SCIENCE, 

TECHNOLOGY, 

ENGINEERING, AND 

MATHEMATICS 

EDUCATION

Assessing the 

Relationship between 

Education and the 

Workforce

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2014

GAO-14-374

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-374, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2014

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 

MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 

Assessing the Relationship between Education and 

the Workforce

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal STEM education programs 

help enhance the nation’s global 

competitiveness by preparing students 

for STEM careers. Researchers 

disagree about whether there are 

enough STEM workers to meet 

employer demand. GAO was asked to 

study the extent to which STEM 

education programs are aligned with 

workforce needs. 

GAO examined (1) recent trends in the 

number of degrees and jobs in STEM 

fields, (2) the extent to which federal 

postsecondary STEM education 

programs take workforce needs into 

consideration, and (3) the extent to 

which federal K-12 STEM education 

programs prepare students for 

postsecondary STEM education. GAO 

analyzed trends in STEM degrees and 

jobs since 2002 using 3 data sets—the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System, American Community 

Survey, and Occupational Employment 

Statistics—and surveyed 158 federal 

STEM education programs. There 

were 154 survey respondents (97 

percent): 124 postsecondary and 30 K12 programs. In addition, GAO 

conducted in-depth reviews—including 

interviews with federal officials and 

grantees—of 13 programs chosen from 

among those with the highest reported 

obligations. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes no recommendations in 

this report. GAO received technical 

comments from the Departments of 

Education, Energy, and Health and 

Human Services; National Science 

Foundation; and Office of Management 

and Budget. 

What GAO Found

Both the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

degrees awarded and the number of jobs in STEM fields increased in recent 

years. The number of degrees awarded in STEM fields grew 55 percent from 

1.35 million in the 2002-2003 academic year to over 2 million in the 2011-2012

academic year, while degrees awarded in non-STEM fields increased 37 percent. 

Since 2004, the number of STEM jobs increased 16 percent from 14.2 million to 

16.5 million jobs in 2012, and non-STEM jobs remained fairly steady. The trends 

in STEM degrees and jobs varied across STEM fields. It is difficult to know if the 

numbers of STEM graduates are aligned with workforce needs, in part because 

demand for STEM workers fluctuates. For example, the number of jobs in core 

STEM fields, including engineering and information technology, declined during 

the recession but has grown substantially since then. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields

Almost all of the 124 federal postsecondary STEM education programs that 

responded to GAO’s survey reported that they considered workforce needs in 

some way. For example, the most common program objective was to prepare 

students for STEM careers. Some of these programs focused on occupations 

they considered to be in demand and/or related to their agency’s mission. Many 

postsecondary programs also aimed to increase the diversity of the STEM 

workforce or prepare students for innovation. Most STEM programs reported 

having some outcome measures in place, but GAO found that some programs 

did not measure an outcome directly related to their stated objectives. As GAO 

recommended in 2012, the National Science and Technology Council recently 

issued guidance to help agencies better incorporate STEM education outcomes 

into their performance plans and reports. As agencies follow the guidance and 

focus on the effectiveness of the programs, more programs may measure 

outcomes directly related to their objectives.

Of the 30 kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) STEM education programs 

responding to GAO’s survey, almost all reported that they either directly or 

indirectly prepared students for postsecondary STEM education. For example, 

one program worked closely with students to provide math and science 

instruction and supportive services to prepare them for postsecondary STEM 

education, while another supported research projects intended to enhance STEM 

learning.

View GAO-14-374. For more information, 

contact Melissa Emrey-Arras at (617) 788-

0534 or EmreyArrasM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Letter 1 

Background 3

STEM Degrees and Jobs Are Increasing, but Their Alignment Is 

Difficult to Determine 9

Most Federal Postsecondary STEM Education Programs Address 

Workforce Needs to Some Extent 22

Most Federal K-12 STEM Education Programs Include Activities 

to Prepare Students for Future STEM Education 31

Concluding Observations 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II Demographics of Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Degree Recipients 51

Appendix III Employment and Wage Trends in STEM and non-STEM 

Occupations 57

Appendix IV Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations 64

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 72

Related GAO Products 73

Tables

Table 1: Agencies Administering Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Programs 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Table 2: Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 2004-

2012 15

Table 3: Estimated Differences in Unemployment Rates and 

Annual Wages, Comparing Workers in Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Occupations with Similar Workers in Non-STEM 

Occupations, 2012 16

Table 4: Fields of Study We Classified as Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 40

Table 5: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Education Programs Reviewed In Depth 48

Table 6: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Fields of Study in which Non-Resident Alien 

Students Received Over 30 Percent of the Degrees 

Awarded in the 2011-2012 Academic Year 52

Figures

Figure 1: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Fields 5

Figure 2: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Education Policy 6

Figure 3: Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Degrees Awarded 10

Figure 4: Trends in Degrees Awarded in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Categories 11

Figure 5: Trends in Computer Science and Information 

Technology Degrees Awarded 13

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Postsecondary Degrees Awarded 

from the 2002-2003 to 2011-2012 Academic Years for 

Select Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Fields 14

Figure 7: Employment and Wage Trends across Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Fields, 2004 to 2012 17

Figure 8: Unemployment Rates in Selected Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 

2009-2012 18

Figure 9: Educational Backgrounds of Workers Ages 22 or Older 

in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Occupations, 2012 20
Page iii GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 10: Percentage of Workers with Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Bachelor’s 

Degrees in STEM and Non-STEM Occupations, 2012 21

Figure 11: Percent of Reported Fiscal Year 2012 Federal 

Postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education Obligations Dedicated to 

Workforce Needs 23

Figure 12: Information Sources Used by Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Programs that Target Occupations Based on High Market 

Demand, Fiscal Year 2012 25

Figure 13: Services Provided by Federal Postsecondary Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education Programs in Fiscal Year 2012 29

Figure 14: Number of Kindergarten-12th grade Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education Programs Providing Various Services in Fiscal 

Year 2012 34

Figure 15: Degrees Awarded to Non-Resident Alien Students and 

to Citizens and Resident Aliens, 2011-2012 Academic 

Year 51

Figure 16: Percent of Master’s and Doctorate/Professional 

Degrees Awarded to Non-Resident Alien Students, 2011-

2012 Academic Year 52

Figure 17: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) and Non-STEM Degrees Awarded, by Gender, 

2011-2012 Academic Year 53

Figure 18: Degrees Awarded in Core Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields, by 

Gender, 2011-2012 Academic Year 54

Figure 19: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Postsecondary 

Degrees Awarded in the 2011-2012 Academic Year 55

Figure 20: Percentage Increase in Postsecondary Degrees from 

the 2002-2003 to 2010-2011 Academic Years 56

Figure 21: Employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 2004 

to 2012 57

Figure 22: Employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2004-2012 58

Figure 23: Unemployment Rates in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM 

Occupations, 2009 to 2012 59
Page iv GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 24: Average Annual Wage in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 

2004 to 2012 60

Figure 25: Percentage of Workers in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM 

Occupations by Educational Background, 2012 61

Figure 26: Unemployment Rates in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM 

Occupations, by Educational Background, 2009 to 2012 62

Figure 27: Educational Backgrounds of Workers Ages 22 or Older 

in Selected Non-Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2012 63

Abbreviations

ACS American Community Survey

CIP Classification of Instructional Program

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IT Information technology

K-12 Kindergarten-12th grade

OES Occupational Employment Statistics

SOC Standard Occupational Classification

STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

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.
Page 1 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 8, 2014

The Honorable John Kline

Chairman

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Richard Hanna

House of Representatives

The Honorable Joseph Heck

House of Representatives

The Honorable Duncan D. Hunter

House of Representatives

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

programs can serve an important role both by helping to prepare students 

and teachers for careers in STEM fields and by enhancing the nation’s 

global competitiveness. As part of this effort, many federal agencies 

administer STEM education programs. 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.

The current administration maintains that a strong educational pipeline 

creating future STEM workers is important to ensure that the United 

States remains competitive with other highly technological nations. 

Researchers disagree about the sufficiency of the current supply of STEM 

workers. While some researchers have concluded that the United States 

has a sufficient supply of STEM workers,1 others have found that the 

educational system is not producing enough STEM graduates to fill the 

jobs available in STEM occupations2 or in the increasing number of jobs 

 

1 See, for example, Hal Salzman, Daniel Kuehn, and B. Lindsay Lowell, Guestworkers In 

The High-Skill U.S. Labor Market: An Analysis Of Supply, Employment, and Wage Trends, 

Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #359 (Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2013).

2 See, for example, Microsoft, A National Talent Strategy: Ideas for Securing U.S. 

Competitiveness and Economic Growth. (September 2012).
 

Page 2 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

in other fields that may require STEM competencies (such as analytical 

skills).3 In light of this disagreement, we were asked to review the 

alignment between STEM and workforce needs. Specifically, we reviewed 

(1) recent trends in the number of degrees and jobs in STEM fields, (2) 

the extent to which federal postsecondary STEM education programs 

take workforce needs into consideration, and (3) the extent to which 

federal kindergarten-12th grade (K-12) STEM education programs 

prepare students for postsecondary STEM education.

To address our first objective, we analyzed three federal data sources to 

examine trends in STEM degrees and jobs over the past decade: (1) the 

Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System to examine trends in STEM degrees, (2) the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics data to examine 

employment and wage trends among STEM workers, and (3) the Census 

Bureau’s American Community Survey data to examine unemployment 

rates of STEM workers and the relationships between educational 

background and occupation among STEM workers. We determined that 

these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report by

reviewing relevant documentation and conducting electronic testing of the 

data. We also conducted a regression analysis with the American 

Community Survey data to examine differences in wages and 

unemployment rates between STEM and non-STEM workers, controlling 

for some demographic details.

To address our other objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations and conducted and analyzed the results of a survey. We 

surveyed 158 K-12 and postsecondary STEM education programs about 

how they address STEM workforce needs and prepare students for future 

STEM education or careers. A total of 154 federal STEM education 

programs responded to our survey, representing a 97 percent response 

rate.4 Among the respondents, we identified 124 programs—reporting 

 

3

See, for example, Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Michelle Melton, STEM: 

Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Georgetown University Center on 

Education and the Workforce (October 20, 2011). 

4 See appendix I for more information about the four programs that did not respond to our 

survey. The survey also updated some of the descriptive data from our 2012 STEM report: 

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

Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple Agencies, GAO-12-108 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012).
 

Page 3 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

$1.9 billion in fiscal year 2012 obligations—that primarily served students 

and teachers at the postsecondary level, and 30 programs—reporting 

$685 million in fiscal year 2012 obligations—that primarily served 

students and teachers at the K-12 level.5 To provide more details about 

some of the highest funded STEM education programs, we conducted a 

more in-depth review of 13 programs from three agencies: the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and the National 

Institutes of Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. We 

chose these programs because they were among the largest federal 

STEM education programs, collectively accounting for 54 percent of the 

fiscal year 2012 STEM education obligations reported by the 154 

programs that responded to our survey. Seven of the selected programs 

served postsecondary students or institutions and six programs served K12 students or teachers. We reviewed documentation from each program, 

interviewed agency officials, and conducted site visits with program 

grantees in Austin, Texas, and San Francisco, California, and phone 

interviews with grantees in Boston, Massachusetts.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2013 to April 2014 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 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The term “STEM education” refers to teaching and learning in the fields of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It includes 

educational activities across all grade levels—from pre-school to post-

 

5 Amounts obligated for each program for fiscal year 2012 were reported to us by agency 

officials and we did not independently verify this information. An obligation is a definite 

commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and 

services ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could 

mature into a legal liability. Payment on these obligations may be made immediately or in 

the future. An agency incurs an obligation, for example, when it places an order, signs a 

contract, awards a grant, or purchases a service. See GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in 

the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005).

Background

STEM Education 

Definitions
 

Page 4 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g., 

afterschool programs) settings.6

• In 2012, we reviewed the delivery and effectiveness of federal STEM 

education programs. As in our 2012 report, for this report we define a 

federally-funded STEM education program as a program funded in a 

designated fiscal year7 by allocation or congressional appropriation 

that includes one or more of the following as a primary objective:8

• 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) 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; we do not consider general 

research grants to researchers that may hire a student to work in the 

lab to be a STEM education program),

• attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields,

• improve teacher education in STEM areas for teachers and those 

studying to be teachers,

• 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.

There is no commonly used definition of fields that are considered STEM. 

For this report, we use a comprehensive definition of STEM that includes 

 

6 Informal education programs support 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 (either adults or children) are not included.

7 GAO-12-108. In our 2012 report, we considered federal STEM education programs 

funded in fiscal year 2010. In the current report, we consider those funded in fiscal year 

2012.

8 The current administration defines a STEM education investment (it does not use the 

word “program”) as a federally funded STEM education activity that has a dedicated 

budget of $300,000 or above and staff to manage the budget. Our definition does not have 

a stated budget minimum. See Committee on STEM Education, National Science and 

Technology Council, Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.: May 2013).
 

Page 5 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

three STEM categories: Core STEM, Healthcare STEM, and Other STEM 

(see fig. 1).9 We present our findings for the three categories combined 

and for each of three STEM categories. See our description of the 

relevant data sets in appendix I for an explanation of how we classified 

fields of study and occupations into these STEM categories in our data 

analysis.

