MATHEMATICS 

EDUCATION

Governmentwide Strategy 

Needed to Better Manage 

Overlapping Programs 

Statement of George A. Scott, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

GAO-13-529T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-529T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives 

April 10, 2013 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 

Governmentwide Strategy Needed to Better Manage 

Overlapping Programs

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 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 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 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. 

Overlapping 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. 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. 

View GAO-13-529T. For more information, 

contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 

scottg@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-13-529T 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the findings from our prior work 

on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federally funded 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 

programs.1 These programs can serve an important role both by helping 

to prepare students for careers in STEM fields and by enhancing the 

nation’s global competitiveness. In addition to the federal effort, state and 

local governments, universities and colleges, and the private sector have 

also developed programs that provide opportunities for students to pursue 

STEM education and occupations. However, research shows that despite 

this investment, the United States lacks a strong pipeline of future 

workers in STEM fields and that U.S. students continue to lag behind 

students in other highly technological nations in mathematics and science 

achievement. Over the decades, Congress and the executive branch 

have continued to create new STEM education programs, even though, 

as we previously reported, there has been a general lack of assessment 

of how well STEM programs are working.2

My testimony is based on several previously published GAO reports on

STEM education, including our January 2012 report entitled Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic Planning 

Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple 

Agencies and also addresses actions taken by the administration to better 

plan and coordinate federal STEM education programs since our 2012 

Governmentwide strategic 

planning could help better align federal efforts in an efficient and effective 

manner.

 

1 GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic 

Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple Agencies. 

GAO-12-108. (Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012). 

2 GAO-12-108. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-529T 

report was issued.3

The work upon which this testimony is based was performed in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

My testimony focuses on (1) the number of federal 

agencies and programs that provided funding for STEM education 

programs in fiscal year 2010; (2) the extent to which these STEM 

programs overlap; and (3) the extent to which federal STEM education 

programs have measured their effectiveness and were aligned to a 

governmentwide strategy. To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant 

federal laws and regulations as well as previous GAO work on overlap, 

duplication, and fragmentation. We interviewed officials from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and OSTP, and officials from other 

federal agencies that administer STEM education programs. We reviewed 

relevant literature and past reports that catalog and assess the federal 

investment in STEM education. To gather information on federal STEM 

education programs and to assess the level of fragmentation, overlap, 

and potential duplication, we reviewed past GAO work on assessing the 

level of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among other groups of 

federal programs and we surveyed over 200 programs across 13 

agencies that met our definition of a STEM education program, asking 

questions about program objectives, target populations, services 

provided, interagency coordination, outcome measures and evaluations, 

and funding. Our survey was administered between May 2011 and 

August 2011 to federal agency program officials and achieved a 100 

percent response rate. To gather information on program effectiveness, 

we reviewed evaluations provided by program officials as well as 

agencies’ annual performance plans and reports.

 

3 Other relevant GAO reports include: (1) Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to 

the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-12-620R. 

(Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012); (2) 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. 

GAO-12-342SP. (Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012); (3) Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Survey of Federal Programs (GAO-12-110SP, 

January 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-108. GAO-12-110SP. (Washington, D.C.: 

January 20, 2012); and (4) Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities to 

Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. 

GAO-13-496T. (Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-529T 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

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 2005, for example, GAO 

identified a multitude of agencies that administer such programs.4 The 

primary missions of these agencies vary, but most often, they are to 

promote and enhance an area that is related to a STEM field or enhance 

general education. 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. The America 

COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 sought to address coordination 

and oversight issues, including those associated with the coordination 

and potential duplication of federal STEM education efforts.5

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:

Specifically, 

the law required the Director of the Office for Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP) to establish a committee under the NSTC to inventory, 

review, and coordinate federal STEM education programs. The law also 

directed this NSTC committee to develop a 5-year governmentwide 

STEM education strategic plan, which must specify and prioritize annual 

and long-term objectives for STEM education. Moreover, the Director of 

OSTP is required to send a report to Congress annually on this strategic 

plan, which must include, among other things, an evaluation of the levels 

of duplication and fragmentation of STEM programs and activities.

• attract or prepare students to pursue classes or coursework in STEM 

areas through formal or informal education activities,

 

4 GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends.GAO-06-114. (Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2005).

5 Pub. L. No. 111-358, § 101, 124 Stat. 3982, 3984.

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-13-529T 

• 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,

• 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. 

