This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-612
entitled 'America Competes Acts: Overall Appropriations Have Increased
and Have Mainly Funded Existing Federal Research Entities' which was
released on July 19, 2013.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
July 2013:
America Competes Acts:
Overall Appropriations Have Increased and Have Mainly Funded Existing
Federal Research Entities:
GAO-13-612:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-13-612, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Scientific and technological innovation and a workforce educated in
STEM fields are critical to long-term U.S. economic competitiveness.
Leaders in government, business, and education have expressed concern
about the nation’s ability to compete with other technologically
advanced countries in these fields. In this context, Congress passed
COMPETES 2007 and reauthorized the act with COMPETES 2010, each with
the overall goal of investing in research and development to improve
U.S. competitiveness. Among other things, the acts specifically
authorized funding for certain programs.
COMPETES 2010 mandated GAO to evaluate the status of authorized
programs. GAO examined (1) the extent to which funding was
appropriated under the authorization of COMPETES 2007 and COMPETES
2010 and (2) what recent evaluations suggest about how programs for
which the acts specifically authorized funding are working. To answer
these questions, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, interviewed
agency officials, and reviewed program evaluations for quality and
content.
What GAO Found:
In fiscal years 2008-2012, $52.4 billion was appropriated out of the
$62.2 billion authorized under the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
Act of 2007 (COMPETES 2007) and the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010 (COMPETES 2010). Almost all of these funds went to the
entire budgets of three existing research entities—-the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of
Science (Science)-—including all of the programs and activities the
entities carry out. Appropriations for NSF, NIST, and Science
generally increased under the acts but did not reach levels authorized
by the acts. In addition to authorizing the budgets of these entities,
COMPETES 2007 and COMPETES 2010 specifically authorized funding for 40
individual programs, including some programs within and some outside
of these entities. Among those 40 programs, the 12 programs that
existed before COMPETES 2007 received appropriations and continue to
operate. Six of 28 newly authorized programs were also funded. Of
these 6 programs, 1—-DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy,
set up to develop new energy technologies-—is continuing operations, 3
were not funded in fiscal year 2012, and 2 were not fully implemented
as of May 2013. For the 22 programs that were not funded, agency
officials generally said that they did not request funding in their
budget submissions; most often this was because agencies had similar
programs under way or could pursue similar objectives within current
programs. For example, Science said it did not request funding for the
Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes because it
would have duplicated other Science programs.
For the fully implemented programs for which the COMPETES Acts
specifically authorized funding, recent evaluations generally reported
positive results, and some evaluations provided suggestions for
improvements. Recent evaluations have been conducted for almost all of
the programs that were implemented, or for aspects of those programs.
For example, studies of the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
found that the program has increased the number of qualified science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, but also
suggested that retention of teachers in high-need schools could be
improved.
Figure: Appropriations under COMPETES 2007 and COMPETES 2010 in Fiscal
Years 2008-2012:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
National Science Foundation: 64%; $33.2 billion;
DOE’s Office of Science: 28%; $14.6 billion;
National Institute of Standards and Technology: 8%; $3.9 billion;
Other: less than 1%; $0.5 billion.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Congresssional Research Service
reports and relevant federal agencies.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not add to 100, and dollars
do not add to $52.4 billion.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
This report contains no recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-612]. For more
information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
[End of figure]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Appropriations Generally Increased but Fell Short of Authorizations,
and Most Newly Authorized Programs Were Not Funded:
Recent Evaluations Generally Suggest Positive Results and Some
Recommend Improvements for Implemented Programs:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Programs for Which the COMPETES Acts Specifically
Authorized Funding:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Appropriations under the COMPETES Acts in Fiscal Years 2008
through 2012:
Figure 2: Authorizations and Appropriations under the COMPETES Acts
for NSF, DOE's Office of Science, and NIST, Fiscal Years 2008 through
2013:
Figure 3: Implemented Programs for Which the COMPETES Acts
Specifically Authorized Funding, by Focus Area and Agency:
Figure 4: Programs for Which the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
(COMPETES) Act of 2007 or the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
Specifically Authorized Funding, by Agency:
Abbreviations:
ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy:
Commerce: Department of Commerce:
COMPETES 2007: America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote
Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007:
COMPETES 2010: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010:
COMPETES Acts: COMPETES 2007 and COMPETES 2010:
DOE: Department of Energy:
Education: Department of Education:
IGERT: Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship:
MEP: Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
Noyce: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
REU: Research Experiences for Undergraduates:
RIP: Regional Innovation Program:
Science: Office of Science:
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics:
[End of section]
GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
July 19, 2013:
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Thune:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
Chairman:
The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
House of Representatives:
Scientific and technological innovation and a workforce educated in
the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
are critical to long-term U.S. economic competitiveness. In recent
years, leaders in government, business, and education have expressed
concern that declines in federal funding for scientific research,
coupled with a shortage of qualified students and future workers in
STEM fields, threaten the nation's ability to compete with other
technologically advanced countries. For example, according to a group
of leaders gathered by the National Academies in 2005 and 2010 to
examine U.S. competitiveness in the twenty-first century, scientific
research and education are necessary investments that will drive the
economy and allow the United States to maintain the economic strength
to provide services such as health care and national security in the
current economic and fiscal climate.[Footnote 1]
For decades, the federal government has invested in scientific
research at a number of agencies and departments, including the
National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and
the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). The federal government also invests
in STEM education through the Department of Education (Education),
NSF, DOE, and other departments.