Figure 1: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields

The Committee on STEM Education is the interagency coordination body 

for STEM education in the federal government (see fig. 2).

 

9 We based our categories on a categorization of STEM put forth by the Standard 

Occupational Classification Policy Committee presented in Options for Defining STEM 

(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Occupations Under the Standard 

2010 Occupation Classification System, Standard Occupational Classification Policy 

Committee Recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget (August 2012). In 

2011, the Standard Occupational Classification Policy Committee, a federal inter-agency 

committee responsible for recommending updates to the classification system used in 

occupational data, developed several options for defining STEM occupations. These 

included a categorization into the following four areas: (1) life and physical science, 

engineering, mathematics, and information technology occupations, (2) social science 

occupations, (3) architecture occupations, and (4) health occupations.

Federal STEM Education 

Programs and Policy
 

Page 6 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 2: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Policy

a

The Committee on STEM Education coordinates federal programs and activities in support of STEM 

education, as required by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-

358, § 101(a), 124 Stat. 3982, 3984 (2011)). The Act also approved funding for some STEM 

education programs and addressed coordination and oversight issues, including those associated 

with the coordination and potential duplication of federal STEM education efforts. Specifically, the Act 

required the Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee under the 

National Science and Technology Council to inventory, review, and coordinate federal STEM 

education programs, among other things.

Federal STEM education programs have been created in two ways—

directly by law or through agencies’ broad statutory authority to carry out 

their missions. In our 2012 STEM report,10 we reported that in fiscal year 

2010, 13 federal agencies administered 209 programs to increase 

knowledge of STEM fields and attainment of STEM degrees. These 

agencies, listed below in Table 1, continued to administer federal STEM 

education programs in fiscal year 2014.

 

10 GAO-12-108. 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Table 1: Agencies Administering Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs

Agency Mission

Department of Agriculture To provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, and related issues based on 

sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management

Department of Commerce To promote job creation, economic growth, sustainable development, and improved 

standards of living for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses, universities, 

communities, and our nation’s workers 

Department of Defense To provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country

Department of Education To promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering 

educational excellence and ensuring equal access

Department of Energy To ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and 

nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

To enhance the health and well-being of Americans by providing for effective health and 

human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying 

medicine, public health, and social services

Department of Homeland Security To ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other 

hazards

Department of the Interior To protect and manage the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; to provide 

scientific and other information about those resources; and to honor its trust responsibilities 

or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island 

communities

Department of Transportation To ensure a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that 

meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, 

today and into the future

Environmental Protection Agency To protect human health and the environment

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

To drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, 

education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth

National Science Foundation To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and 

welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes

Nuclear Regulatory Commission To ensure the adequate protection of public health, safety, and the environment while 

promoting the common defense and security

Source: GAO review of agencies’ websites and strategic plans.

In our 2012 report, we found that in fiscal year 2010, 83 percent of the 

programs we identified overlapped to some degree with at least 1 other 

program by offering similar services to similar target groups in similar 

STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. 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. We 

also found that federal agencies’ limited use of performance measures 

and evaluations may have hampered their ability to assess the 

effectiveness of individual programs as well as the overall federal STEM 

education effort. We recommended that as the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy leads the government’s STEM education strategic 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

planning effort, it should 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.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy has taken steps to address 

some of our recommendations. Regarding our recommendation on 

potential elimination or consolidation of programs, the Committee on 

STEM Education released its interim strategic planning progress report in 

February 2012, which noted that STEM education programs had been 

identified to be potentially overlapping and encouraged agencies to 

streamline programs where appropriate.11 In addition, the President’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget called for a major restructuring of federal STEM 

education programs through the consolidation of programs and the 

realignment of STEM education activities.12 Since our prior report on 

STEM, the number of STEM education programs dropped from 209 in 

2010 to158 in 2013. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request 

seeks to continue these efforts and states that agencies should focus on 

internal consolidations and eliminations while funding their most effective 

programs.13 Regarding our recommendation on evaluations, in May of 

2013 the Committee on STEM Education released its 5-year Strategic 

Plan, which included guidance to agencies in developing evaluations for 

STEM education programs. The plan also laid out five broad priority 

areas: 14

• Improve STEM instruction;

• Increase and sustain youth and public engagement in STEM;

• Enhance STEM experiences of undergraduate students;

 

11 Committee on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council, 

Coordinating Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics (STEM) 

Education Investments: Progress Report (Washington, D.C.: February 2012); Committee 

on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council, Federal Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Plan. 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2013).

12 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Washington, D.C.: April 2013).

13 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Washington, D.C.: March 2014).

14 We list these priority areas as stated in the 5-year Strategic Plan. 
 

Page 9 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

• Better serve groups historically under-represented in STEM fields; 

and

• Design graduate education for tomorrow’s STEM workforce.

In addition, in July 2013, a joint Office of Science and Technology Policy/ 

Office of Management and Budget memo included guidance to agencies 

on how to align their programs and budget submissions—beginning with 

the budget submission for 2015—with the goals of the STEM Education 

5-Year Strategic Plan. The guidance includes language directing the 

agencies to prioritize programs that use evidence to guide program 

design and implementation and to define appropriate metrics and improve 

the measurement of outcomes. Furthermore, in the President’s 2015 

budget submission, the administration stated that improving STEM 

education by implementing the 5-year Strategic Plan is a cross-agency 

priority goal. As a result of this designation, the Office of Management 

and Budget must review on a quarterly basis agencies’ progress in 

meeting this goal.

Overall, postsecondary degrees awarded in STEM fields have increased 

at a greater rate than in non-STEM fields during the past decade.15 The 

number of STEM degrees awarded increased 55 percent, from 1.35 

million degrees awarded in the 2002-2003 academic year to over 2 million 

in the 2011-2012 academic year. In comparison, degrees awarded in 

non-STEM fields increased 37 percent in the same time period (see fig. 

3). STEM degrees now comprise a larger share of total postsecondary 

degrees awarded—42 percent in the 2011-2012 academic year, up from 

39 percent in the 2002-2003 academic year.

 

15 In this report, postsecondary degrees refers to and includes associate’s and other 

degrees awarded below the bachelor’s level, bachelor’s, master’s, postbaccalaureate and 

post-master’s certificates, doctorate, and professional degrees. We include both degrees 

awarded for first and second majors in our analysis. Our results represent the number of 

degrees awarded, not the number of individuals who obtained degrees. 

STEM Degrees and 

Jobs Are Increasing, 

but Their Alignment Is 

Difficult to Determine

While Degrees Have 

Increased in Most STEM 

Fields, Some Fields Have 

Grown More than Others
 

Page 10 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 3: Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Degrees Awarded

Note: This figure presents data on all degrees, including associate’s and other degrees below the 

bachelor’s level, bachelor’s, master’s, postbaccalaureate and post-master’s certificates, doctorate, 

and professional degrees. The numbers shown in this figure include degrees awarded to citizens, 

non-resident aliens (students in the United States on a visa or temporary basis and do not have the 

right to remain indefinitely), and resident aliens.

However, much of the increase in STEM degrees came from growth in 

awards of Healthcare degrees, which have doubled over the past decade 

(see fig. 4). Degrees awarded in Core STEM fields increased at a 

substantially lower rate (19 percent) than non-STEM fields (37 percent). 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Degrees awarded in Other STEM fields increased at a greater rate (43 

percent) than non-STEM fields.16

Figure 4: Trends in Degrees Awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Categories

Note: This figure presents data on all degrees, including associate’s and other degrees below the 

bachelor’s level, bachelor’s, master’s, postbaccalaureate and post-master’s certificates, doctorate, 

and professional degrees. The numbers shown in this figure include degrees awarded to citizens, 

non-resident aliens (students in the United States on a visa or temporary basis and do not have the 

right to remain indefinitely), and resident aliens.

 

16 When degrees awarded to non-resident aliens are excluded, degrees awarded in core 

STEM fields increased 18 percent between the 2002-2003 and 2011-2012 academic 

years, 100 percent in healthcare fields, and 44 percent in other STEM fields. Overall, 

degrees awarded to citizens and resident aliens increased 56 percent in STEM fields in 

this time period and 37 percent in non-STEM fields. Degrees awarded to non-resident 

alien students comprised 4 percent of all degrees awarded in the 2011-2012 school year. 

However, non-resident alien students were more heavily concentrated in core STEM 

fields, particularly at the graduate level—23 percent of non-resident alien degrees were in 

core STEM fields at the master’s and the doctorate or professional level, compared to 2 

percent of degrees awarded to U.S. citizens and residents. See appendix II for further 

information on STEM degrees awarded to various demographic groups. 
 

Page 12 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

The comparatively slower growth in Core STEM fields is due in large part 

to an 18 percent decline in the number of computer science and 

information technology (IT) degrees awarded in the past decade. 

Computer science and IT degrees decreased each year between the 

2002-2003 and 2007-2008 academic years but then increased (see fig. 

5).17 A research association that has examined trends in computer 

science bachelor’s degrees attributes the decline to the “dot-com crash.”18

 

17 Specifically, degrees at the below-bachelor’s, bachelor’s, and master’s level in 

computer science/IT fields declined for 3 to 5 years from the 2002-2003 academic year 

and then increased. Computer science/IT degrees at the post-bachelor’s certificate level 

was fairly stable (at about 800 to 900 degrees awarded) from 2002-2003 to 2009-2010 

period but increased to about 1,200 degrees awarded in the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 

academic years. Computer science/IT degrees at the doctorate level steadily increased 

through the past decade, from about 800 degrees awarded in 2002-2003 to about 1,700 in 

the 2011-2012 academic year. Overall trends in computer science/IT degrees awarded 

were similar for non-resident alien students and citizens and residents—computer 

science/IT degrees declined 17 percent among non-resident aliens and 19 percent among 

citizens and residents from the 2002-2003 to 2011-2012 academic years. Citizens and 

residents received the large majority of computer science/IT degrees awarded at the less 

than bachelor’s (99 percent), bachelor’s (95 percent), and post-bachelor’s certificate levels 

(84 percent) in the 2011-2012 academic year. At the graduate levels, sizable percentages 

of computer science/IT degrees were awarded to non-resident alien students (44 percent 

of master’s degrees and 51 percent of doctorate degrees). 

18 Stuart Zweben, Computing Degrees and Enrollment Trends from the 2009-2010 CRA 

Taulbee Survey, Computing Research Association (Washington, D.C.).
 

Page 13 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 5: Trends in Computer Science and Information Technology Degrees Awarded

Note: Post-bachelor’s certificates includes postbaccalaureate and post-master’s certificates. The 

numbers shown in this figure include degrees awarded to citizens, non-resident aliens (students in 

the United States on a visa or temporary basis and do not have the right to remain indefinitely), and 

resident aliens.

Aside from degrees awarded in the computer science/IT field, degrees 

awarded in all of the other STEM fields have increased throughout the 

past decade. Among the Core STEM fields, degrees awarded in the 

physical sciences, life sciences, and mathematics have grown at a 

greater rate than non-STEM fields (see fig. 6). Degrees awarded in 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

engineering have also increased, though at a slightly lower rate than nonSTEM fields (37 percent compared to 39 percent).19

Figure 6: Percentage Change in Postsecondary Degrees Awarded from the 2002-2003 to 2011-2012 Academic Years for Select 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields

Note: This figure presents data on all degrees, including associate’s and other degrees below the 

bachelor’s level, bachelor’s, master’s, postbaccalaureate and post-master’s certificates, doctorate, 

and professional degrees. The numbers shown in this figure include degrees awarded to citizens, 

non-resident aliens (students in the United States on a visa or temporary basis and do not have the 

right to remain indefinitely), and resident aliens.

 

19 Growth in degrees for the Core STEM field of engineering or science technician has 

been relatively slow. These degrees prepare students for jobs like industrial production 

technicians, telecommunications technicians, solar energy technicians, nuclear and 

industrial radiologic technicians. Degrees in these fields, which are largely at the belowbachelor’s level, increased only 10 percent in the past decade (see fig 5). Similar to 

computer science/IT degrees, the number of technician degrees awarded declined from 

the 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 academic years, but has been increasing since then.
 

Page 15 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Overall, employment trends have generally been more favorable in STEM 

occupations than in non-STEM occupations. The number of jobs in STEM 

occupations increased 16 percent from 14.2 million jobs in 2004 to 16.5 

million in 2012, while jobs in non-STEM occupations remained fairly 

steady (with a decline of 0.1 percent). STEM occupations also had more 

wage growth on average and lower unemployment rates than non-STEM 

occupations (see table 2). However, employment conditions vary across 

STEM fields, with healthcare occupations generally having the most 

favorable conditions. (See also appendix III for more detailed information 

on recent trends in STEM and non-STEM occupations).

Table 2: Trends in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 2004-2012

Percent change, May 2004 to May 2012

Number of workers

(2012 employment level)

Average annual wage, inflationadjusted (2012 mean wage) Unemployment rate, 2012 

Non-STEM Occupations - 0.1

(113.8 million workers)

+ 1.8

($41,000)

8.4

STEM Occupations + 16

(16.5 million workers)

+ 6.2

($79,000)

3.2

Core STEM + 11

(7.9 million workers)

+ 5.4

($83,000)

3.9

Healthcare STEM + 21

(8.2 million workers)

+ 7.9

($75,000)

2.6

Other STEM + 9

(0.5 million workers) ($74,000)

a 3.3

Source: GAO analysis of Occupational Employment Statistics data for the percentage change in number of workers and the average 

wage. GAO analysis of American Community Survey data for the unemployment rate in 2012.

a

Note: With regard to the percentage change in number of workers between May 2004 and May 2012, 

the estimates shown in this table have margins of error within plus or minus 1.1 percentage points. 