In addition, a program was defined as an organized set of activities 

supported by a congressional appropriation or allocation. Further, we 

defined a program as a single program even when its funds were 

allocated to other programs as well. We asked agency officials to provide 

a list of programs that received funds in fiscal year 2010.6

In our January 2012 report, we examined the extent to which federal 

STEM education programs were fragmented, overlapping, and 

duplicative.7

• Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more 

than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad 

area of national need.

Using our framework established in previous fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication work, key terms were defined as follows:

• Overlap occurs when multiple programs offer similar services to 

similar target groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar 

objectives.

• Duplication occurs when multiple programs offer the same services to 

the same target beneficiaries in the same STEM fields.

 

6 Although we surveyed 29 earmarks that were funded in fiscal year 2010, we did not 

include earmark data in our analysis because, according to our survey, 25 of these were 

not funded in fiscal year 2011.

7 GAO-12-108. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-529T 

As we reported in 2012, 13 agencies administered 209 STEM education 

programs in fiscal year 2010. 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.8 The number of programs each agency administered ranged 

from 3 to 46 with three agencies—the Department of Health and Human 

Services,9

 

8 Nine program officials indicated that they did not know whether the program was created 

under their agencies’ general statutory authority or through congressional direction, 10 

indicated that the program was created by a means other than congressional direction or 

general statutory authority, and 1program official did not answer the question.

the Department of Energy, and the National Science 

Foundation (NSF)—administering more than half of all programs—112 of 

209. (See fig. 1) Agencies obligated over $3 billion to STEM education 

programs in fiscal year 2010, ranging from $15,000 to hundreds of 

millions of dollars per program. NSF and the Department of Education 

programs accounted for over half of this funding. Almost a third of the 

programs had obligations of $1 million or less, with five programs having 

obligations of more than $100 million each.

9 Forty-four of the 46 Department of Health and Human Services programs were in the 

National Institutes of Health.

Thirteen Federal 

Agencies 

Administered over 

200 Programs with 

Over $3 Billion in 

Obligated Funds
 

Page 6 GAO-13-529T 

Figure 1: Number and Funding Obligations of STEM Education Programs in 2010, as Reported by Agencies

Beyond the 209 programs identified in our review, federal agencies 

carried out other activities that contribute to the overall federal STEM 

education effort. Having multiple agencies, with varying expertise, 

involved in delivering STEM education has both advantages and 

disadvantages. On the one hand, it could allow agencies to tailor 

programs to suit their specific missions and needs to attract new 

employees to their workforce. On the other hand, it could make it 

challenging to develop a coherent federal approach to educating STEM 

students and creating a workforce with STEM skills. Further, it could 

make it difficult to identify gaps and allocate resources across the federal 

government.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-529T 

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. These programs ranged from being narrowly 

focused on a specific group or field of study to offering a range of services 

to students and teachers across STEM fields. This complicated 

patchwork of overlapping programs has largely resulted from federal 

efforts to both create and expand programs across many agencies in an 

effort to improve STEM education and increase the number of students 

going into STEM fields. Program officials reported that approximately 

one-third of STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2010 were 

first funded between 2005 and 2010. We believe the creation of new 

programs during that time frame may have contributed to overlap and, 

ultimately, to inefficiencies in how STEM programs across the federal 

government are focused and delivered. Overlap among STEM education 

programs is not new. In 2007, the Academic Competitiveness Council 

(ACC) identified extensive overlap among STEM education programs, 

and, in 2009, we identified overlap among teacher quality programs, 

which include several programs focused on STEM education.10

 

10 GAO, Teacher Quality: Sustained Coordination among Key Federal Education 

Programs Could Enhance State Efforts to Improve Teacher Quality.

Overlapping programs can lead to individuals and institutions being 

eligible for similar services in similar STEM fields offered through multiple 

programs and, without information sharing, could lead to the same 

service being provided to the same individual or institution.

GAO-09-593. 

(Washington, D.C.: July 6, 2009).

Most STEM Programs 

Overlapped to Some 

Degree
 

Page 8 GAO-13-529T 

Figure 2: Overlapping Federal STEM Education Programs

Similar Target Groups

Our analysis found that many programs provided services to similar target 

groups, such as K-12 students, postsecondary students, K-12 teachers, 

and college faculty and staff. The vast majority of programs (170) served 

postsecondary students. Ninety-five programs served college faculty and 

staff, 75 programs served K-12 students, and 70 programs served K-12 

teachers. In addition, many programs served multiple target groups. In 

fact, 177 programs primarily served two or more target groups.