Congress passed the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully
Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007
(COMPETES 2007)[Footnote 2] with the overall goal of investing in
research and development to improve U.S. competitiveness. The act also
authorized investments in education in STEM fields. In 2011, Congress
passed the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES 2010).
[Footnote 3] Together, these acts authorized $62.2 billion in funding
from fiscal year 2008 through 2012. For fiscal year 2013, COMPETES
2010 authorized an additional $16 billion, bringing the total amount
authorized under the acts to $78.2 billion. Both COMPETES 2007 and
COMPETES 2010 (COMPETES Acts) authorized the entire budgets of three
previously existing federal research entities: NSF, DOE's Office of
Science (Science), and NIST, including all activities and the many
programs within these entities. In addition, the acts specifically
authorized funding for 40 individual programs, including some programs
within and some outside of NSF, Science, and NIST.
COMPETES 2010 directed us to evaluate the status of programs
authorized under the act, including the extent to which those programs
have been funded, implemented, and are contributing to achieving the
goals of the act. In response, we (1) determined the extent to which
funding was appropriated under the authorization of the COMPETES Acts
and (2) examined what recent evaluations suggest about how implemented
programs for which the acts specifically authorized funding are
working.
To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws and program
evaluations, and we interviewed agency officials from Commerce,
including NIST and the Economic Development Administration; Education;
DOE, including Science and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy;[Footnote 4] and NSF. To identify the entities and programs for
which the COMPETES Acts specifically authorized funding, we reviewed
the COMPETES Acts. To determine the extent to which funding was
appropriated to such entities and programs, we reviewed appropriations
data in Congressional Research Service reports and agency budget
justification documents, and we confirmed these data with agency
officials. Agency officials were not able to provide complete
appropriations data at the program level or final appropriations data
for fiscal year 2013. We also interviewed agency officials to learn
about program implementation. To examine, for the implemented programs
for which the COMPETES Acts specifically authorized funding, what
recent evaluations suggest about how the programs are working, we
reviewed evaluations published from 2008 through 2012 that were
identified by agencies and through a literature review; in some cases,
these studies included data on program activities that occurred before
2008. We reviewed the methodology of the identified evaluations, and
we reported on the results of those we determined to be
methodologically sound. (See appendix I for further details on our
scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to July 2013 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.
Background:
In response to a congressional request in 2005, the National Academies
gathered a group of business, government, and academic leaders to
identify steps the leaders thought would ensure that the United States
is a leader in science and engineering and can compete, prosper, and
be secure in the twenty-first century. The resulting 2007 report,
entitled Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future, recommended a number of
specific actions to address these goals.[Footnote 5] Among other
things, the report advocated increasing federal investment in long-
term basic and cross-disciplinary scientific research, creating an
agency within DOE to support transformational energy research that
might be high risk but could also provide dramatic benefits for the
nation, increasing the number and skills of science and mathematics
teachers in primary and secondary schools, and investing in higher
education with the goal of increasing the number of undergraduate and
graduate students with degrees in science, engineering, and
mathematics fields. The COMPETES Acts addressed some of the actions in
these areas. For example, COMPETES 2007 authorized creation of the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy in DOE to overcome long-term
and high-risk technological barriers in developing energy
technologies, and it authorized programs in Education and NSF to train
teachers in STEM fields.
