Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Assessing the Relationship between Education and the Workforce
Published: 2014-05-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 K-12 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, others have found that the  educational system is not producing enough STEM graduates to fill the  jobs available in STEM occupations or in the increasing number of jobs  in other fields that may require STEM competencies (such as analytical  skills). 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. Among the respondents, we identified 124 programs—reporting  $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. 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 K- 12 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: STEM Education Definitions
paragraphs: 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- doctorate—in both formal (e.g., classrooms) and informal (e.g.,  afterschool programs) settings.
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 year by allocation or congressional appropriation  that includes one or more of the following as a primary objective: attract or prepare students to pursue classes or coursework in STEM  areas through formal or informal education activities, 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  three STEM categories: Core STEM, Healthcare STEM, and Other STEM  (see fig. 1). 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.
section_title: Federal STEM Education Programs and Policy
paragraphs: The Committee on STEM Education is the interagency coordination body  for STEM education in the federal government (see fig. 2).
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, 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.
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  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. 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. 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. 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:
Enhance STEM experiences of undergraduate students;  Improve STEM instruction;  Increase and sustain youth and public engagement in STEM;
Better serve groups historically under-represented in STEM fields;
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.
section_title: STEM Degrees and Jobs Are Increasing, but Their Alignment Is Difficult to Determine
subsections: section_title: While Degrees Have Increased in Most STEM Fields, Some Fields Have Grown More than Others
paragraphs: Overall, postsecondary degrees awarded in STEM fields have increased  at a greater rate than in non-STEM fields during the past decade. 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.
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).
Degrees awarded in Other STEM fields increased at a greater rate (43  percent) than non-STEM fields.
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). A research association that has examined trends in computer  science bachelor’s degrees attributes the decline to the “dot-com crash.”
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  engineering have also increased, though at a slightly lower rate than non- STEM fields (37 percent compared to 39 percent).
section_title: Employment Conditions Have Been More Favorable in STEM Occupations than Non- STEM, though They Vary across STEM Fields
paragraphs: 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).
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.
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 non- STEM 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).
section_title: Several Factors, Including Fluctuations in the Economy, Make It Difficult to Determine Whether Supply of STEM Workers Is Aligned with Employer Demand
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
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.  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.
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 non- STEM occupations (see appendix III for further information on the  educational backgrounds of workers in STEM and non-STEM  occupations).
section_title: Most Federal Postsecondary STEM Education Programs Address Workforce Needs to Some Extent
subsections: section_title: Most Federal Postsecondary STEM Education Programs Consider Workforce Needs, Including Jobs, Diversity, and Innovation
paragraphs: Eighty-eight percent of the 124 federal postsecondary STEM education  programs 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. 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. 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.
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  percent as a potential benefit of the program. 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. 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. Most of these programs reported that they identified high- demand 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.
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. For example, the Department of Energy’s mission  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.
subsections: section_title: Diversity
paragraphs: 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 under- represented racial or ethnic groups and people from economically  disadvantaged backgrounds, and least frequently reported serving  women.  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.
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.
section_title: Innovation
paragraphs: 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)  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 grant- making guidance. Additionally, the National Science Foundation  sometimes creates agency-wide priorities for funding certain emerging  fields, such as clean energy.
section_title: Programs Addressed Workforce Needs in Various Ways, and Some Measured Workforce- Related Outcomes
paragraphs: 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.)
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  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.
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. 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  programs may measure outcomes directly related to their stated program  objectives, such as preparing students for STEM careers.
section_title: Most Federal K-12 STEM Education Programs Include Activities to Prepare Students for Future STEM Education
paragraphs: 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.  Specifically, out of 30 federal K-12 STEM education program respondents  to our survey, 13 programs (50 percent of K-12 program obligations)  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.
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. 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  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. 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 program—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.
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; short- term experiential learning activities; and teacher professional  development or retention activities (see fig. 14).
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.
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. 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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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   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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 report 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.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of Education and Workforce Data
subsections: section_title: Analysis of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Data
paragraphs: 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. IPEDS provides institution- level 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  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 non- STEM 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).
section_title: Analysis of Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Data
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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.
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).
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. 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.
section_title: Analysis of ACS Data
paragraphs: 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 non- 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.
section_title: Regression Analysis
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Definition of STEM Education Program
paragraphs: For the purposes of our study, we applied the definition of a federally- funded STEM education program used in previous GAO work.  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.
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.
section_title: Program Selection
paragraphs: 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  another five did not meet our definition of a STEM education program. 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.  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.
section_title: Survey
subsections: section_title: Design and Implementation
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Analysis of Responses and Data Quality
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Demographics of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degree Recipients
paragraphs: The figures below show demographic information for students who  received STEM degrees in the 2011-2012 academic year.
subsections: section_title: STEM Degrees Awarded to Non-Resident Alien Students
paragraphs: 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 non- resident alien students represented a larger share of Core STEM degrees  (11 percent) and a smaller share of Healthcare degrees (1 percent).