Similar Services Provided

We also found many STEM programs providing similar services.

• To support students, 167 different programs provided research 

opportunities, internships, mentorships, or career guidance. In 

addition, 144 programs provided short-term experiential learning 

opportunities and 127 long-term experiential learning opportunities. 

Short-term experiential learning activities included field trips, guest 

speakers, workshops, and summer camps. Long-term experiential 

learning activities last a semester in length or longer. Furthermore, 

137 programs provided outreach and recognition to generate student 

interest, 124 provided classroom instruction, and 75 provided student 

scholarships or fellowships.

• To support teachers, 115 programs provided curriculum development, 

83 programs provided teacher in-service, professional development, 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-529T 

or retention activities, and 52 programs provided preservice or 

recruitment activities.

• To support STEM research, 68 programs reported conducting 

research to enhance the quality of STEM education.

• To support institutions, 65 programs provided institutional support to 

management and administrative activities, and 46 programs provided 

support for expanding the facilities, classrooms, and other physical 

infrastructure of institutions.

Similar STEM Fields of Focus

In addition to serving multiple target groups, our analysis found that most 

programs also provided services in multiple STEM fields. Twenty-three 

programs targeted one specific STEM field, while 121 programs targeted 

four or more specific STEM fields. In addition, 26 programs indicated not 

focusing on any specific STEM field, and instead provided services 

eligible for use in any STEM field. Five different STEM fields had over 100 

programs that provided services. Biological sciences and technology 

were the most selected STEM fields that programs focused on. 

Agricultural sciences, which was the least commonly selected, still had 27 

programs that provided services specifically to that STEM field.

While our 2011 survey data also show that many programs overlapped, it 

is important to compare programs’ target groups and STEM fields of 

focus to get a better picture of the potential target beneficiaries that could 

be served within a given STEM discipline. For example, both the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Environmental 

Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Education program and 

the Department of Energy’s Graduate Automotive Technology Education 

program provided scholarships or fellowships to postsecondary students, 

but NEDSIS focused on students in earth sciences programs, and the 

other on engineering; therefore, the target beneficiaries served by these 

two similar programs are quite different. Nevertheless, we found that 76 

programs served postsecondary students in physics. As table 1 

illustrates, many programs offered services to similar target groups in 

similar STEM fields of focus.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-529T 

Table 1: STEM Fields of Focus and Target Groups of Federal STEM Education Programs

Target groups

Agricultural 

sciences Biology Chemistry

Computer 

science 

Earth 

sciences Engineering Mathematics Physics 

Social 

sciences Technology

K-12 students 8 40 36 30 38 32 33 31 19 43 

Postsecondary 

students 

22 99 85 84 64 89 79 76 62 87 

K-12 teachers 5 36 33 25 39 26 28 29 17 38 

College faculty 

and staff

17 49 42 43 35 47 37 36 30 50 

Source: GAO analysis of survey results.

Note: Many STEM education programs serve multiple target groups with multiple STEM fields of 

focus. The totals in table 1 will not sum to 209, the numbers of programs in our January 2012 review. 

Earth sciences include atmospheric and ocean sciences; social sciences include psychology, 

sociology, anthropology, cognitive science, economics, and behavior sciences. 

Similar Objectives

We also found that many STEM education programs had similar 

objectives. In response to our 2011 survey, the vast majority (87 percent) 

of STEM education program officials indicated that attracting and 

preparing students throughout their academic careers in STEM areas was 

a primary objective. In addition to attracting and preparing students 

throughout their academic careers in STEM areas, officials also indicated 

the following primary program objectives:

• improving teacher education in STEM areas (teacher development)— 

26 percent,

• improving or expanding the capacity of K-12 schools or 

postsecondary institutions to promote or foster education in STEM 

fields (institution capacity building)—24 percent, and

• conducting research to enhance the quality of STEM education 

provided to students (STEM education research)—18 percent.

Many programs also reported having multiple primary objectives. While 

107 programs focused solely on student education, 82 others indicated 

having multiple primary objectives, and 9 programs reported having 4 or 

more primary objectives. Few programs reported focusing solely on 

teacher development, institution capacity building, or STEM education 

research. Most of these objectives were part of a larger program that also 

focused on attracting and preparing students in STEM education.
 