Investments in scientific research have led to significant advances
such as the development of the Internet, satellites, aircraft, and the
mapping of the human genome, while investments in STEM education have
provided multiple forms of support for developing a highly qualified
STEM workforce. However, evaluations of such investments face inherent
challenges, such as those related to the long-term nature of many
scientific research projects, an inability to predict certain
outcomes, and difficulty tying specific investments to direct
outcomes. As we reported in 2012, evaluations of STEM education
programs may be hindered by inconsistent collection of output data,
such as the number of institutions or students directly served by
programs.[Footnote 6] Further, efforts to evaluate the effectiveness
of investments in scientific research and STEM education in improving
U.S. competitiveness--the overall goal of the COMPETES Acts--are
complicated by a number of factors. For example, it is difficult to
measure competitiveness. The Council on Competitiveness, a group of
business, academic, and labor leaders focused on ensuring U.S.
prosperity, reported that traditional measures of competitiveness,
such as trade balances, levels of foreign direct investment,
employment, or wages may not fully capture a nation's competitiveness
because of the complexities brought about by multinational
corporations competing in constantly shifting global networks.
Further, complications arise from ambiguities surrounding the term
competitiveness, which has multiple definitions.
Efforts are under way to address some of these challenges. For
example, STAR Metrics--Science and Technology for America's
Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation,
Competitiveness, and Science--is a partnership between science
agencies and research institutions to consistently document the
outcomes of federally funded science investments. In addition, the
National Science and Technology Committee on STEM Education within the
Office of Science and Technology Policy collects and maintains
information on how investments in STEM education are distributed
across agencies, programs, and target groups. The committee compiled a
comprehensive inventory of STEM education programs across the federal
government in 2011 and released a 5-year federal STEM education plan
in May 2013 to establish a strategy for focusing federal STEM
education investments so they have the most significant impact
possible on national priorities.
As we reported in 2010 when we reviewed COMPETES 2007, agencies
collect data and use different approaches to evaluate their progress
toward long-term outcomes.[Footnote 7] NSF, DOE, Commerce, and
Education use several tools--which may either broadly assess agency-
wide activities or focus on program-level activities--to evaluate
their scientific research and STEM education activities. Such tools
include the following:
* advisory committees, such as NSF's committees that exist for each
directorate--for example, the Education and Human Resources Advisory
Committee provides advice, guidance, and recommendations concerning
NSF's science and engineering education programs;
* performance reviews, such as Commerce's Annual Performance and
Accountability Reports, which provide data on performance measures for
NIST including the number of publications produced, or the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy's (ARPA-E) quarterly technical
milestone reviews of funded projects, which help reviewers decide if
project funding should be continued;
* Committees of Visitors, such as those used by NSF, Science and NIST,
which are groups of external experts that assess the overall quality
of program operations and, in some cases, program outcomes; and:
* formal program evaluations, which are systematic, empirical studies
used by agencies to assess how well a particular program or component
of a program is working.
Appropriations Generally Increased but Fell Short of Authorizations,
and Most Newly Authorized Programs Were Not Funded:
Of the $62.2 billion authorized under the COMPETES Acts in fiscal
years 2008 through 2012, $52.4 billion was appropriated, including
$51.9 billion for the entire budgets of NSF, Science, and NIST.
Funding for these three entities accounts for more than 99 percent of
the funding appropriated under the COMPETES Acts during this period.
(See figure 1.)
Figure 1: Appropriations under the COMPETES Acts in Fiscal Years 2008
through 2012:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
National Science Foundation: 64%; $33.2 billion;
DOE’s Office of Science: 28%; $14.6 billion;
National Institute of Standards and Technology: 8%; $3.9 billion;
Other: less than 1%; $0.5 billion.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Congresssional Research Service
reports and relevant federal agencies.
Note: Because of rounding, percentages do not add to 100, and dollars
do not add to $52.4 billion.
[End of figure]
Appropriations for NSF, Science, and NIST generally increased in
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 but did not reach authorized levels.