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).
Table 6 lists the STEM fields of study and degree levels in which non- resident alien students comprised more than 30 percent of the degrees  awarded.
section_title: STEM Degrees by Gender
paragraphs: 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).
Among the Core STEM fields, men received the majority of degrees in  computer science/information technology, engineering, technician,  mathematics, and physical science fields.  Women received the majority  of life sciences degrees (see fig. 18).
section_title: STEM Degrees by Race/Ethnicity
paragraphs: 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).
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).
section_title: Appendix III: Employment and Wage Trends in STEM and non-STEM Occupations
paragraphs: This appendix provides more detailed information about recent trends in  STEM and non-STEM occupations.
subsections: section_title: Education and Occupation
paragraphs: 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.
Figure 26 shows the unemployment rates for the groups of workers  shown in figure 25.
Figure 27 shows some non-STEM occupations with sizable populations of  workers with STEM bachelor’s degrees.
section_title: Appendix IV: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Programs and Reported FY 2012 Obligations
subsections: section_title: Agency NASA
paragraphs: Aerospace Research and Career Development (ARCD) Program  Minority University Research and Education Project (MUREP)
section_title: National Science Foundation
paragraphs: Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
Discovery Research K-12 (DR-K12)
East Asia & Pacific Summer Institutes for U.S. Graduate Students (EAPSI)
Ethics Education in Science & Engineering (EESE)
CyberCorps(R): Scholarship for Service (SFS)
Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) Program  Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU- UP)
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program  International Research Experiences for Students (IRES)
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)
Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP)
Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education in Engineering  Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer  Science  Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
Research on Education and Learning (REAL)
Robert Noyce Scholarship (Noyce) Program  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion  Program (STEP)
Transforming Undergrad Education in STEM (TUES)
Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)
section_title: Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission
section_title: National Institute of Standards and Technology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
section_title: Agency
paragraphs: National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship  Army Educational Outreach Program (AEOP)
section_title: Department of Energy
paragraphs: American Chemical Society Summer School in Nuclear and Radiochemistry  ASCR-ORNL Research Alliance in Math and Science  Diversity in Science and Technology Advances National Clear Energy  (DISTANCE)-Solar HBCU Mathematics, Science and Technology, Engineering and Research  Workforce Development Program  Minority Educational Institution Student Partnership Program (MEISPP)
National Undergraduate Fellowship Program in Plasma Physics and Fusion  Energy Sciences  Pan American Advanced Studies Institute  Summer Applied Geophysical Experience (SAGE)
section_title: Agency
paragraphs: Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program  Cancer Education Grants Program (R25)
CCR/JHU Master of Science in Biotechnology Concentration in Molecular  Targets and Drug Discovery Technologies  Center for Cancer Research Cancer Research Interns  Community College Summer Enrichment Program  Educational Programs for Demography and Population Science, Family  Planning and Contraception, and Reproductive Research  Initiative for Maximizing Student Development  Initiative to Maximize Research Education in Genomics  National Cancer Institute Cancer Education and Career Development Program  (R25)
NIH Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA)
NIA MSTEM: Advancing Diversity in Aging Research (ADAR) through  Undergraduate Education  Educational Programs for Population Research (R25)
Post-baccalaureate Intramural Research Training Award Program  Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP)
section_title: Agency
paragraphs: Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research  RISE (Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement)
Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research  Training Grants (T32, T35)
section_title: Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Department of the Interior
paragraphs: EDMAP Component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program  National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)-USGS Cooperative  Summer Field Training Program  Student Intern in Support of Native American Relations (SISNAR)
section_title: Bureau of Land Management National Park Service Geoscientists-in-the-Parks Program
section_title: Department of Transportation
paragraphs: National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR)
section_title: Agency
section_title: Research and Innovative Technology Administration
paragraphs: Cooperative Agreements for Training Cooperative Partnerships  Greater Research Opportunities Undergraduate Fellowship Program  National Environmental Education and Training Partnership  P3 Award: National Student Design Competition for Sustainability  President’s Environmental Youth Awards  Science to Achieve Results Graduate Fellowship Program   $1,391,069   overall results and findings and therefore we present our overall report analysis with the original  survey submission.   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.  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 K- 12 obligations. We determined that these changes would not materially affect our overall results or  findings. Individual changes are noted in table notes below.  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.  In fiscal year 2012, the DISTANCE-Solar program was called the Minority University Research  Associates program.
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.
Funds were obligated in fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 for grantees. Hence the obligation  in fiscal year 2012 is $0.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Melissa Emrey-Arras, (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments:
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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 Long- Term 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.