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. 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. 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). 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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). 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). This appendix provides more detailed information about recent trends in STEM and non-STEM occupations. 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. Aerospace Research and Career Development (ARCD) Program Minority University Research and Education Project (MUREP) 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) National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Army Educational Outreach Program (AEOP) 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) 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) 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) 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) National Center of Excellence for Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR) 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.