For example, NSF's appropriations increased from about $5.9 billion in
fiscal year 2007--the last year before its appropriation was
authorized under the COMPETES Acts--to about $7 billion in fiscal year
2012, when it was authorized to receive $7.8 billion. Appropriations
for Science, which were authorized under the COMPETES Acts starting in
fiscal year 2010,[Footnote 8] increased from $4.8 billion in fiscal
year 2009 to about $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2012, when Science was
authorized to receive $5.6 billion. Likewise, funding for NIST
increased but not to authorized levels: in fiscal year 2007, before
its appropriation was authorized under the COMPETES Acts, it received
about $680 million, compared with $750 million in fiscal year 2012,
when NIST was authorized to receive about $970 million. In addition,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
appropriated about $5.2 billion to these entities in fiscal year 2009.
The majority of the Recovery Act appropriations--over $3 billion--went
to NSF. Figure 2 shows the amounts authorized under the COMPETES Acts
for NSF, Science, and NIST, as compared with the amounts appropriated,
including Recovery Act appropriations.
Figure 2: Authorizations and Appropriations under the COMPETES Acts
for NSF, DOE's Office of Science, and NIST, Fiscal Years 2008 through
2013:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 vertical bar graphs]
National Science Foundation funding:
Fiscal year: 2008;
Authorized: $6.6 billion;
Appropriated: $6.127.5 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Authorized: $7.3 billion;
Appropriated $6.5 billion;
Appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: $3 billion.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Authorized: $8.1 billion;
Appropriated: $6.9 billion.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Authorized: $7.4 billion;
Appropriated: $6.8 billion.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Authorized: $7.8 billion;
Appropriated: $7.0 billion.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Authorized: $8.3 billion;
Appropriated: $3.0 billion.
DOE’s Office of Science funding[A]:
Fiscal year: 2010;
Authorized: $5.8 billion;
Appropriated: $4.9 billion.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Authorized: $5.2 billion;
Appropriated: $4.8 billion.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Authorized: $5.6 billion;
Appropriated: $4.0 billion.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Authorized: $6.0 billion.
National Institute of Standards and Technology funding:
Fiscal year: 2008;
Authorized: $863 million;
Appropriated: $755.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Authorized: $881.8 million;
Appropriated: $819 million;
Appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: $500
million (estimated).
Fiscal year: 2010;
Authorized: $906.8 million;
Appropriated: $856.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Authorized: $918.9 million;
Appropriated: $750.1 million.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Authorized: $970.8 million;
Appropriated: $750.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Authorized: $1.0 billion.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from COMPETES Acts, Congressional
Research Service reports, and relevant federal agencies.
Note: As of May 2013, complete appropriations data are not available
for fiscal year 2013.
[A] Funding for DOE's Office of Science was authorized under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. It was
authorized to receive $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 and $5.2
billion in fiscal year 2009. $4.0 billion was appropriated in fiscal
year 2008, and $4.8 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2009. In
addition, the Office of Science received $1.6 billion under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.
[End of figure]
The COMPETES Acts also specifically authorized funding for 40
individual programs, including some programs within and some outside
of NSF, Science, and NIST. (See app. II.) For example, in addition to
authorizing $22.1 billion for the entire budget of NSF in fiscal years
2008 through 2010, COMPETES 2007 specifically authorized $345 million
of that total for NSF's Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program in
fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The programs not within NSF, Science,
or NIST fell elsewhere within the Departments of Commerce and Energy,
or in Education.
Among the 40 programs for which the COMPETES Acts specifically
authorized funding, the 12 programs that existed before the acts all
received appropriations and continue to operate.[Footnote 9] Six of
the 28 newly authorized programs also received appropriations. Of
these 6 programs, 1--ARPA-E--is continuing operations, 3 did not
receive appropriations in fiscal year 2012, and 2 are in the process
of being implemented as of May 2013. More specifically, according to
officials NSF's Science Master's Program, NIST's Technology Innovation
Program, and Education's Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow did not
receive appropriations in fiscal year 2012. Officials told us the
Science Master's Program and the Technology Innovation Program are in
the process of shutting down, and Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow
has not awarded new grants since fiscal year 2010. Further, Commerce's
Loan Guarantees for Science Park Infrastructure and Federal Loan
Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing are in the
process of being implemented, according to Commerce officials;
[Footnote 10] these programs first received appropriations in fiscal
year 2012. Twenty-two of the 28 newly authorized programs did not
receive appropriations, including 9 programs that were newly
authorized in COMPETES 2007 but repealed in COMPETES 2010.