Page 11 GAO-13-529T 

Overlapping Programs Are Not Necessarily Duplicative

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. There may be 

important differences between the specific field(s) of focus and a 

program’s stated goals. For example, both Commerce’s National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System Education Program and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s Integrated University Program provided 

scholarships or fellowships to doctoral students in the field of physics; 

however, the Commerce program focuses on increasing environmental 

literacy related to estuaries and coastal watersheds, while the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission program focuses on supporting education in 

nuclear science, engineering, and related fields with the goal of 

developing a workforce capable of designing, constructing, operating, and 

regulating nuclear facilities and capable of handling nuclear materials 

safely. In addition, programs may be primarily intended to serve different 

specific populations within a given target group. For example, of the 34 

programs that we surveyed in 2011 that provided services to K-12 

students in the field of technology, 10 were primarily intended to serve 

specific underrepresented, minority, or disadvantaged groups, and 2 were 

limited geographically to individual cities or universities. Furthermore, 

individuals may receive assistance from different programs at different 

points throughout their academic careers that provide services that 

complement or build upon each other, simultaneously supporting a 

common goal rather than serving cross purposes.

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. Understanding program performance and 

effectiveness is key in determining where to strategically invest limited 

federal funds to achieve the greatest impact in developing a pipeline of 

future workers in STEM fields. 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 some cases, 

the program’s agency did not maintain databases or contracts that would 

track the number of students served by the program. In other cases, 

programs may not have been able to provide information on the numbers 

of institutions they served because they provided grants to secondary 

recipients. In 2012, we reported that the inconsistent collection of output 

Limited Use of 

Performance 

Measures and 

Evaluations Hamper 

Ability to Assess 

Effectiveness
 

Page 12 GAO-13-529T 

measures across programs makes it challenging to aggregate the number 

of students, teachers, and institutions served and to assess the 

effectiveness of the overall federal effort.

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. These 

documents typically lay out agency performance goals that establish the 

level of performance to be achieved by program activities during a given 

fiscal year, the measures developed to track progress, and what progress 

has been made toward meeting those performance goals. The lack of 

performance outcome measures may hinder decision makers’ ability to 

assess how agencies’ STEM education efforts contribute to agencywide 

performance goals and the overall federal STEM effort. For our 2012 

report, we reviewed fiscal year 2010 annual performance plans and 

reports of the 13 agencies with STEM programs and found that most 

agencies did not connect STEM education activities to agency goals or 

measure and report on the progress of those activities.11

In addition, a majority of programs had not conducted comprehensive 

evaluations between 2005 and 2011 to assess effectiveness, and the 

evaluations we reviewed did not always align with program objectives. 

Programs need to be appropriately evaluated to determine what is 

working and how improvements can be made. However, the majority of 

programs we surveyed (66 percent) had not conducted an evaluation of 

their entire program since 2005.12

 

11 In addition to reporting on STEM education programs through their performance plans 

and performance reports, there may be other ways to report on these efforts. However, 

our analysis was limited to these two documents. 

(See fig. 3). Some programs that 

reported that they did not complete an evaluation reported they had their 

grantees complete one; however, in those cases, few programs used 

these grantee evaluations to inform a more comprehensive evaluation of 

the entire program that they or an external evaluator completed.

12 We define “evaluation” as an individual systematic study conducted periodically or on 

an ad hoc basis to assess how well a program is working, typically relative to its program 

objectives.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-529T 

Figure 3: Percentage of STEM Education Programs, by Status of Evaluations 

Completed between 2005 and 2011

Note: Status of agencies’ evaluation efforts was provided between May and August of 2011. 

Furthermore, in order to influence program practice, the evaluation results 

must be disseminated widely. We found that although 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 between

practitioners and researchers. In addition, NSTC identified other issues 

with sharing information about STEM education program results and 

suggested several actions that agencies could take to improve 

dissemination, such as engaging practitioners to collaborate with 

researchers in setting research agendas.13

 

13The National Science and Technology Council Committee on Science Subcommittee on 

Education and Workforce. Review and Appraisal of the Federal Investment in STEM

Education Research. (October 2006).