Estimates of the number of workers employed in 2012 in each of the categories shown in the table 

have margins of error within plus or minus 1.5 percent of the estimate. With regard to the percentage 

change in average wage between May 2004 and May 2012, the estimates shown in this table have 

margins of error within plus or minus 0.8 percentage points. The estimates for the mean wage in 2012 

have margins of error within plus or minus 2.1 percent of the estimate. With regard to the 

unemployment rates, estimates shown in this table have margins of error within plus or minus 0.2 

percentage points, with the exception of other STEM occupations, which has a margin of error within 

plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. Differences between STEM and non-STEM occupations in the 

percentage change in employment level, percentage change in the average wage, and the 

unemployment rates are all statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The differences 

between the three STEM categories in the percentage change in employment level and average 

wages were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. With regard to unemployment 

rates, differences between healthcare STEM and the two other STEM categories were statistically 

significant at the 95 percent confidence level, but the difference between Core STEM and Other 

STEM was not statistically significant.

We do not report an estimate for Other STEM occupations because the margin of error at the 95 

percent confidence level exceeds 30 percent of the estimate. The 95 percent confidence interval for 

the percentage change in average wage in other STEM occupations is 0.5 to 4.0 percent.

Employment Conditions 

Have Been More 

Favorable in STEM 

Occupations than NonSTEM, though They Vary 

across STEM Fields
 

Page 16 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

After controlling for education levels, demographic characteristics, and 

type of job, we estimate that the unemployment rate among workers in 

STEM occupations overall was 1.2 percentage points lower than for 

similar workers in non-STEM occupations in 2012, and the average wage 

in STEM occupations was 17 percent higher (see table 3). Healthcare 

occupations had the largest differences, while workers in Other STEM 

occupations had unemployment rates and average wages that were 

similar to those in non-STEM occupations.

Table 3: Estimated Differences in Unemployment Rates and Annual Wages, Comparing Workers in Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations with Similar Workers in Non-STEM Occupations, 2012

Category

Estimated difference in

unemployment rates, compared to

similar workers in non-STEM occupations

Estimated 

difference in annual wages, compared

to similar workers in non-STEM occupations

STEM Occupations 1.2 percentage points lower than non-STEM 17 percent higher than non-STEM

Core STEM 0.4 percentage points lower than non-STEM 16 percent higher than non-STEM

Healthcare STEM 2.0 percentage points lower than non-STEM 20 percent higher than non-STEM

Other STEM similar to non-STEM similar to non-STEM 

Source: GAO analysis of American Community Survey data

Note: Unemployment rate differences are measured in percentage points, while differences in wages 

are measured in percent of dollars. For example, a 2 percentage point increase in an unemployment 

rate of 10 percent would result in an unemployment rate of 12 percent. A 2 percent increase in a 

wage of $10 per hour would result in a wage of $10.20 per hour.

While employment conditions have generally been more favorable in 

STEM occupations than in non-STEM occupations, conditions vary 

across specific STEM fields. Most STEM fields experienced both 

increases in employment levels and in average wages from 2004 to 2012, 

as well as relatively low unemployment rates when compared to nonSTEM occupations. However, three fields— STEM sales occupations, 

engineering technician and drafting occupations, and science technician 

occupations—experienced either a decline in the number of jobs in this 

time period or a decline in the average wage (see fig. 7). Engineering 

technician and drafting occupations and science technician occupations 

are also among the STEM fields with the highest unemployment rates in 

recent years, though their unemployment rates have fallen since 2010 

and were lower than non-STEM occupations in 2012 (see fig. 8).20

 

20 We do not present unemployment rates for STEM sales occupations because the 

standard errors exceeded 30 percent of the estimates at the 95 percent confidence level.

Comparison of Workers in 

STEM Occupations to Workers 

with Similar Characteristics in 

Non-STEM Occupations

Employment Conditions across 

STEM Fields
 

Page 17 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 7: Employment and Wage Trends across Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields, 2004 to 

2012

Note: Estimates of the percentage change in number of jobs between May 2004 and May 2012 have 

margins of error within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Estimates of the percentage change in 

average wages in this timeframe that do not have an asterisk have margins of error within plus or 

minus 1.9 percentage points. Estimates of the number of jobs in May 2012 have margins of error 

within plus or minus 2.7 percent of the estimate. Estimates of the average annual wage in May 2012 

have margins of error within plus or minus 4.9 percent of the estimate.

a

Indicates that the estimate of the percentage change in the average wage between May 2004 and 

May 2012 have margins of error greater than 30 percent of the estimate. The 95 percent confidence 

intervals for these estimates are: 1.2 to 3.9 percent increase in the average wage for computer 

science occupations, 3.5 to 7.9 percent for mathematical sciences occupations, 0.3 to 3.5 percent for 

engineering technicians and drafters, 4.0 to 8.2 percent for physical sciences occupations, 1.8 to 8.4 

percent for social sciences occupations, 1.7 to 11.6 for postsecondary teachers, and 2.0 to 4.1 

percent for health technologists and technicians.
 

Page 18 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 8: Unemployment Rates in Selected Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2009-

2012

Note: Estimates of the unemployment rate shown in this figure have margins of error within plus or 

minus 1.5 percentage points. For estimates that have a margin of error that exceeds 30 percent of the 

estimate, the 95 percent confidence intervals are: 1.3 to 2.7 for life sciences occupations in 2009, 1.6 

to 3.0 for life sciences occupations in 2010, 1.3 to 2.5 for social science occupations in 2009, and 1.9 

to 3.7 for mathematics occupations in 2011. Differences in the unemployment rates between STEM 

occupational groups and non-STEM occupations within each of the years are statistically significant 

at the 95 percent confidence level, except for the following: architects/surveyors in 2009 and 

engineering technicians/drafters in 2009 and 2010.

It is difficult to know whether the United States is producing enough 

STEM workers to meet employer needs for several reasons. First, 

estimating how many STEM workers employers need is a challenge, in 

part because demand for STEM workers can fluctuate with economic 

conditions. For example, the number of jobs in core STEM occupations 

declined by about 250,000 between 2008 and 2010 (from 7.74 million 

jobs in 2008 to 7.49 million in 2010), though it then increased (to 7.89 

million jobs in 2012). Subject matter specialists and federal officials we 

interviewed also noted that employer needs in STEM fields are difficult to 

predict because they may change with technological or market 

developments.

Several Factors, Including 

Fluctuations in the 

Economy, Make It Difficult 

to Determine Whether 

Supply of STEM Workers 

Is Aligned with Employer 

Demand
 

Page 19 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Furthermore, the supply of STEM workers in the United States may not 

match the demand at any given point in time because of the time it takes 

to educate a STEM worker. Research suggests that students’ decisions 

about which fields to study may be influenced by the economic conditions 

and future career prospects they perceive in those fields.21 Favorable 

economic conditions in a STEM field may encourage students to pursue 

degrees in that field. However, it may take them several years to 

complete their degrees, so changes in the domestic supply of STEM 

workers may lag behind changes in the domestic demand.22

In addition, the number of students graduating with STEM degrees may 

not be a good measure of the supply of STEM workers because students 

often pursue careers in fields different from the ones they studied. Figure 

9 shows the educational background of workers in selected STEM 

occupations in 2012 up to the bachelor’s level. With the exception of 

engineering, most of those in STEM occupations did not receive a 

bachelor’s degree in the same field in which they were working. They 

either majored in a different STEM field or a non-STEM field in their 

undergraduate education, or they did not receive a bachelor’s degree.23

As a result, it is difficult to estimate the supply of workers in a STEM 

occupation from information on the number of bachelor’s degrees 

awarded in a STEM field.

 

21 See, for example, Richard B. Freeman, “A Cobweb Model of the Supply and Starting 

Salary of New Engineers, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 29: 2 (January 1976), 

236-248; Jaewoo Ryoo and Sherwin Rosen, “The Engineering Labor Market,” Journal of 

Political Economy, 112: 1 pt. 2 (February 2004), 110-140.

22 Supply and demand for STEM workers in the United States are also affected by global 

factors. The supply of STEM workers is affected by the number of foreign workers who 

relocate to the United States and work in STEM occupations. Demand for STEM workers 

in the United States is affected by global demand for American firms’ products and 

services, as well as the presence of STEM workforces in other countries and the extent to 

which United States firms relocate activities or operations overseas to access those 

workers. For further information, see GAO, H-1B Visa Program: Reforms Are Needed to 

Minimize the Risks and Costs of Current Program, GAO-11-26 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

14, 2011) and Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues, GAO-06-5 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 27, 2005).

23 It is possible that these workers might have received another degree in the field in 

which they were working, but the American Community Survey data do not show this, 

since this survey only captures information on the field of study for degrees at the 

bachelor’s level.
 

Page 20 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 9: Educational Backgrounds of Workers Ages 22 or Older in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Occupations, 2012

Note: Estimates of the percentage of each occupational group in the education categories shown in 

this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. In the estimates 

shown for engineers above, the percentages of workers with a STEM bachelor’s degree in that field 

and a STEM bachelor’s degree in another field does not sum to the numbers on the right of the bars 

due to rounding.

Further evidence of the difficulty in estimating the size of the STEM 

workforce from information on the number of STEM degrees is the 

substantial portion of workers with STEM bachelor’s degrees who work in 

non-STEM occupations— 62 percent in 2012 (see fig. 10). The survey 

data cannot tell us how many of these STEM-educated workers are in a 

non-STEM occupation by choice and how many would prefer to work in a 

STEM occupation but cannot find a position suitable to them. However, 

these workers have had relatively low unemployment rates in recent 

years— 4.8 percent in 2012, suggesting that there is generally demand in 

the workplace for workers with STEM education, both in STEM and nonSTEM occupations (see appendix III for further information on the 
 

Page 21 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

educational backgrounds of workers in STEM and non-STEM 

occupations).

Figure 10: Percentage of Workers with Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Bachelor’s Degrees in STEM and Non-STEM Occupations, 

2012

Note: Estimates of the percentages have margins of error that are within plus or minus 0.2 

percentage points. Population estimates shown in this figure have margins of error that are within 

plus or minus 0.01 percent of the estimate.
 

Page 22 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Eighty-eight percent24 of the 124 federal postsecondary STEM education 

programs25 that responded to our survey indicated that meeting one or 

more of the workforce needs we identified, such as promoting a diverse 

workforce, was a stated objective of the program.26 An additional 11

percent of postsecondary programs indicated that meeting at least one 

workforce need was a potential benefit of their program activities, even if 

it was not a stated objective.27 The most common stated objective was to 

prepare postsecondary students for a career in a STEM field. See figure 

11 for fiscal year 2012 obligations associated with the various workforce 

needs.

 

24 These programs represented 95 percent of fiscal year 2012 obligations by federal 

postsecondary STEM education programs that responded to our survey.

25 For purposes of this report, we consider federal postsecondary STEM education 

programs to also include programs with both a postsecondary and K-12 component. 

26 We created a list of possible workforce needs using input from experts, program 

officials, and grantees, and asked federal STEM education programs to indicate whether 

each possible workforce need was a stated program objective, a potential benefit of the 

program, or neither. 

27 We analyzed the proportions of both programs and obligations dedicated to a particular 

objective. See appendix I for a detailed explanation. Amounts obligated for each program 

for fiscal year 2012 were reported to us by agency officials in response to our survey. We 

did not independently verify this information.

Most Federal 

Postsecondary STEM 

Education Programs 

Address Workforce 

Needs to Some 

Extent

Most Federal 

Postsecondary STEM 

Education Programs 

Consider Workforce 

Needs, Including Jobs, 

Diversity, and Innovation
 

Page 23 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 11: Percent of Reported Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Education Obligations Dedicated to Workforce Needs

Note: For this figure, N=124 programs. Programs may have more than one stated objective or 

potential benefit, so total obligations cannot be summed across the various workforce needs.

Eighty percent of the 124 federal postsecondary STEM programs that 

responded to our survey said that they focused on specific STEM 

occupations—41 percent as a stated objective and an additional 39 

Jobs
 

Page 24 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

percent as a potential benefit of the program.28 Almost three-quarters of 

obligations by grant-making programs with a stated objective to increase 

the numbers of workers in specific STEM occupations were made by 

programs that said they gave preference to applicants with the same 

goal.29 Programs generally reported that they chose occupations

according to market demand, their agency’s mission, or both.

Fifty-six percent of the programs (25 percent of obligations) that focused 

on specific fields said that they chose occupations based on market 

demand.30 Most of these programs reported that they identified highdemand occupations using national data and their own formal and 

informal research, such as networking with local industries. (See figure 

12.) Some programs also indicated that they obtained information about 

high-demand occupations through partnerships with other organizations, 

such as industry groups that conduct national workforce needs 

assessments. 