In total, 16 of the 40 programs for which the COMPETES Acts
specifically authorized funding have been implemented, including the
12 previously existing programs, ARPA-E, and the 3 newly authorized
programs that did not receive appropriations in fiscal year 2012. As
noted previously, two other newly authorized programs that received
appropriations are in the process of being implemented. As shown in
figure 3, the implemented programs generally focus on five areas: (1)
research and development programs focus on activities aimed at
enhancing scientific research and development,(2) manufacturing
performance programs focus on supporting innovation among U.S.
manufacturers and other organizations,(3) STEM teacher training
programs focus on education and professional development for
prospective or existing STEM teachers, (4) STEM undergraduate programs
focus on encouraging or improving undergraduate STEM education, and
(5) STEM graduate programs focus on supporting graduate students
training for careers in research or education in STEM disciplines.
Figure 3: Implemented Programs for Which the COMPETES Acts
Specifically Authorized Funding, by Focus Area and Agency:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Agency: Commerce;
Subagency or office: NIST[B]:
Implemented program: Baldrige Performance Excellence Program[C];
Program did not receive appropriations in fiscal year 2012;
Focus area: Manufacturing performance;
Program description: Aims to improve the performance of U.S.
organizations by developing evaluation criteria and sharing
performance strategies.
Implemented program: Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership;
Focus area: Manufacturing performance;
Program description: Provides innovation and process improvement
services to small and midsize U.S. manufacturers.
Implemented program: Technology Innovation Program; Program did not
receive appropriations in fiscal year 2012;
Focus area: Manufacturing performance;
Program description: Supports high-risk, high-reward research for
critical needs in civil infrastructure and manufacturing.
Agency: Education:
Implemented program: Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow (bachelor’s
and master’s programs); Program did not receive appropriations in
fiscal year 2012;
Focus area: STEM[A] teacher training;
Program description: Enables grantees (colleges and universities) to
develop and implement programs providing courses of study that
integrate teacher education with STEM fields or critical foreign
languages.
Agency: Commerce:
Implemented program: Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy;
Focus area: Research and development;
Program description: Advances high-potential, high-impact energy
technologies by providing researchers with funding and technical
assistance.
Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF):
Implemented program: Advanced Technological Education;
Focus area: STEM undergraduate;
Program description: Focuses on the education of technicians for high-
technology fields.
Implemented program: Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research;
Focus area: Research and development;
Program description: Supports improvements in the research and
development capacity of participating states to advance their science
and engineering capabilities.
Implemented program: Faculty Early Career Development Program;
Focus area: Research and development;
Program description: Supports junior faculty who exhibit leadership in
integrating research and education.
Implemented program: Graduate Research Fellowship Program;
Focus area: STEM graduate;
Program description: Supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-
supported STEM disciplines who are pursuing research-based
master’s and doctoral degrees.
Implemented program: Integrative Graduate Education and Research;
Focus area: STEM graduate;
Program description: Supports the graduate education of U.S.
scientists and engineers Traineeship who will pursue careers in
research and education.
Implemented program: Major Research Instrumentation Program;
Focus area: Research and development;
Program description: Supports the development and acquisition of major
state-of-the-art instrumentation, thereby building institutional
capacity to train a diverse workforce in environments that integrate
research and education.
Implemented program: Math and Science Education Partnerships;
Focus area: STEM[A] teacher training;
Program description: Awards grants to partnerships or teams of
institutions of higher education and K-12 school systems to increase
the number and quality of STEM teachers, especially in underserved
areas.
Implemented program: Research Experiences for Undergraduates;
Focus area: STEM undergraduate;
Program description: Supports active research participation by
undergraduate students.
Implemented program: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program;
Focus area: STEM[A] teacher training;
Program description: Encourages talented STEM students and
professionals to pursue teaching careers in elementary and secondary
schools.
Implemented program: Science Master’s Program; Program did not receive
appropriations in fiscal year 2012;
Focus area: STEM graduate;
Program description: Prepares graduate students for careers by
providing them with a strong foundation in STEM disciplines.
