Since 2005, there have been several efforts to inventory federal STEM education programs and reports that call for the need to better coordinate and evaluate STEM education programs. In 2005, for example, GAO identified a multitude of agencies that administer such programs. The primary missions of these agencies vary, but most often, they are to promote and enhance an area that is related to a STEM field or enhance general education. In addition, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established in 1993 and is the principal means for the administration to coordinate science and technology with the federal government’s larger research and development effort. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 sought to address coordination and oversight issues, including those associated with the coordination and potential duplication of federal STEM education efforts.the law required the Director of the Office for Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish a committee under the NSTC to inventory, review, and coordinate federal STEM education programs. The law also directed this NSTC committee to develop a 5-year governmentwide STEM education strategic plan, which must specify and prioritize annual and long-term objectives for STEM education. Moreover, the Director of OSTP is required to send a report to Congress annually on this strategic plan, which must include, among other things, an evaluation of the levels of duplication and fragmentation of STEM programs and activities. In our January 2012 report on STEM education, we defined a federally funded STEM education program as a program funded in fiscal year 2010 by congressional appropriation or allocation that included one or more of the following as a primary objective: 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 degrees) in STEM fields through formal or informal education activities, provide training opportunities for undergraduate or graduate students attract graduates to pursue careers in STEM fields, improve teacher (preservice or in-service) education in STEM areas, improve or expand the capacity of K-12 schools or postsecondary institutions to promote or foster education in STEM fields, or conduct research to enhance the quality of STEM education programs provided to students. In addition, a program was defined as an organized set of activities supported by a congressional appropriation or allocation. Further, we defined a program as a single program even when its funds were allocated to other programs as well. We asked agency officials to provide a list of programs that received funds in fiscal year 2010. In our January 2012 report, we examined the extent to which federal STEM education programs were fragmented, overlapping, and duplicative. overlap, and duplication work, key terms were defined as follows: Using our framework established in previous fragmentation, Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need. Overlap occurs when multiple programs offer similar services to similar target groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. Duplication occurs when multiple programs offer the same services to the same target beneficiaries in the same STEM fields. GAO-12-108. As we reported in 2012, 13 agencies administered 209 STEM education programs in fiscal year 2010. Agencies reported that they developed the majority (130) of these programs through their general statutory authority and that Congress specifically directed agencies to create 59 of these programs. The number of programs each agency administered ranged from 3 to 46 with three agencies—the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—administering more than half of all programs—112 of 209. (See fig. 1) Agencies obligated over $3 billion to STEM education programs in fiscal year 2010, ranging from $15,000 to hundreds of millions of dollars per program. NSF and the Department of Education programs accounted for over half of this funding. Almost a third of the programs had obligations of $1 million or less, with five programs having obligations of more than $100 million each. Beyond the 209 programs identified in our review, federal agencies carried out other activities that contribute to the overall federal STEM education effort. Having multiple agencies, with varying expertise, involved in delivering STEM education has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it could allow agencies to tailor programs to suit their specific missions and needs to attract new employees to their workforce. On the other hand, it could make it challenging to develop a coherent federal approach to educating STEM students and creating a workforce with STEM skills. Further, it could make it difficult to identify gaps and allocate resources across the federal government. As we reported in 2012, and as figure 2 illustrates, in fiscal year 2010, 83 percent of STEM education programs overlapped to some degree with another program in that they offered at least one similar service to at least one similar target group in at least one similar STEM field to achieve at least one similar objective. These programs ranged from being narrowly focused on a specific group or field of study to offering a range of services to students and teachers across STEM fields. This complicated patchwork of overlapping programs has largely resulted from federal efforts to both create and expand programs across many agencies in an effort to improve STEM education and increase the number of students going into STEM fields. Program officials reported that approximately one-third of STEM education programs funded in fiscal year 2010 were first funded between 2005 and 2010. We believe the creation of new programs during that time frame may have contributed to overlap and, ultimately, to inefficiencies in how STEM programs across the federal government are focused and delivered. Overlap among STEM education programs is not new. In 2007, the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) identified extensive overlap among STEM education programs, and, in 2009, we identified overlap among teacher quality programs, which include several programs focused on STEM education. Overlapping programs can lead to individuals and institutions being eligible for similar services in similar STEM fields offered through multiple programs and, without information sharing, could lead to the same service being provided to the same individual or institution. Our analysis found that many programs provided services to similar target groups, such as K-12 students, postsecondary students, K-12 teachers, and college faculty and staff. The vast majority of programs (170) served postsecondary students. Ninety-five programs served college faculty and staff, 75 programs served K-12 students, and 70 programs served K-12 teachers. In addition, many programs served multiple target groups. In fact, 177 programs primarily served two or more target groups. We also found many STEM programs providing similar services. To support students, 167 different programs provided research opportunities, internships, mentorships, or career guidance. In addition, 144 programs provided short-term experiential learning opportunities and 127 long-term experiential learning opportunities. Short-term experiential learning activities included field trips, guest speakers, workshops, and summer camps. Long-term experiential learning activities last a semester in length or longer. Furthermore, 137 programs provided outreach and recognition to generate student interest, 124 provided classroom instruction, and 75 provided student scholarships or fellowships. To support teachers, 115 programs provided curriculum development, 83 programs provided teacher in-service, professional development, or retention activities, and 52 programs provided preservice or recruitment activities. To support STEM research, 68 programs reported conducting research to enhance the quality of STEM education. To support institutions, 65 programs provided institutional support to management and administrative activities, and 46 programs provided support for expanding the facilities, classrooms, and other physical infrastructure of institutions. In addition to serving multiple target groups, our analysis found that most programs also provided services in multiple STEM fields. Twenty-three programs targeted one specific STEM field, while 121 programs targeted four or more specific STEM fields. In addition, 26 programs indicated not focusing on any specific STEM field, and instead provided services eligible for use in any STEM field. Five different STEM fields had over 100 programs that provided services. Biological sciences and technology were the most selected STEM fields that programs focused on. Agricultural sciences, which was the least commonly selected, still had 27 programs that provided services specifically to that STEM field. While our 2011 survey data also show that many programs overlapped, it is important to compare programs’ target groups and STEM fields of focus to get a better picture of the potential target beneficiaries that could be served within a given STEM discipline. For example, both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Education program and the Department of Energy’s Graduate Automotive Technology Education program provided scholarships or fellowships to postsecondary students, but NEDSIS focused on students in earth sciences programs, and the other on engineering; therefore, the target beneficiaries served by these two similar programs are quite different. Nevertheless, we found that 76 programs served postsecondary students in physics. As table 1 illustrates, many programs offered services to similar target groups in similar STEM fields of focus. We also found that many STEM education programs had similar objectives. In response to our 2011 survey, the vast majority (87 percent) of STEM education program officials indicated that attracting and preparing students throughout their academic careers in STEM areas was a primary objective. In addition to attracting and preparing students throughout their academic careers in STEM areas, officials also indicated the following primary program objectives: improving teacher education in STEM areas (teacher development)— 26 percent, improving or expanding the capacity of K-12 schools or postsecondary institutions to promote or foster education in STEM fields (institution capacity building)—24 percent, and conducting research to enhance the quality of STEM education provided to students (STEM education research)—18 percent. Many programs also reported having multiple primary objectives. While 107 programs focused solely on student education, 82 others indicated having multiple primary objectives, and 9 programs reported having 4 or more primary objectives. Few programs reported focusing solely on teacher development, institution capacity building, or STEM education research.