 

28 While the number of programs with stated objectives and potential benefits related to 

specific occupations were roughly equal, much more money was obligated by the 

programs with potential benefits ($989 million, or 53 percent of postsecondary STEM 

obligations), compared to those with stated objectives (23 percent of obligations, or $429 

million). This may indicate that the programs with stated objectives had smaller budgets, 

on average.

29 Twenty-four grant-making programs, with obligations of $291 million, had a stated 

objective to focus on specific STEM occupations. Of these, 13, with $214 million in 

obligations, gave preference to grant applicants that focused on the same occupations.

30 Ninety-nine federal postsecondary STEM programs ($1.4 billion in obligations) focused 

on specific occupations as either a stated program objective or potential benefit of their 

work. Of these, 55 programs ($349 million in obligations) identified occupations based on 

market demand. We defined high market demand to include STEM occupations with many 

job openings now, many predicted job openings in the future, or a shortage of qualified 

workers (e.g., there are not enough qualified workers available to fill job openings).
 

Page 25 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 12: Information Sources Used by Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs 

that Target Occupations Based on High Market Demand, Fiscal Year 2012

Note: This figure includes only those 55 postsecondary STEM education programs (N=55 programs) 

that reported that they focused on high-demand occupations. Not included in this figure were 33 

programs that focused only on occupations related to their missions, 11 programs that did not specify 

how they chose occupations, and 25 programs that indicated that they do not have a stated objective 

or potential benefit of increasing the number of workers in specific occupations.

Along with high-demand occupations, most of the STEM education 

programs (85 percent of programs, 65 percent of obligations) that focused 

on specific fields reported that they chose occupations related to the 

agency’s mission.31 For example, the Department of Energy’s mission 

 

31 Ninety-nine federal postsecondary STEM programs ($1.4 billion in obligations) focused 

on specific occupations as either a stated program objective or potential benefit of their 

work. Of these, 84 programs ($919 million in obligations) chose occupations related to 

their agency’s mission, including 51 programs that considered both market demand and 

mission. 
 

Page 26 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

corresponds to some specific STEM fields, such as energy science and 

nuclear physics, and the majority of programs from this agency said that 

they focus on mission-related occupations. Furthermore, one-third of the 

programs that target specific fields told us they focus solely on 

occupations related to their agency’s mission instead of on high-demand 

occupations. One of the 13 programs we studied in depth—the National 

Institutes of Health’s Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service 

Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellows program—aims to address 

needs for biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research in the country. For 

this reason, grant guidance states that applicants must propose projects 

in research areas that fall under the agency’s scientific mission. 

Additionally, 60 percent of postsecondary STEM education programs, 

representing 59 percent of obligations, said that they prepared students 

for jobs at their own agencies. While this may meet some workforce 

needs, the agency creates its own closed loop of trainees, job openings, 

and employees, and does not necessarily try to provide STEM workers to 

the broader workforce.

In addition to preparing students for STEM jobs, we identified several 

other workforce needs that federal STEM education programs reported 

addressing. For example, experts and agency officials told us that 

programs that increase the diversity of the STEM workforce, prepare 

students for innovation and emerging fields, or provide STEM skills to 

students who do not obtain STEM degrees can contribute to American 

competitiveness in other ways. Experts also said that federal STEM 

programs are uniquely positioned to meet some of these broader 

workforce needs, which may not be provided by the marketplace alone.

A majority of the postsecondary STEM education programs in our survey 

indicated that they focus on increasing the numbers of minority, 

disadvantaged, or under-represented groups in the STEM workforce: 38 

percent (45 percent of obligations) as a stated program objective, and 54 

percent (48 percent of obligations) as a potential benefit of the program. 

Programs with a stated objective to increase the diversity of the STEM 

workforce most frequently reported that they served one or more underrepresented racial or ethnic groups and people from economically 

disadvantaged backgrounds, and least frequently reported serving 

Diversity
 

Page 27 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

women. 32 Additionally, 77 percent of obligations by grant-making 

programs that responded to our survey were made by programs that 

reported that they gave preference to grant applicants that intend to 

increase the number of STEM workers from minority, disadvantaged, or 

under-represented groups.33

Four of the thirteen programs we studied in depth reported that they were 

primarily intended to serve minority, disadvantaged, or under-represented 

groups in STEM fields. For example, the Department of Education’s 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs award 

grants to postsecondary institutions with undergraduate student bodies 

that are at least 25 percent Hispanic. Grantees may create new 

coursework, improve infrastructure, develop research opportunities for 

students, or provide outreach and support services to students in order to 

encourage their pursuit of STEM degrees. Additionally, the National 

Science Foundation’s Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation 

program seeks to increase the numbers and qualifications of STEM 

graduates from under-represented groups. Grantees are allowed wide 

latitude to design projects that improve the undergraduate educational 

experiences of students and facilitate their transfer from 2-year to 4-year 

postsecondary institutions.

Innovation is another workforce need that most federal postsecondary 

STEM programs reported that they aim to meet. In fact, among 

postsecondary STEM programs responding to our survey, preparing 

students or workers for innovation in their field and for careers in 

emerging STEM fields were the workforce needs with the highest 

reported obligations. However, although 95 percent of the 124 STEM 

programs that responded to our survey (97 percent of obligations) 

indicated that they intended to prepare people for innovation in their fields 

or for emerging STEM fields, 59 percent (61 percent of obligations) 

 

32 Forty-seven programs indicated on our survey that they had a stated program objective 

to increase the numbers of minority, disadvantaged, or under-represented groups in the 

STEM workforce. Of these, 17 did not respond to questions asking which specific groups 

they focused on. The fairly high number of nonrespondents suggests that this information 

should be interpreted with caution. 

33 Eighty postsecondary programs, with $1.396 billion in obligations in fiscal year 2012, 

indicated that they made grants for the purposes of STEM education. Of these, 39 

programs, with $1.07 billion in obligations, gave preference to applicants that focused on 

minority, disadvantaged, or under-represented groups.

Innovation
 

Page 28 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

considered innovation to be a potential benefit rather than a stated 

objective. For example, the National Science Foundation and the National 

Institutes of Health both consider innovation in their agency-wide grantmaking guidance. Additionally, the National Science Foundation 

sometimes creates agency-wide priorities for funding certain emerging 

fields, such as clean energy.

Federal postsecondary STEM education programs that responded to our 

survey indicated that they provided a range of services. The most 

common services they reported included research opportunities, 

internships, and mentorships. (See fig. 13.)

Programs Addressed 

Workforce Needs in 

Various Ways, and Some 

Measured WorkforceRelated Outcomes
 

Page 29 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 13: Services Provided by Federal Postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education Programs in Fiscal Year 2012

Eighty percent of the 124 postsecondary STEM education programs that 

responded to our survey, representing 88 percent of obligations, said they 

tracked their success at meeting workforce needs using at least one 

outcome-based measure. Degree attainment, number of students 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

pursuing STEM coursework, number of students taking a STEM job, and 

participant satisfaction were the most commonly reported outcomes. For 

example, the National Institutes of Health produced a report focused on 

the workforce outcomes of biomedical students, the majority of whom 

receive support from the National Institutes of Health at some point in 

their graduate careers.

34

However, some programs did not measure an outcome or output that 

directly related to their stated objectives. For example, of the 78 

postsecondary programs with a stated program objective to prepare 

students for STEM careers, 53 percent (45 percent of obligations) 

reported that they did not track the number of their students who took a 

job in a STEM field. Similarly, of the 49 programs with a stated program 

objective to increase the numbers of STEM graduates, 39 percent (43 

percent of obligations) reported that they did not measure the educational 

attainment of their program participants. These data are consistent with 

our 2012 STEM report, in which we found that STEM education 

programs’ outcome measures were not clearly reflected in the 

performance planning documents of most agencies.35 As we 

recommended in 2012, the National Science and Technology Council 

recently issued guidance to help agencies better incorporate their STEM 

education efforts and the goals from the government-wide STEM 

Education 5-Year Strategic Plan into their agency performance plans and 

reports. As agencies follow the guidance, improve their outcome 

measures, and focus on the effectiveness of the programs, more

 

34 National Institutes of Health, Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report: A 

Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (June 14, 2012). The National 

Institutes of Health has many programs that fund biomedical students. According to the 

report, the majority of biomedical graduate students receive National Institutes of Health 

support at some point in their graduate studies through training grants, fellowships or 

research project grants. It also found that although the agency primarily trained graduate 

students for careers in academic research, less than half of domestically trained 

biomedical PhD graduates in 2008 went into a career in academia, with many going into 

research or non research careers in government and industry. As a result, the report 

recommended that the National Institutes of Health create a program providing additional 

training and career development experiences to equip students for various career options.

35 We also found that STEM programs varied in their ability to track reliable output 

measures, such as the number of students or teachers directly served by their program. 

We recommended that the National Science and Technology Council develop a 

monitoring framework to ensure that agencies collect data and report on the goals in the 

Strategic Plan. Work on this framework has begun, but our recommendation remains open 

because the framework has not been completed. See GAO-12-108. 
 

Page 31 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

programs may measure outcomes directly related to their stated program 

objectives, such as preparing students for STEM careers.

According to our survey, preparing students for postsecondary education 

in a STEM field is either a stated program objective or a potential 

secondary benefit of almost all federal K-12 STEM education programs.36

Specifically, out of 30 federal K-12 STEM education program respondents 

to our survey, 13 programs (50 percent of K-12 program obligations)37

reported that preparing students for postsecondary STEM education is a 

stated program objective, while 16 programs reported that it is a potential 

benefit of the program.38

Of the six federal K-12 STEM education programs we selected to review 

in more detail, four programs—Advanced Technological Education, 

Discovery Research K-12, Math and Science Partnership, and Upward 

Bound Math-Science—reported that preparing students for 

postsecondary STEM education is a stated objective of the program. 

Upward Bound Math-Science programs, which are based in institutions of 

higher education, work closely with students to strengthen their math and 

science skills in order to prepare and encourage them to pursue 

postsecondary degrees in math and science.39 According to an official 

from an Upward Bound Math-Science program we visited in California, 

the program is not specifically intended to prepare students for the STEM 

workforce, but it emphasizes helping students understand the varied 

career opportunities available to them in math and science fields. Officials 

from another Upward Bound Math-Science program we visited said they 

try to connect their students with practitioners in the field, since it is

 

36 For purposes of this report, we limited our category of federal K-12 STEM education 

programs to include only those STEM education programs that primarily serve students 

and teachers at the K-12 level. The category is not meant to be inclusive of all programs 

with a K-12 STEM education component. 

37 We analyzed the proportions of both programs and obligations for fiscal year 2012. 

Amounts obligated for each program for fiscal year 2012 were reported to us by agency 

officials in response to our survey. We did not independently verify this information.

38 In addition to the 13 K-12 programs, 7 postsecondary programs noted that preparing 

students for postsecondary STEM education is a stated program objective. 

39 These programs are required to provide instruction in math and science—as well as 

laboratory experience, academic counseling, information on and assistance with applying 

for student aid, and mentorships opportunities.

Most Federal K-12 

STEM Education 

Programs Include 

Activities to Prepare 

Students for Future 

STEM Education
 

Page 32 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

important for students to have role models in STEM occupations who hail 

from similar backgrounds.

In our survey, 18 of the 30 federal K-12 STEM education programs 

(approximately 77 percent of K-12 program obligations) reported that 

improving the ability of K-12 teachers to teach STEM content is a stated 

program objective.40 Several experts have noted that one challenge at the 

K-12 level is that STEM teachers sometimes do not have sufficient 

content knowledge to effectively teach these subjects, and that the

federal government can play an important role by supporting professional 

development for STEM teachers and encouraging more college 

graduates in STEM fields to pursue teaching careers.

Four of the federal K-12 STEM education programs we reviewed in 

detail— Advanced Technological Education, Discovery Research K-12, 

Math and Science Partnership, and the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program41—reported that improving the ability of K-12 

teachers to teach STEM content is a stated program objective. The 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships program provides formula grants 

to states, which in turn award competitive grants to partnerships that 

enhance the content knowledge and teaching skills of math and science 

teachers. A Mathematics and Science Partnerships grantee we met with 

in Texas established regional networks across the state in which mentor 

teachers provided professional development and mentoring to 

participating teachers. Similarly, the Discovery Research K-12 program 

supports research projects that address a need in STEM education at the 

pre-kindergarten through 12th grade levels, particularly programs that 

explore unconventional approaches to teaching and learning. 

Researchers we met with were exploring how computational models 

could be used to make decisions about resource allocation to optimize 

learning in STEM classes. For example, the model might be used to 

calculate optimal student-teacher ratios given other factors, such as 

grade level, subject, and class composition.

 

40 In addition to the 18 K-12 programs, 4 postsecondary programs noted that improving 

the ability of K-12 teachers to teach STEM content is a stated program objective. 

41 NSF administers the Math and Science Partnership program, while Education 

administers the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program. 
 

Page 33 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

In our survey, 7 of the 30 federal K-12 STEM education programs 

(approximately 26 percent of K-12 program obligations) reported that 

providing students with STEM knowledge, skills, and abilities, without the 

explicit goal of preparing them for postsecondary STEM education or a 

STEM career, is a stated program objective. According to recent 

research, exposing students to STEM content and encouraging their 

interest in STEM disciplines at an early age is important in order to 

increase the likelihood that they remain engaged with STEM later in life. 