Implemented program: STEM Talent Expansion Program;
Focus area: STEM undergraduate;
Program description: Seeks to increase the number of students
receiving degrees in established or emerging STEM fields.
Sources: GAO analysis of program information from relevant federal
agencies.
Notes: The focus areas identified are not mutually exclusive and
programs may be engaged in activities across multiple focus areas.
Two other programs that received appropriations--Commerce's Loan
Guarantees for Science Park Infrastructure and Federal Loan Guarantees
for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing--have not yet been
implemented as of May 2013.
[A] STEM refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
[B] NIST refers to National Institutes of Standards and Technology.
[C] The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program did not receive
federal funding in 2012, but it continues to operate with private
funding.
[End of figure]
With few exceptions, agency officials told us they did not include
funding requests in their budget submissions for the programs that did
not receive funding. Agencies did include funding requests in their
budget submissions for 4 of the 22 newly authorized programs that did
not receive funding. Specifically, Education requested appropriations
for the Math Now program in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and for the
Foreign Language Partnership and Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate programs in fiscal year 2009, while Commerce requested
appropriations in fiscal year 2012 for the Regional Innovation
Program. For the other 18 programs, officials most often told us they
did not request appropriations because their agencies already had
similar programs under way or could work within current programs to
carry out similar activities. For example, Science officials told us
the office did not request appropriations for the Discovery Science
and Engineering Innovation Institutes because the program's
implementation would have duplicated existing activities. Commerce
officials told us that the department's Economic Development
Administration implemented certain aspects of the Regional Innovation
Program (RIP) through the existing Economic Adjustment Assistance
program when RIP did not receive appropriations. However, the
officials also noted that by implementing aspects of RIP in this
manner they have reduced funding available to other worthwhile aspects
of the Economic Adjustment Assistance program. In other cases,
officials told us they did not request appropriations because the
programs did not fit into the agency mission or because the agencies
prioritized other programs in light of limited resources or other
factors.
Recent Evaluations Generally Suggest Positive Results and Some
Recommend Improvements for Implemented Programs:
Recent evaluations that we identified have generally suggested
positive results for the fully implemented programs for which the
COMPETES Acts specifically authorized funding; some of the evaluations
have also recommended ways to improve the programs. Recent evaluations
have been conducted for 15 of 16 fully implemented programs.[Footnote
11] According to NSF officials, no evaluation of the Science Master's
Program was published during 2008-2012, which is the time frame of
evaluations included in our review. These evaluations have provided
information on how well programs--or aspects of programs--were working
in each of the five areas on which the programs focus. Many studies
have also made recommendations for program improvement. Following are
examples of selected evaluations and key findings for programs in the
five focus areas:[Footnote 12]
* Research and development. Studies for these programs found that they
were generally producing positive results and noted areas for
continued improvement. For example, one study used econometric
modeling to examine the effects of the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research, which aims to improve the research and
development capacity of participating states.[Footnote 13] The results
suggested participating states have been effective in growing federal
financial support for science and engineering at a faster rate
compared with nonparticipating states. However, the authors noted that
while the effect they found was statistically significant, it was a
small effect. They concluded that more enhanced and innovative efforts
are needed to sustainably build states' research and development
capacity. In another example, our 2012 review of ARPA-E found that it
successfully funded projects that would not have been funded solely by
private investors, in keeping with its goals.[Footnote 14] Separately,
the DOE Inspector General recommended that ARPA-E improve by
establishing a systematic approach to meeting its technology transfer
and outreach requirements.[Footnote 15]
* Manufacturing performance. Among the three implemented programs in
this focus area for which the COMPETES Acts specifically authorized
funding, only the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program
(MEP) continued to receive federal funding as of May 2013. MEP
provides services to small and midsize U.S. manufacturers to help them
innovate and improve their processes. A survey of MEP clients found
that, for some clients, the program was successful in generating
positive results measured in terms of sales, investment levels, cost
savings, and jobs created or retained.[Footnote 16] Another study of
this program concluded, on the basis of a range of methodologies
including focus groups and interviews, that program changes over time
could better position MEP to respond to challenges facing the
manufacturing sector.[Footnote 17] For example, the study suggested
that MEP expand its reach to a larger number of clients. Specifically,
the study noted that working in-depth with 30,000 firms would allow
MEP to have a substantially greater impact on the manufacturing
sector. The study authors also stated that MEP would need resources to
expand to the recommended scale.