According to NSTC officials, 

most agencies do not share or disseminate evaluations in a way that 

could be useful for coordination. We concluded that without an 

understanding of what is working in some programs, it will be difficult for 

the federal government to develop a clear strategy for how to spend 

limited federal funds.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-529T 

Recognizing the need for improved collaboration across the federal 

government, Congress passed the GPRA Modernization Act of 201014

and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which afford 

agencies the opportunity to better utilize performance measures for both 

governmentwide and agency-specific STEM education efforts. For 

example, the GPRA Modernization Act establishes a new framework 

aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing 

on results and improving government performance. Among other things, 

the Act requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to establish outcomeoriented federal government priority goals—otherwise referred to as 

crosscutting goals—covering a limited number of policy areas. STEM 

education was named as a crosscutting priority goal in the President’s 

2013 budget submission. In naming STEM education as a crosscutting 

goal, the administration is taking the first step towards creating better 

governmentwide coordinated planning. We previously reported that 

effective implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act could play an 

important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program

performance that spans multiple organizations, and facilitating future 

actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.15

In our January 2012 report, we made four recommendations to the 

Director of OSTP to direct the NSTC to:

1. 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. As part of this effort, 

OSTP should work with agency officials to identify and report any 

changes in statutory authority necessary to execute each specific 

program consolidation identified by NSTC’s strategic plan.

2. Develop guidance to help agencies determine the types of evaluations 

that may be feasible and appropriate for different types of STEM 

education programs and develop a mechanism for sharing this 

information across agencies. This step could include guidance and 

sharing of information that outlines practices for evaluating similar 

types of programs.

 

14 Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866.

15 GAO-12-620R. 

Implementation of 

Our 

Recommendations 

Would Better Align 

Federal Efforts
 

Page 15 GAO-13-529T 

3. Develop guidance for how agencies can better incorporate each 

agency’s STEM education efforts and the goals from NSTC’s 5-year 

STEM education strategic plan into each agency’s own performance 

plans and reports.

4. Develop a framework for how agencies will be monitored to ensure 

that they are collecting and reporting on NSTC strategic plan goals. 

This framework should include alternatives for a sustained focus on 

monitoring coordination of STEM programs if the NSTC Committee on 

STEM terminates in 2015 as called for in its charter.

OSTP agreed with our conclusions and, as figure 4 shows, NSTC has 

made some progress in addressing recommendations from our January 

2012 report.

Figure 4: Status of Recommendations from GAO-12-108 Report (Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic Planning Needed 

to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple Agencies)

Subsequently, OSTP has stated that NSTC’s 5-Year Federal STEM 

Education Strategic Plan, originally scheduled to be released in spring 

2012, would address our recommendations; however, the release of 

NSTC’s Strategic Plan has been delayed. 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. By identifying programs for consolidation, elimination, and other 

actions, the administration could increase the efficient use of scarce 

government resources to achieve the greatest impact in developing a 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-529T 

pipeline of future workers in STEM fields. Although NSTC said it planned 

to create a small working group to develop guidance on the 

appropriateness of different types of evaluations for different types of 

STEM education programs, OSTP has not released the findings of this 

working group. 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. This could help improve individual 

program performance and also inform agency and governmentwide

decisions about which programs should continue to be funded. We 

continue to believe that without an understanding of what is working in 

some programs, it will be difficult to develop a clear strategy for how to 

spend limited federal funds. 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. 

Although OSTP agreed to develop milestones and metrics to track the 

implementation of NSTC strategic goals by each agency, it has not taken 

action to develop a framework for how agencies will be monitored to 

ensure that they are collecting and reporting on NSTC strategic plan 

goals. A framework for monitoring agency progress towards NSTC’s 

strategic plan is necessary to improve transparency and strengthen 

accountability of NSTC’s strategic planning and coordination efforts. In 

conclusion, if NSTC’s 5-year strategic plan is not developed in a way that 

aligns agencies’ efforts to achieve governmentwide goals, enhances the 

federal government’s ability to assess what works, and concentrates 

resources on those programs that advance the strategy, the federal 

government may spend limited funds in an inefficient and ineffective 

manner that does not best help to improve the nation’s global 

competitiveness.

Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member McCarthy, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

For further information about this testimony, please contact George A. 

Scott at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this testimony. Other key contributors to this testimony include: 

Bill Keller, Assistant Director; Susan Baxter; James Bennett; Karen 

Brown; David Chrisinger; Melinda Cordero; Elizabeth Curda; Karen 

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments
 

Page 17 GAO-13-529T 

Febey; Jill Lacey; Ben Licht; Dan Meyer; Amy Radovich; James Rebbe; 

Nyree Ryder Tee; Martin Scire; Ryan Siegel; and Walter Vance.

(131250)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.