The National Science Foundation’s Advancing Informal STEM Learning 

program provides grants to organizations working on innovative projects 

intended to expose students to STEM content outside the classroom. A 

museum we visited in California received an Advancing Informal STEM 

Learning grant to develop an outdoor bilingual science exhibit and related 

curriculum targeted towards Latino students in the San Francisco area. 

Officials told us the exhibit is geared towards students who may not 

generally visit the museum.

Federal K-12 STEM education programs provide a variety of educational 

services in order to achieve their objectives. The services identified most 

often in our survey included classroom instruction; curriculum 

development; outreach to generate student interest in STEM fields; shortterm experiential learning activities; and teacher professional 

development or retention activities (see fig. 14).
 

Page 34 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 14: Number of Kindergarten-12th grade Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs Providing Various Services in Fiscal 

Year 2012

In our survey, 25 of the 30 federal K-12 STEM education programs 

(approximately 89 percent of K-12 program obligations) reported that they 

tracked or monitored program outcome measures in 2012. However, as 

with the federal postsecondary STEM education programs some K-12 

programs are not measuring outcomes directly related to their stated 

objectives. For example, of the 13 K-12 programs that reported having a 

stated program objective to prepare students for postsecondary STEM 

education, 10 programs said they did not track student educational 

attainment or the number of students who pursued coursework in STEM 

fields. Of the 18 programs that reported that improving the ability of K-12

teachers to teach STEM content was a stated program objective, 6 

programs said they did not monitor teacher improvement and 

performance in STEM education instruction or the number of qualified 

teachers teaching STEM.
 

Page 35 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

K-12 STEM education program grantees we met with monitored some 

programmatic outcomes. For example, an official from an Upward Bound 

Math-Science program we visited told us that each program is required to 

submit an annual report to Education, including data on performance 

outcomes such as the number of participants who graduate from high 

school, pursue postsecondary degrees in STEM fields, and graduate from 

college within 6 years.42 The official said that all but one of the 

participants in the program’s first cohort graduated from high school and 

enrolled in college. Further, officials from a Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships grantee told us that—in addition to mandatory reporting to 

Education on performance outcomes, such as the number of teachers 

trained through the program and the extent to which teachers’ test scores 

showed statistically significant gains—they were implementing an 

initiative to correlate programmatic data with student outcomes across the 

state, as measured by teacher self-reporting and statewide assessments. 

The initial phase of the analysis, based on teacher self-reporting, found 

that the students whose teachers had participated in the program 

outperformed their peers in several STEM subjects. In addition, officials 

from the museum exhibit in California funded by the Advancing Informal 

STEM Learning program said assessments were planned for every stage 

of the project, including a summative evaluation to review the extent to 

which it may have influenced Latino youth awareness of and engagement 

with STEM content. Officials said the evaluation would be completed in 

January of 2015.

It is difficult to determine whether there has been a shortage or a 

sufficient supply of STEM workers in the United States and, 

consequently, to define the appropriate role the federal government 

should play in increasing the number of STEM-educated workers. There 

is not a one-to-one match between STEM graduates in a specific field 

and corresponding STEM jobs because not all people with STEM 

degrees pursue careers in their fields of study, whether by choice or 

because of limited employment opportunities in the field. Regardless of 

career choices, the rigor of a STEM education may help promote a 

workforce with transferable skills and the potential to fuel innovation and 

economic growth. Federal postsecondary STEM education programs may 

 

42 Education releases an annual performance report that aggregates results from all 

Upward Bound Math-Science programs and presents program-wide outcomes. 

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 36 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

help develop a workforce that will address issues that affect the 

population as a whole, such as researching diseases or improving 

defense capabilities. Additionally, federal K-12 STEM education programs 

may generate interest in STEM fields early in life, which could usher more 

students into the STEM pipeline and increase the likelihood that they will 

pursue STEM education and careers.

Although the administration has taken steps to consolidate and 

coordinate STEM education programs, numerous programs—spread 

across 13 agencies—remain. As the administration continues to 

consolidate and eliminate STEM education programs, it risks making 

decisions without considering the efficacy of these programs because 

many federal STEM education programs are not measuring their 

outcomes. However, the guidance recently issued by the National 

Science and Technology Council could help agencies better incorporate 

their STEM education efforts and the goals from the government-wide 5-

year STEM strategic plan into their agency performance plans and 

reports. This will enable agencies to better assess which STEM education 

efforts are successful in contributing to agency-wide performance goals 

and supporting the overall federal STEM effort.

We provided a draft of this product for comment to the Departments of 

Defense, Education, Energy, and Health and Human Services; National 

Science Foundation; and Office of Management and Budget. All provided 

technical comments except the Department of Defense, which indicated 

that it had no comments. We incorporated the technical comments as 

appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Department of 

Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of 

Health and Human Services, National Science Foundation, and Office of 

Management and Budget. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 37 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

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. 

Melissa Emrey-Arras

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Our research objectives were to review (1) recent trends in the number of 

degrees and jobs in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) fields, (2) the extent to which federal postsecondary STEM 

education programs take workforce needs into consideration, and (3) the 

extent to which federal kindergarten-12th grade (K-12) STEM education 

programs prepare students for postsecondary STEM education.

To inform all of our objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations. We also reviewed relevant literature and past reports on 

STEM education, including our 2012 STEM report1 and the National 

Science and Technology Council’s Strategic Plan for federal STEM 

education programs. In addition, we interviewed STEM experts and 

officials from the Office of Science and Technology Policy and several 

other federal agencies that administer STEM education programs to 

gather information on their STEM education efforts. We attended a STEM 

education conference to gather additional perspectives about federal 

STEM education programs.

To examine recent trends in the number of STEM degrees awarded, we 

analyzed data from IPEDS from the Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics. IPEDS is a system of interrelated surveys 

conducted annually to gather information from every college, university, 

and technical and vocational institution that participates in federal student 

financial aid programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 

requires institutions of higher education that participate in federal student 

aid programs to complete IPEDS surveys.2 IPEDS provides institutionlevel data in such areas as enrollment, program completions, faculty, 

staff, and finances. Specifically, we analyzed 10 years of data from the 

IPEDS program completions component, from the July 2002-June 2003 

 

1

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

Needed to Better Manage Multiple Programs Across Multiple Agencies, GAO-12-108 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012). 

2 20 U.S.C. §1094(a)(17).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Analysis of Education 

and Workforce Data

Analysis of the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) 

Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

academic year to the July 2011-June 2012 academic year. The program 

completions component provides data on the number of degrees awarded 

by each institution for each program of study. We analyzed the data to 

determine the number of degrees awarded nationally in STEM and nonSTEM programs of study in this time period, the number awarded in our 

three STEM categories, and the number awarded in selected STEM 

fields. We included degrees awarded for both first and second majors in 

our analysis. Our results represent the number of degrees awarded, not 

the number of individuals who obtained degrees. We assessed the 

reliability of the IPEDS data we used by reviewing relevant documents 

and past GAO reviews of the data and conducting electronic testing. On 

the basis of this assessment, we concluded that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for our reporting purposes.

In conducting our analysis, we classified each program of study in the 

IPEDS data as STEM or non-STEM. We used as guidance work 

conducted by the Census Bureau to classify fields of study as science 

and engineering or science- and engineer-related in the American 

Community Survey (ACS) data. This helped to ensure that we were 

consistent with the fields we defined as STEM in both our IPEDS and 

ACS analyses. We further classified these STEM fields into our three 

STEM categories of Core STEM, Healthcare STEM, and Other STEM. 

See table 1 below for the fields of study we classified as STEM and how 

we classified them into our three STEM categories. We also aggregated 

detailed programs of study into broader STEM fields, generally based on 

the first two digits of the Classification of Instructional Programs code (the 

classification system that IPEDS uses to define programs of study). For 

example, Classification of Instructional Programs codes beginning with 11 

represent programs of study under the category of “computer and 

information sciences and support services.” The information we present 

on numbers of computer science/information technology (IT) degrees 

comes from aggregating the number of degrees awarded for 

Classification of Instructional Programs codes that begin with 11. For life 

sciences, mathematics and statistics, and social sciences, we combined 

programs of study from multiple 2-digit Classification of Instructional 

Programs code categories (see table 4 for the fields we combined).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Table 4: Fields of Study We Classified as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

STEM Category Programs of Study, based on the Classification of Instructional Programs 2010

Core STEM Life sciences (includes biological and biomedical sciences; agricultural sciences, i.e., animal sciences, 

food science and technology plant sciences, and soil sciences; natural resources and conservation, i.e., 

environmental studies/science, fisheries science and management, forestry, wildlife and wildlands 

science and management)

Computer and information sciences and support services

Engineering

Technician (includes engineering technologies and engineering-related fields, science 

technologies/technicians)

Mathematics and statistics (including actuarial science)

Physical sciences 

Healthcare STEM Health professions and related programs

Other STEM Social sciences (includes natural resource economics and agricultural economics; area, ethnic, cultural, 

gender, and group studies; linguistics; public policy analysis; history and philosophy of science and 

technology; social sciences).

Architecture and related services

STEM teacher education

Multi-/interdisciplinary studies (i.e., systems science, nutrition sciences, behavioral sciences, gerontology, 

international/global studies)

Psychology

Source: GAO analysis of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Note: We did not include construction trades, mechanic and repair technologies/technicians, or 

precision production in our definition of STEM fields because they were not defined as STEM in the 

information sources that informed our categorization. We also did not include industry certifications or 

licenses. We note that Congress recently changed the name of the Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education to the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

To examine trends in STEM occupations, we analyzed the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ OES data from the May 2004 survey to the May 2012 

survey. The OES program surveys establishments to produce estimates 

of employment and wages for specific occupations.3 We began our 

analysis with the May 2004 data because that was the first year that all 

occupations in the OES were classified based on the Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) system. We conducted our analysis to 

identify trends in the number of jobs and the average wages in STEM and 

non-STEM occupations from 2004 to 2012. We assessed the reliability of 

 

3 The OES survey does not collect data from self-employed persons. As a result, our 

estimates from the OES data do not include data from self-employed persons. 

Analysis of Occupational 

Employment Statistics 

(OES) Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

the OES data by reviewing relevant documents, interviewing Bureau of 

Labor Statistics officials, and conducting electronic testing of the data. 

Based on our assessment, we concluded that the OES data were 

sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes.

We classified occupations as STEM and non-STEM based on the SOC 

Policy Committee’s Options for Defining STEM (Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics) Occupations Under the 2010 Standard 

Occupational Classification System.

4 This document sets out several 

options for defining STEM occupations. Any occupation that was included 

in any of the SOC Policy Committee’s options was classified as STEM in 

our analysis. All other occupations were classified as non-STEM. We also 

classified occupations into our three STEM categories of Core STEM, 

Healthcare STEM, and Other STEM based some of the options presented 

by the SOC Policy Committee. Specifically:

• Occupations categorized by the SOC Policy Committee as “Life and 

Physical Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Information 

Technology Occupations” were classified as Core STEM occupations 

in our analysis. These include postsecondary teachers, managers, 

technicians, and scientists in these fields, as well as sales 

representatives for technical and scientific products and sales 

engineers.5

• Occupations categorized by the SOC Policy Committee as “Health 

Occupations” were classified as Healthcare STEM occupations in our 

analysis. These included health diagnosing and treating practitioners, 

health technologists and technicians, postsecondary health teachers, 

and medical and health services managers. It does not include 

healthcare support occupations (e.g., health aides, nursing 

assistants).

 

4 Options for Defining STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Occupations Under the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System, SOC 

Policy Committee Recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

(August 2012). 

5 Three occupations were classified by the SOC Policy Committee in multiple categories: 

architectural and engineering managers, architectural and civil drafters, and life, physical, 

and social science technicians, all other. We classified these occupations as Core STEM 

in our analysis.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

• Occupations categorized by the SOC Policy Committee as “Social 

Science Occupations and “Architecture Occupations” were classified 

as Other STEM occupations in our analysis. These include scientists 

and researchers, architects and related professions, assistants, and 

postsecondary teachers in these fields.

The SOC Policy Committee’s Options for Defining STEM Occupations

was based on occupations defined under the 2010 SOC, while the 2004 

to 2009 OES data used a slightly different occupational classification 

system (the 2000 SOC). We used Bureau of Labor Statistics crosswalks 

between the 2000 SOC and the 2010 SOC to identify the appropriate 

STEM occupations throughout the period of our study.6 We also 

combined detailed occupations into broader occupational groups based 

on the first two or three digits of the SOC codes and presented 

employment and wage trends for these occupational groups (e.g., 

computer/IT occupations). Specifically, our categories of STEM 

management and STEM sales in figure 6 of our report combine 

occupations under the two digit-SOC codes 11 (management 

occupations) and 41 (sales and related occupations). Other occupational 

categories presented in figure 6 combine occupations based on the first 

three digits of the SOC codes (e.g., our computer/IT category combines 

occupations beginning with SOC code 15-1, computer occupations).

To minimize respondent burden, the OES survey is conducted on a 3-

year cycle that ensures that most establishments are surveyed at most 

once every three years. OES estimates are produced annually, but each 

year’s estimates are based on surveys conducted over a 3-year period. 