* STEM teacher training. Studies for programs in this focus area found
that the programs produced positive outcomes but also identified areas
requiring attention. One program--the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
Program (Noyce)--aims to encourage talented STEM students and
professionals to pursue teaching careers in elementary and secondary
schools, including high-need schools. An evaluation team at the
University of Minnesota conducted a multiyear evaluation of Noyce that
included data from 2003 through 2007 and used a mixed-method design to
address a number of evaluation questions.[Footnote 18] The study
concluded, among other findings, that Noyce was accomplishing its goal
of producing STEM teachers. A Committee of Visitors review of Noyce
examined a random sample of funding awards and other program actions
to assess the quality of the program's merit review process and
overall management.[Footnote 19] This review was generally positive;
however, the committee noted that approximately two-thirds of Noyce
scholars left their school assignments after their service commitment
and, while some left high-need schools for other schools, others left
teaching altogether. The University of Minnesota study also addressed
teacher retention and developed a qualitative model identifying
several characteristics that appeared to predict teacher retention.
[Footnote 20] The findings from this analysis suggested, for example,
that community and location considerations--such as proximity to
family and friends and distance between home and work--played an
important role in scholars' decisions to stay in or leave high-need
schools. Based on this finding, the authors suggested Noyce could
investigate recruiting and selecting candidates that reside near
communities with high-need schools to potentially improve retention.
* STEM undergraduate. Studies of programs in this focus area found
that program portfolios were contributing to stated goals, such as
integrating research with education, but could be improved. For
example, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) aims to support
active research participation by undergraduate students by providing
grants for educational institutions to initiate and conduct projects
that engage a number of students in research. Two studies have been
conducted to gather in-depth information about the activities,
outcomes, and impacts of REU awards from the perspectives of former
REU students and participating faculty members. An initial survey of
participants and faculty members covered awards granted from fiscal
year 2003 through 2006.[Footnote 21] The results suggested that
participating in a wide variety of research activities was the best
predictor for increasing participants' awareness, confidence, skills,
and understanding of research concepts and methods. A second survey
followed-up with students who responded to the initial survey and
sought to measure the longer-term impacts of REU and other research
experiences.[Footnote 22] On the basis of the survey results, the
authors concluded that participating in undergraduate research has
resulted in more students deciding to go to graduate school or to
consider a career in research. In addition to other findings, the
study noted that respondents benefited from their undergraduate
research experiences, and it also suggested improvement in many areas.
* STEM graduate. Studies of programs with this focus area noted that
programs were addressing agency or national priorities and pointed out
areas for improvement. For example, Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT) supports the education of U.S. scientists
and engineers who will pursue careers in research and education. The
seamless integration of research and education is a high priority for
NSF. A 2011 evaluation of IGERT used two approaches: a descriptive
component that included a survey of all PhD graduates as of 2007 who
had received IGERT funding, and a quasi-experimental comparison of
IGERT PhD graduates with comparable non-IGERT graduates.[Footnote 23]
The survey results indicated that more than 800 students had graduated
and entered the workforce and that most of these graduates (96
percent) reported that their IGERT experience positively contributed
to their ability to finish their PhDs. A majority of respondents (94
percent) also reported that the IGERT experience helped them obtain
their current work positions. An exploratory analysis comparing IGERT
graduates with non-IGERT graduates from similar academic departments
found no significant difference between the graduates in securing
employment, but they did find that IGERT graduates reported a greater
interest in interdisciplinary education or research training.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Commerce, DOE, Education, and
NSF for comment. Commerce's Economic Development Administration did
not have any comments on the draft. Commerce's NIST provided written
comments, which are reproduced in appendix III, along with our
response. On behalf of NIST, the Secretary of Commerce stated that the
draft, as scoped, does not fully capture the significant positive
impact that the COMPETES Acts have had on NIST. As noted in our
response in appendix III, the scope of our review is based on a
mandate in COMPETES 2010 that calls for GAO to evaluate the extent to
which programs authorized under the law have been funded, implemented,
and are contributing to achieving the goals of the act. Our report
addresses the total appropriations to NIST in fiscal years 2008
through 2012 in objective 1. To satisfy the needs of our congressional
clients, we focused our review on programs for which the COMPETES Acts
specifically authorized funding. DOE provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate. Education did not have any
comments on the draft. NSF provided technical comments, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Commerce,
Education, and Energy; the Director of NSF; the appropriate
congressional committees; and other interested parties. In addition,
the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@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 IV.