Following Bureau of Labor Statistics guidance for using OES data that are 

at least two or three years apart when examining trends over time, we 

present results for alternate years in appendix III (for May 2004, 2006, 

2008, 2010, and 2012). We calculated standard errors for our estimates 

based on the relative standard errors that the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

provided for each employment and mean wage estimate for each 

occupation.

 

6 The 2010 OES also used some temporary SOC codes for occupations where the 

estimates were based on some surveys that used the 2000 SOC and some surveys that 

used the 2010 SOC. We reviewed each of these temporary codes and classified them as 

STEM or non-STEM based on the SOC Policy Committee’s Options for Defining STEM 

Occupations. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

We analyzed the data from the Census Bureau’s ACS to examine the 

unemployment rates of those in STEM and non-STEM occupations, as 

well as the educational backgrounds at the bachelor’s degree level of 

those in STEM and non-STEM occupations. The ACS is an ongoing 

national survey which replaced the decennial census long-form 

questionnaire as a source for social, economic, demographic, and 

housing information. About 3 million households are selected for the ACS 

each year. The ACS questionnaire asks about the kind of work people in 

the household were doing in their most recent job if they worked in the 

last 5 years (i.e., their occupation). It also asks about the highest degree 

or level of school a person has completed. If the person has completed a 

bachelor’s degree or higher, the ACS asks for the specific major(s) of any 

bachelor degree(s) the person has completed. The ACS also contains 

questions to produce estimates of the number of people who are 

employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force. We specifically 

analyzed data from the 1-year Public Use Microdata Samples for 2009 to 

2012. We assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing relevant 

documentation and conducting electronic testing of the data. Based on 

our assessment, we concluded that the ACS data were sufficiently 

reliable for our reporting purposes. 

The Census Bureau has its own system for coding occupations and fields 

of study in the ACS data, which are based on the SOC and the CIP, 

respectively. Census has also classified occupations as STEM and 

STEM-related (healthcare and architecture) and fields of study as science 

and engineering and science- and engineering-related. The Census 

Bureau’s classifications of occupations are based on the SOC Policy 

Committee’s Options for Defining STEM Occupations, though agency 

officials made some modifications due to their use of different coding 

systems. We considered any occupation that Census classified as STEM 

or STEM-related as STEM in our analysis of occupations, and any field of 

study they identified as science and engineering and science- and 

engineering-related as STEM in our analysis of degrees. As with our 

analysis of OES data, we classified occupations into our three STEM 

categories of Core STEM, Healthcare STEM, and Other STEM. We also 

combined detailed occupations and fields of study into broader 

categories. For example, we combined 11 specific occupations into our 

category of computer/IT occupations, and 6 different fields of study for the 

computer/IT major at the bachelor’s degree level.

With regard to the unemployment rates we present, most of our estimates 

are for the civilian population in the labor force ages 16 and older. Our 

estimates of the educational background of those in STEM and nonAnalysis of ACS Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

STEM occupations are based on the population ages 22 and older. Our 

estimates of the unemployment rates of those in STEM and non-STEM 

occupations by educational background (in figure 6 of appendix III) are for 

the civilian population in the labor force ages 22 and older. The Bureau of 

Labor Statistics has found that ACS estimates of the unemployment rate 

can differ from estimates produced by the Current Population Survey, a 

monthly survey of about 60,000 households that is the nation’s source of 

official government statistics on employment and unemployment. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics states that a number of factors may account for 

the differences, including overall questionnaire differences, differing 

requirements in the two surveys with regard to whether an individual is 

actively looking for work, and differences in reference periods, modes of 

collection, and population controls.

We calculated standard errors for our estimates using the replicate weight 

method. For some estimates of the unemployment rate for specific 

occupational categories, the margin of error exceeded 30 percent of the 

estimates. We note these instances in our report.

In order to compare the wages and unemployment rates of workers in 

STEM and non-STEM occupations with comparable personal 

characteristics, we ran a series of wage regressions and unemployment 

regressions in which we controlled for human capital characteristics (age 

and education) and demographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, gender, 

citizenship, and veterans status) as well as the worker’s broad 

occupational category.

We used the ACS for our wage and unemployment regression analyses. 

We restricted our analysis to full-time, full-year workers. We restricted our 

analysis to full-time workers because the ACS does not collect data on 

whether people are salaried or hourly workers, making it difficult to use 

the “usual weekly hours” variable. We restricted our analysis to full-year 

workers because the ACS also does not collect data on weekly wages, 

but on earnings from wages or salary in the past year. Not all people work 

a full year, and people who have been unemployed for part of the year 

will have annual earnings that do not reflect their annual salary or hourly 

rate of pay. When constructing our dependent variable, we took the 

natural log of annual wages.

For the unemployment regressions, the outcome variable is current labor 

force status. People who are currently unemployed are defined as 

unemployed; people who are currently working or on paid leave from 

Regression Analysis
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

work are defined as not unemployed; and people who are not in the labor 

force are excluded from the universe. The universe is also restricted to 

people ages 16-64, and excludes people who have no work experience or 

have not worked in the past 5 years because the ACS does not collect 

occupation for these people.

Both sets of regressions use linear models and the same set of 

covariates.

For the purposes of our study, we applied the definition of a federallyfunded STEM education program used in previous GAO work.7

Specifically, we defined it as a program funded in fiscal year 2012 by 

allocation or congressional appropriation that had not been subsequently 

terminated and 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 (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 

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 could 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 were not considered a STEM education program),

• attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields,

• improve teacher (pre-service 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. 

 

7 GAO-12-108. In that report, we inventoried federal STEM education program funded in 

fiscal year 2010. In the current report, we inventoried those funded in fiscal year 2012.

Definition of STEM 

Education Program
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

In addition, STEM education programs may provide grants, fellowships, 

internships, and traineeships. While 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.

For the purposes of this study, we defined an organized set of activities 

as a single program even when its funds were allocated to other 

programs as well. Several programs had been eliminated or consolidated 

into new programs since our last inventory. We included programs that 

had been consolidated, but we did not include programs that had since 

been terminated. For a list of STEM education programs by agency, 

including consolidated programs, see appendix IV.

To identify federally-funded STEM education programs, first we 

developed a combined list of programs based on the findings of two 

previous STEM education inventories—one that we issued in 2012 and 

another completed by the National Science and Technology Council in 

2011. Second, we shared our list with agency officials, along with our 

definition of STEM education program, and asked officials to make an 

initial determination about which programs should remain on the list and 

which programs should be added to the list. If agency officials indicated 

they wanted to remove a program from our list, we asked for additional 

information. For example, programs on our initial list may have been 

terminated or consolidated, or did not receive federal funds in fiscal year 

2012.

We reviewed additional information on the programs that were not 

included in our 2012 inventory of STEM education programs, mainly 

through agency websites, program materials, or discussions with program 

officials. On the basis of this additional information, we excluded 

programs that we found did not meet our definition of a STEM education 

program. We also included screening questions in the survey to provide 

additional verification that the programs met our definition of a STEM 

education program. Of the 170 programs on our original survey 

distribution list, seven programs did not pass our screening questions 

because they had been eliminated since 2012, and we determined that 

Program Selection
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

another five did not meet our definition of a STEM education program.8 In 

total, we identified 158 federal STEM education programs.

To provide more details about some of the STEM education programs 

with the highest reported obligations, we conducted a more in-depth 

review of 13 of the largest STEM education programs from three 

agencies: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, 

and the National Institutes of Health at the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 9 Seven of the selected programs served postsecondary 

students or institutions and six programs served K-12 students or 

teachers (see table 5). We reviewed documentation from each program, 

interviewed agency officials, and conducted site visits with grantees in 

Austin and San Francisco and phone interviews with grantees in Boston. 

We chose these sites based on geographic diversity and the prevalence 

of federal STEM grantees.

 

8

After we had deployed our survey, program officials recommended that we exclude five 

programs from our review. After speaking with officials and reviewing program information, 

we determined that these five programs should be excluded from our list and should not 

complete the survey.

9 We chose these programs because they were among the largest federal STEM 

education programs, collectively accounting for 54 percent of the fiscal year 2012 STEM 

education obligations reported by respondents to our survey.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Table 5: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs Reviewed In Depth

Department of Education

Postsecondary programs Hispanic Serving Institutions STEM and Articulation Programs

K-12 programs Upward Bound Math-Science

Mathematics and Science Partnerships

Department of Health and Human 

Services (National Institutes of Health)

Postsecondary programs Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training 

Grants

Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA for Individual Predoctoral Fellows, including Under-represented 

Racial/Ethnic Groups, Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, and Predoctoral 

Students with Disabilities

National Science Foundation 

Postsecondary programs Graduate Research Fellowship Program 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program

Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation

Research Experiences for Undergraduates 

K-12 programs Advancing Technological Education

Discovery Research K-12

Advanced Informal Science Learning

Math and Science Partnership 

Source: GAO.

We developed a web-based survey to collect information on federal 

STEM education programs. The survey included questions on program 

objectives, occupations targeted, methods used to identify targeted 

occupations, and factors considered when selecting grantees. We 

created a list of possible workforce needs using input from experts, 

program officials, and grantees, and asked federal STEM education 

programs to indicate whether each possible workforce need was a stated 

program objective, a potential benefit of the program, or neither. The 

survey also asked programs to update information provided in our survey 

for the 2012 report on target groups served, services provided, outcome 

measures, and obligations. To minimize errors arising from differences in 

how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses 

that should be qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with six 

different programs in August and September 2013. To ensure that we 

Survey

Design and 

Implementation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

obtained a variety of perspectives on our survey, we selected programs 

from six different agencies that differed in program scope, objectives, 

services provided, and target groups served. An independent GAO 

reviewer also reviewed a draft of the survey prior to its administration. On 

the basis of feedback from these pretests and independent review, we 

revised the survey in order to improve its clarity.

After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On October 29 

or November 13, 2013, we sent an e-mail message to the officials 

responsible for the 158 programs selected for our review that informed 

them that the survey was available online. In that e-mail message, we 

also provided them with unique passwords and usernames. We made 

telephone calls to officials and sent them follow-up e-mail messages, as 

necessary, to clarify their responses or obtain additional information. We 

received completed surveys from 154 programs, for a 97 percent 

response rate.10 We collected survey responses through February 14, 

2014.

Of the 154 federal STEM education programs that responded to our 

survey, 124 programs in 13 agencies primarily served students and 

teachers at the postsecondary level.11 According to our survey, these 

programs’ reported fiscal year 2012 obligations ranged from zero to $348 

million and totaled $1.9 billion. We identified 30 programs in 10 agencies 

that primarily serve students and teachers at the K-12 level.12 According 

to our survey, these programs reported obligations totaling approximately 

$685 million in fiscal year 2012 in amounts ranging from $1,200 to $148 

million.

 

10 Four programs did not respond to our survey, all from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. They were the education programs housed in the National 

Marine Sanctuaries; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; 

National Ocean Service; and National Weather Service.

11 These agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, and Transportation. 

12 These agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, and 

Transportation.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze survey responses. The 

STEM education programs in our survey received widely varying amounts 

of federal funding. This introduced the possibility that a few very large 

programs—accounting for the majority of obligations—could pursue one 

activity, while many small programs—accounting for the majority of 

programs but a small proportion of obligations—could pursue another 

activity. To accurately capture the survey data, we analyzed it both in 

terms of the percentage of programs answering each question and the 

corresponding percentage of obligations. In cases where these 

proportions differed, we presented both. Amounts obligated for each 

program for fiscal year 2012 were reported to us by agency officials in 

response to our survey. We did not independently verify this information.

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. To 

minimize other types of errors—commonly referred to as nonsampling 

errors—and to enhance data quality, we employed recognized survey 

design practices in the development of the survey and in the collection, 

processing, and analysis of the survey data. For instance, as previously 

mentioned, we pretested the survey with federal officials to minimize 

errors arising from differences in how questions might be interpreted and 

to reduce variability in responses that should be qualitatively the same. 

We further reviewed the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections 

was appropriate and that the questions within each section were clearly 

stated and easy to comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source 

of nonsampling error, we sent out e-mail reminder messages to 

encourage officials to complete the survey. To assess the reliability of 

data provided in our survey, we performed automated checks to identify 

inappropriate answers. We further reviewed the data for missing or 

ambiguous responses and followed up with agency officials when 

necessary to clarify their responses. While we did not verify all responses, 

on the basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and 

follow-up procedures, we determined that the data used in this report 

were of sufficient quality for our purposes.

Analysis of Responses 

and Data Quality
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

Page 51 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

The figures below show demographic information for students who 

received STEM degrees in the 2011-2012 academic year.

Overall, degrees awarded to non-resident alien students—students in the 

United States on temporary visas—comprised 5 percent of all STEM 

degrees and 4 percent of all non-STEM degrees awarded in the 2011-

2012 academic year (see fig. 15). However, degrees awarded to nonresident alien students represented a larger share of Core STEM degrees 

(11 percent) and a smaller share of Healthcare degrees (1 percent).

Figure 15: Degrees Awarded to Non-Resident Alien Students and to Citizens and Resident Aliens, 2011-2012 Academic Year

Non-resident alien students were particularly concentrated at the 

graduate degree levels in Core STEM fields, receiving 36 percent of 

master’s degrees awarded and 42 percent of doctorate or professional 

degrees in Core STEM fields in the 2011-2012 academic year (see 

fig. 16).

Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

STEM Degrees Awarded 

to Non-Resident Alien 

Students
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

Page 52 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 16: Percent of Master’s and Doctorate/Professional Degrees Awarded to 

Non-Resident Alien Students, 2011-2012 Academic Year

Table 6 lists the STEM fields of study and degree levels in which nonresident alien students comprised more than 30 percent of the degrees 

awarded.

Table 6: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields of Study in which Non-Resident Alien Students 

Received Over 30 Percent of the Degrees Awarded in the 2011-2012 Academic Year

STEM Field

Award 

Level

Degrees Awarded to NonResident Alien Students

Degrees

Awarded to Citizens

and Resident Aliens

Percentage

of Degrees Awarded to

Non-Resident Alien Students

Core STEM Fields

Computer science/IT Master’s 9,402 12,068 44

Doctorate 873 826 51

Engineering Master’s 17,192 24.316 41

Doctorate 4,892 3,877 56

Mathematics Master’s 2,712 3,935 41

Doctorate 820 854 49

Physical sciences Doctorate 2,155 3,244 40

Other STEM Fields

Architecture Doctorate 102 106 49

Social sciences Doctorate 1,526 3,271 32

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients 

Page 53 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Overall, most (63 percent) of the STEM degrees awarded in the 2011-

2012 academic year were awarded to women. However, as figure 17 

shows, while women received the large majority (82 percent) of 

Healthcare STEM degrees that year, men received the majority of Core 

STEM degrees (68 percent).1

Figure 17: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Degrees Awarded, by Gender, 2011-

2012 Academic Year

Among the Core STEM fields, men received the majority of degrees in 

computer science/information technology, engineering, technician, 

mathematics, and physical science fields. 2 Women received the majority 

of life sciences degrees (see fig. 18).

 

1 Men received the majority of Core STEM degrees at all levels (less than bachelor’s, 

bachelor’s, post-bachelor’s certificates, master’s, and doctorate/professional). Women 

received the majority of Healthcare degrees at all levels. At the doctorate/professional 

level, women’s share of Healthcare STEM degrees awarded has increased from 51 

percent in the 2002-2003 academic year to 58 percent in the 2011-2012 academic year. 

2 Men received the majority of postsecondary degrees in these fields at all degree levels. 

Women received the majority of life sciences degrees at all degree levels. 

STEM Degrees by Gender
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

Page 54 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 18: Degrees Awarded in Core Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fields, by Gender, 2011-

2012 Academic Year

Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Among U.S. citizens and resident aliens, Asians and Pacific Islanders 

received a larger share of STEM degrees (7.1 percent), compared to their 

share of the non-STEM degrees (4.8 percent) (see fig. 19). Other groups’ 

share of STEM degrees was about the same as or less than their share of 

non-STEM degrees. Examining the data by STEM categories, however, 

African-Americans received a larger share of Healthcare degrees (15.1 

percent), compared to their share of non-STEM degrees (12.6 percent).

STEM Degrees by 

Race/Ethnicity
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

Page 55 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 19: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Postsecondary Degrees Awarded in the 2011-2012 Academic Year

Note: This figure presents information on degrees awarded to citizens and resident aliens only. It 

does not include degrees awarded to non-resident aliens. Percentages for the non-white 

demographic groups may not total the percentages on the left of each bar due to rounding. The 

percentages for degrees awarded to American Indian, Alaska Native students are: 0.8 percent for 

non-STEM, 0.7 percent for STEM, 0.7 percent for Other STEM and Core STEM, and 0.8 percent for 

Healthcare. Not shown in the figure are degrees awarded to citizens and resident aliens of more than 

one race or of unknown race. As a result, the percentages on the left of each bar and the 

percentages on the right of each bar do not total 100. In the 2011-2012 academic year, degrees 

received by students of more than one race comprised: 1.3 percent of STEM degrees awarded to 

citizens and residents, 1.4 percent of non-STEM degrees, 1.4 percent of Core STEM degrees, 1.3 

percent of Healthcare degrees, and 1.8 percent of Other STEM degrees. Degrees received by 

students whose race is unknown comprised 6.9 percent of STEM degrees awarded to citizens and 

resident aliens, 7.3 percent of non-STEM degrees, 7.2 percent of Core STEM degrees, 6.5 percent of 

Healthcare degrees, and 7.2 percent of Other STEM degrees.

Overall, STEM degrees awarded to Latino/Hispanic students increased 

more than other groups from the 2002-2003 to 2010-2011 academic 

years. STEM degrees have also increased at a higher rate among Asians 

and African-Americans, compared to whites. The increase among 

African-Americans was primarily in Healthcare and Other STEM fields 

(see fig. 20).
Appendix II: Demographics of Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Degree Recipients

Page 56 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 20: Percentage Increase in Postsecondary Degrees from the 2002-2003 to 2010-2011 Academic Years
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 57 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

This appendix provides more detailed information about recent trends in 

STEM and non-STEM occupations.

Figure 21 shows the number of jobs in STEM and non-STEM occupations 

from 2004 to 2012. While the overall number of jobs in STEM occupations 

increased throughout this time period, the number of jobs in non-STEM 

occupations declined during the recession.1

Figure 21: Employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 2004 to 2012

Note: Estimates of the number of jobs in STEM occupations shown in this figure have margins of 

error within plus or minus 0.5 percent of the estimate. Estimates of the number of jobs in non-STEM 

occupations have margins of error within plus or minus 0.2 percent of the estimate. With regard to the 

share of jobs in STEM occupations, the estimates have margins of error within plus or minus 0.1 

percentage points. With regard to the percentage change in employment levels between May 2004 

and May 2012, the estimates shown in this figure have margins of error within 0.3 percentage points. 

The difference between STEM and non-STEM occupations in the percentage change in employment 

levels between May 2004 and May 2012 is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

However, the trends vary by STEM categories. The number of jobs in 

Healthcare occupations steadily increased from 2004 to 2012, even 

 

1 The recent recession officially began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. 

Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends 

in STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Trends in STEM and NonSTEM Employment Levels
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 58 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

during the recession (see fig. 22). The number of jobs in Core STEM 

occupations, however, declined during the recession years, though it has 

increased since then.

Figure 22: Employment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

(STEM) Occupations, 2004-2012

Note: Estimates of the number of jobs in Core STEM and Healthcare occupations have margins of 

error within plus or minus 0.7 percent. Estimates of the number of jobs in Other STEM occupations 

have margins of error within 2 percent of the estimate. With regard to the share of jobs in each 

category, the estimates have margins of error within plus or minus 0.03 percentage points. With 

regard to the percentage change in employment between May 2004 and May 2012, the estimates for 

Core STEM and Healthcare occupations shown in this figure have margins or error within plus or 

minus 0.4 percentage points. The estimate for the percentage change in jobs in Other STEM 

occupations between May 2004 and May 2012 has a margin of error within plus or minus 1.1 

percentage points. The differences between the three STEM categories in the percentage change in 

employment levels between May 2004 and May 2012 are statistically significant at the 95 percent 

confidence level.

Unemployment rates in all three STEM categories have been relatively 

low from 2009 to 2012— about 5 percent or less—while rates in nonSTEM occupations have been about 8 percent or higher. Unemployment 

rates in Healthcare occupations have been the lowest among the STEM 

categories, at less than 3 percent (see fig. 23).

Trends in STEM and NonSTEM Unemployment Rates
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 59 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 23: Unemployment Rates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 2009 to 2012

Note: Estimates of unemployment rates for non-STEM, Core STEM and Healthcare STEM 

occupations shown in this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 0.2 percentage 

points. Estimates of unemployment rates for Other STEM occupations shown in this figure have 

margins of error that are within plus or minus 0.8 percentage points.

Figure 24 shows trends in the average wage in the three STEM 

categories. The average wage was highest in core STEM occupations, 

but the greatest increase in wages occurred in healthcare occupations.

Trends in STEM Average 

Wages
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 60 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 24: Average Annual Wage in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2004 to 2012

Note: Estimates shown in this figure of the average wage in Core STEM and Healthcare occupations 

have margins of errors within plus or minus 1.2 percent of the estimate. Estimates of the average 

wage in Other STEM occupations have margins of error within plus or minus 2.8 percent of the 

estimate. With regard to the percentage change in average wage between May 2004 and May 2012, 

the estimates for Core STEM and Healthcare occupations have margins of error within plus or minus 

0.8 percentage points. The differences between the three STEM categories in the percentage change 

in the average wage between May 2004 and May 2012 are all statistically significant at the 95 percent 

confidence level.

a

We do not report an estimate for this value because the margin of error at the 95 percent confidence 

level exceeds 30 percent of the estimate. The 95 percent confidence interval for the percentage 

change in average wage in Other STEM occupations is 0.5 to 4.0 percent.

Thirty-eight percent of people with STEM bachelor’s degree were working 

in STEM occupations in 2012, and the majority worked in non-STEM 

occupations. Figure 25 shows that much smaller percentages of workers 

with non-STEM bachelor’s degrees or without a bachelor’s degree 

worked in STEM occupations. However, they represented about half of 

workers in STEM occupations.

Education and 

Occupation
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 61 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 25: Percentage of Workers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations 

by Educational Background, 2012

Note: Estimates of the percentages in STEM and non-STEM occupations have margins of error that 

are within plus or minus 0.2 percentage points. Population estimates shown in this figure in 

parentheses have margins of error that are within plus or minus 0.02 percent of the estimate.

Figure 26 shows the unemployment rates for the groups of workers 

shown in figure 25.
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 62 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 26: Unemployment Rates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Non-STEM Occupations, 

by Educational Background, 2009 to 2012

Note: Estimates of the unemployment rate shown in this figure have margins of error that are within 

plus or minus 0.3 percentage points. Within each of the categories of STEM and non-STEM 

occupations, the differences between the non-STEM bachelor’s, STEM bachelor’s, and no bachelor’s 

categories are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level in each of the years shown.

Figure 27 shows some non-STEM occupations with sizable populations of 

workers with STEM bachelor’s degrees.
Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in 

STEM and non-STEM Occupations

Page 63 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Figure 27: Educational Backgrounds of Workers Ages 22 or Older in Selected Non-Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Occupations, 2012

Note: Estimates of the percentage of each occupational group in the education categories shown in 

this figure have margins of error that are within plus or minus 0.9 percentage points.
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 64 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligations

NASA

a

Aeronautics Research Directorate - STEM Education activities $3,300,000 

Aerospace Research and Career Development (ARCD) Program $58,000,000 

Informal Education $10,000,000 

Minority University Research and Education Project (MUREP) $30,000,000 

Science Directorate - STEM Education activities $41,000,000 

STEM Education and Accountability Projects — Higher Education $21,000,000 

STEM Education and Accountability - Formal and Informal Education $21,000,000 

Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate -STEM 

Education Activities

$4,300,000 

National Science 

Foundation

Advanced Technological Education (ATE) $64,070,000 

Advancing Informal STEM Learning $62,430,000 

Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) $7,840,000 

Discovery Research K-12 (DR-K12) $99,570,000 

East Asia & Pacific Summer Institutes for U.S. Graduate Students (EAPSI) $2,000,000 

Research in Engineering Education $11,810,000 

Ethics Education in Science & Engineering (EESE) $3,060,000 

CyberCorps(R): Scholarship for Service (SFS) $44,980,000 

Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) Program $197,930,000 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCUUP)$31,850,000 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program $65,430,000 

International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) $100,000 

Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) $45,480,000 

Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP) $57,070,000 b

Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education in Engineering $1,880,000 

Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer 

Science

$7,870,000 

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) $79,550,000 

Research on Education and Learning (REAL) $54,160,000 c

Robert Noyce Scholarship (Noyce) Program $54,890,000 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion 

Program (STEP)

$25,300,000 

Transforming Undergrad Education in STEM (TUES) $39,060,000 

Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP) $13,390,000 

Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 65 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligations

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

a

Grants to Universities/Curriculum Development $4,021,989 

Integrated University Program $14,682,692 

Minority Serving Institutions Program $2,800,000 

Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

AgDiscovery Program $766,493 

National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture 

1890 Institution Teaching, Research and Extension Capacity Building Grants 

Program 

$22,456,532

Agriculture in the Classroom $430,000 

Distance Education Grants Program for Institutions of Higher Education in 

Insular Areas

$7,500,000 

Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate and Postdoctoral 

Fellowships Grants Program

$2,849,063 

Higher Education Challenge Grants Program $4,500,000 

Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program $875,670 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program $9,000,000 

Resident Instruction Grants Program for Institutions of Higher Education in 

Insular Areas 

$900,000 

Secondary Education, Two-Year Postsecondary Education and Agriculture in 

the K-12 Classroom Grants

$800,000 

Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

for Departmental 

Management

1890 National Scholars Program $3,014,685 

Department of Commerce

National Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology 

NIST Summer Institute for Middle School Science Teachers $300,000 

Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program $880,190 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration 

(NOAA)

Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program $5,490,619 

Environmental Literacy Grants $2,626,990 

Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program $453,657 

Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving Institutions $12,500,000 

Ernest F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship Program $4,959,273 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) 

Education

National Marine Sanctuaries Education Program

d

National Ocean Service (NOS) Education

d

National Sea Grant College Program

d

$1,118,000 

National Weather Service (NWS) Education d
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 66 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligations

Teacher at Sea Program

a

$600,000 

Department of Defense

Air Force National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship $38,739,774 

Army Army Educational Outreach Program (AEOP) $7,724,000 

Navy Navy STEM2Stern $11,170,000 

Department of Education Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions: STEM and Articulation Programs $100,000,000 

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need $30,873,072e

Mathematics and Science Partnerships $148,353,872

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

f

$9,466,075 

Research in Special Education $3,300,000 

Research, Development, and Dissemination $31,200,000 

Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions $15,000,000 g

Upward Bound Math-Science $44,141,410 

Department of Energy Advanced Vehicle Competitions h $1,991,000i

American Chemical Society Summer School in Nuclear and Radiochemistry $561,000 

ASCR-ORNL Research Alliance in Math and Science $250,000 

Community College Internships $599,000j

Computational Science Graduate Fellowship

 

$6,000,000 

Diversity in Science and Technology Advances National Clear Energy 

(DISTANCE)-Solar

 $365,000 k

l

Industrial Assessment Centers

 

$6,000,000 

Hampton University Graduate Studies $46,000 

HBCU Mathematics, Science and Technology, Engineering and Research 

Workforce Development Program

$8,000,000 

Integrated University Program $5,000,000 

Laboratory Equipment Donation Program $124,000m

Mickey Leland Energy

 

$655,000 

Minority Educational Institution Student Partnership Program (MEISPP) $700,000 

National Science Bowl $1,854,000n

National Undergraduate Fellowship Program in Plasma Physics and Fusion 

Energy Sciences

 

$370,000 

Pan American Advanced Studies Institute $200,000 

Plasma/Fusion Science Educator Programs $209,000o

QuarkNet

 

$610,000 

Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internships $6,387,000p

Solar Decathlon

 

 $4,200,000q

Summer Applied Geophysical Experience (SAGE)

 

 $0r 
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 67 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligationsa

Visiting Faculty Program $1,179,000s

Department of Health and 

Human Services

 

Health Resources 

and Services 

Administration

Health Careers Opportunity Program $14,779,000 

National Institutes of 

Health

Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program $8,200,000 

Bridges to the Doctorate $3,600,000 

Cancer Education Grants Program (R25) $12,473,029 

CCR/JHU Master of Science in Biotechnology Concentration in Molecular 

Targets and Drug Discovery Technologies

$301,400 

Center for Cancer Research Cancer Research Interns $206,604 

Community College Summer Enrichment Program $92,000 

Educational Programs for Demography and Population Science, Family 

Planning and Contraception, and Reproductive Research

 $0t

Graduate Program Partnerships $11,121,000 

Initiative for Maximizing Student Development $23,300,000 

Initiative to Maximize Research Education in Genomics $1,336,000 

Intramural NIAID Research Opportunities $935,429 

MARC U-STAR NRSA Program $21,300,000 

Medical Infomatics Training Program $6,074,705 

Medical Research Scholars Program $1,100,000 

National Cancer Institute Cancer Education and Career Development Program 

(R25)

$18,285,877 

NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA) $18,616,000 

NIA MSTEM: Advancing Diversity in Aging Research (ADAR) through 

Undergraduate Education

$356,667 

NIAID Science Education Awards $1,230,000 

Educational Programs for Population Research (R25) $586,486 

NIDDK Education Program Grants $322,529 

NIH Academy $224,000 

NIH Summer Research Experience Programs $1,951,274 

NIMH Mentoring Networks for Mental Health Research Education $0u

NIMH Research Education Programs for HIV/AIDS Research $4,550,000 

NIMH Short Courses for Mental Health-Related Research Education $0

NINR Summer Genetics Institute

v

$62,000 

Post-baccalaureate Intramural Research Training Award Program $24,400,000 

Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) $7,700,000 
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 68 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligations

Research Education Grants for Statistical Training in the Genetics of Addiction

a

$683,058 

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research $31,190,209 

RISE (Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement) $28,600,000 

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research 

Training Grants (T32, T35)

$348,287,734 

National Institutes of 

Health

Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA for Individual Predoctoral Fellows, including 

Fellowships to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research

$58,784,787 

Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award $1,189,795 

Short Courses on Mathematical, Statistical, and Computational Tools for 

Studying Biological Systems

$1,200,000 

Short-Term Research Education Program to Increase Diversity in HealthRelated Research$4,706,540 

Student Intramural Research Training Award Program $4,500,000 

Summer Institute for Training in Biostatistics $0w

Team-Based Design in Biomedical Engineering Education $530,397 

Technical Intramural Research Training Award $2,209,000 

Training in Computational Neuroscience: From Biology to Model and Back 

Again

$2,022,614 

Training in Neuroimaging: Integrating First Principles and Applications $1,225,649 

Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 

Backgrounds

$2,400,000 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Science and 

Technology 

Directorate 

Education - Career Development Grant Awards $2,700,000 

HS-STEM Summer Internship Program $350,000 

Minority Serving Institutions - Scientific Leadership Awards $2,850,000 

Minority Serving Institutions - Summer Research Team $600,000 

Department of the Interior

United States 

Geological Survey 

EDMAP Component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program $492,493 

National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)-USGS Cooperative 

Summer Field Training Program

$0 

Student Intern in Support of Native American Relations (SISNAR) $0 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Conservation and Land Management Internship Program $2,500,000 

National Park Service Geoscientists-in-the-Parks Program $596,090 

Department of 

Transportation

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Joint University Program $450,000 

National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR) $6,740,000 
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 69 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Agency Program

Fiscal Year 2012 

STEM education 

program obligations

Federal Highway 

Administration

a

Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education Program $1,161,862 

National Summer Transportation Institute Program $3,000,000 

Summer Transportation Internship Program for Diverse Groups $1,100,000 

Research and 

Innovative 

Technology 

Administration

University Transportation Centers Program $72,000,000 

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Cooperative Agreements for Training Cooperative Partnerships $655,210 

Environmental Education Grants $2,160,000 

EPA Marshall Scholars Program $150,000 

Greater Research Opportunities Undergraduate Fellowship Program $1,900,000 

National Environmental Education and Training Partnership $2,259,500 

P3 Award: National Student Design Competition for Sustainability $2,711,000 

President’s Environmental Youth Awards $1,200 

Science to Achieve Results Graduate Fellowship Program $15,600,000 

Environmental Research Training Program $1,391,069 

Source: GAO survey of STEM education programs.

Note: Amounts obligated for each program for fiscal year 2012 were reported to us by agency officials 

in response to our survey. We did not independently verify this information.

a

A few programs had zero obligations for fiscal year 2012. We determined that these programs still fit 

our definition of a STEM education program because they received federal funding and had not been 

terminated.

b

The Math and Science Partnership program was consolidated with other programs into the Science, 

Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, including Computing Partnerships (STEM-C Partnerships) 

program in FY 2014.

c

REAL combines three programs: Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and 

Engineering, Research in Disabilities Education, and Research on Gender in Science and 

Engineering.

d

This program existed in fiscal year 2012, but did not respond to our survey.

e

In response to our survey, Education reported $30,973,072 in obligations for the Graduate 

Assistance in Areas of National Need program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout 

the report. After our analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Education, they 

reported that the actual obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $30,873,072. This represents a 

decrease of 0.32 percent from the reported program obligations and a decrease of 0.01 percent of 

total reported post-secondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change 

would not materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report 

analysis with the original survey submission. In addition, Education noted that funds for this program 

could be used to support non-STEM fields, such as area studies, foreign languages and literature, 

and educational evaluation also were allowable activities. 

f

In response to our survey, Education reported $148,000,000 in obligations for the Mathematics and 

Science Partnerships program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After 

our analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Education, they reported that the 

actual obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $148,353,872. This represents an increase of 0.24 

percent in reported program obligations and a 0.05 percent increase in total reported K-12 STEM 

education program obligations. We determined that this change would not materially affect our 
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 70 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis with the original 

survey submission. 

g

Obligations for Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions were not exclusive to STEM activities. 

STEM is one of five allowable activities, and grantees can choose to focus their projects on any of 

these five activities.

h

After our survey analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, officials 

reported changes to the fiscal year 2012 obligations for many of their programs. The changes to 

Energy’s postsecondary programs summed to zero percent of total reported postsecondary 

obligations, and the changes to Energy’s K-12 programs summed to zero percent of total reported K12 obligations. We determined that these changes would not materially affect our overall results or 

findings. Individual changes are noted in table notes below.

i

In response to our survey, Energy reported $1,992,000 in obligations for the Advanced Vehicle 

Competitions program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our 

analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual 

obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $1,991,000. This represents a 0.00 percent decrease in total 

reported postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change 

would not materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report 

analysis with the original survey submission. 

j

In response to our survey, Energy reported $700,000 in obligations for the Community College 

Internships program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our 

analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual 

obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $599,000. This represents a 0.01 percent decrease in total 

reported postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change 

would not materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report 

analysis with the original survey submission. 

k

In response to our survey, Energy reported $455,000 in obligations for the DISTANCE-Solar 

program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis was 

completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations for 

fiscal year 2012 were $365,000. This represents a 0.00 percent decrease in total reported 

postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not 

materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis 

with the original survey submission.

l

In fiscal year 2012, the DISTANCE-Solar program was called the Minority University Research 

Associates program.

mIn response to our survey, Energy reported $50,000 in obligations for the Laboratory Equipment 

Donation program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis 

was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations 

for fiscal year 2012 were $124,000. This represents a 0.00 percent increase in total reported 

postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not 

materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis 

with the original survey submission.

n

In response to our survey, Energy reported $2,800,000 in obligations for the National Science Bowl 

program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis was 

completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations for 

fiscal year 2012 were $1,854,000. This represents a 0.14 percent decrease in total reported K-12 

STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not materially affect our 

overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis with the original 

survey submission. 

o

In response to our survey, Energy reported $774,000 in obligations for the Plasma/Fusion Science 

Educator Programs, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our 

analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual 

obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $209,000. This represents a 0.08 percent decrease in total 

reported K-12 STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not 

materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis 

with the original survey submission.

p

In response to our survey, Energy reported $7,300,000 in obligations for the Science Undergraduate 

Laboratory Internships program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. 
Appendix IV: Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations

Page 71 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

After our analysis was completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the 

actual obligations for fiscal year 2012 were $6,387,000. This represents a 0.05 percent decrease in 

total reported postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change 

would not materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report 

analysis with the original survey submission. 

q

In response to our survey, Energy reported $2,250,000 in obligations for the Solar Decathlon 

program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis was 

completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations for 

fiscal year 2012 were $4,200,000. This represents a 0.10 percent increase in total reported 

postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not 

materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis 

with the original survey submission. 

r

In response to our survey, Energy reported $65,000 in obligations for the SAGE program, and we 

used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis was completed and the 

draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations for fiscal year 2012 

were $0. This represents a 0.00 percent decrease in total reported postsecondary STEM education 

program obligations. We determined that this change would not materially affect our overall results 

and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis with the original survey submission.

s

In response to our survey, Energy reported $1,300,000 in obligations for the Visiting Faculty 

program, and we used that number for the analysis throughout the report. After our analysis was 

completed and the draft report was shared with Energy, they reported that the actual obligations for 

fiscal year 2012 were $1,179,000. This represents a 0.01 percent decrease in total reported 

postsecondary STEM education program obligations. We determined that this change would not 

materially affect our overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis 

with the original survey submission. 

t

No awards were made in response to program solicitations in fiscal year 2012.

u

No funds were awarded in fiscal year 2012 because the first applications were due shortly before the 

end of the fiscal year.

v

This program was not active in fiscal year 2012 and thus no funds were obligated in that fiscal year.

w

Funds were obligated in fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 for grantees. Hence the obligation 

in fiscal year 2012 is $0.
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 72 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.

The following staff members made key contributions to this report: 

George Scott, Director; Nagla’a El-Hodiri, Assistant Director; Divya Bali; 

James Bennett; Melinda Cordero; Keira Dembowski; Bill Keller; Jill Lacey; 

Brittni Milam; Rhiannon Patterson; Timothy Persons; Kathleen Peyman; 

James Rebbe; Ryan Siegel; Yunsian Tai; Kathleen Van Gelder; and 

Walter Vance.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products

Page 73 GAO-14-374 STEM Education

America COMPETES Acts: Overall Appropriations Have Increased and 

Have Mainly Funded Existing Federal Research Entities. GAO-13-612. 

Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2013.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic 

Planning Needed to Better Manage Multiple Programs across Multiple 

Agencies. GAO-12-108. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012.

H-1B Visa Program: Reforms Are Needed to Minimize the Risks and 

Costs of Current Program. GAO-11-26. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2011.

America COMPETES Act: It Is Too Early to Evaluate Programs LongTerm Effectiveness, but Agencies Could Improve Reporting of High-Risk, 

High-Reward Research Priorities. GAO-11-127R. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

7, 2010.

Federal Education Funding: Overview of K-12 and Early Childhood 

Education Programs. GAO-10-51. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 27, 2010.

Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues. GAO-06-5. 

Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2005.

Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. GAO-06-114. Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005.

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process. 

GAO-05-734SP. Washington, D.C.: September 2005.

Related GAO Products

(131224)
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.