Signed by:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To inform our objectives, we reviewed our October 2010 report on
agency obligations under the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
Act of 2007 (COMPETES 2007) and the steps agencies were taking to
evaluate implemented programs under COMPETES 2007.[Footnote 24] We
also reviewed relevant laws, including COMPETES 2007 and the COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES 2010), and we interviewed agency
officials from the National Science Foundation (NSF); the Department
of Energy (DOE), including the Office of Science (Science) and the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E); the Department of
Commerce (Commerce), including the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and the Economic Development Administration; and the
Department of Education (Education).
To determine the extent to which funding was appropriated under the
authorization of the COMPETES Acts, we reviewed the laws and
identified the entities and programs for which the acts specifically
authorized funding. To determine the extent to which funding was
actually provided to such entities and programs, we reviewed annual
appropriations data in Congressional Research Service reports and
agency budget justification documents, and confirmed these data with
agency officials. Agency officials were not able to provide complete
appropriations data at the program level. Complete final
appropriations data for fiscal year 2013 were also not available. We
interviewed agency officials to learn about the status of programs
that received funding. We also asked agency officials which programs
were included in annual budget requests and why other programs were
not included in those requests.
To examine what the results of evaluations suggest about how the
programs for which the COMPETES Acts specifically authorized funding
are working, we identified and reviewed a selection of recent studies
that evaluated these programs. To identify these evaluations, we
conducted a literature review and interviewed agency officials.
Specifically, we conducted a literature search in databases such as
ProQuest, SciSearch, and Academic One to search for recent reports or
publications that evaluated programs authorized by the COMPETES Acts.
We conducted an initial review of the summaries of the reports or
publications returned in our literature search and provided by
agencies, and we excluded those that did not appear to evaluate how
well programs were working and were not published in 2008-2012.
[Footnote 25] We included studies published from 2008 through 2012; in
some cases, these studies included data on program activities that
occurred before 2008. We reviewed the methodology of the identified
studies and reported on the results of those we determined to be
methodologically sound and reliable for the purposes of our report. We
included the results of 21 studies covering 13 programs in our review.
We reported findings on a select number of programs and evaluations
based on the following criteria: (1) we included programs that
received federal funding in fiscal year 2012 and are continuing
operations as of May 2013 and (2) for each focus area, we chose
programs with the most recent evaluations and included up to two of
the most recent studies for those programs. Some agencies provided us
with performance reviews and other reports containing performance
measurements that we did not include in our review of evaluations.
When drafting our report, we provided agency officials with
information on the studies to be included. We determined focus areas
for implemented programs based on agency information about the
purposes and goals of those programs. We also interviewed officials
from departments, agencies, and program offices with authorized
funding under the COMPETES Acts, including representatives from NSF's
Education and Human Resources Directorate, Engineering Directorate,
and Office of Integrative Activities; Energy's Science and ARPA-E;
Commerce's NIST and Economic Development Administration; and
Education's Office of Postsecondary Education.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to July 2013 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Programs for Which the COMPETES Acts Specifically
Authorized Funding:
Figure 4 below shows the 40 programs for which the America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act of 2007 or the COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 specifically authorized funding.
Figure 4: Programs for Which the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
(COMPETES) Act of 2007 or the COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
Specifically Authorized Funding, by Agency:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Agency: Commerce:
Subagency or office: NIST[D]:
Program: Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in
Manufacturing;
Origin: New under COMPETES '10;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Agency is working toward implementation;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: Loan Guarantees for Science Park Infrastructure;
Origin: New under COMPETES '10;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Agency is working toward implementation;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: Regional Innovation Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '10;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: Baldrige Performance Excellence Program[E];
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: No FY 12[B] appropriations; Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Manufacturing performance.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Manufacturing performance.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: NIST Green Jobs Act of 2010;
Origin: New under COMPETES '10;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Commerce:
Program: Technology Innovation Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: No FY 12[B] appropriations;
Focus area of implemented program: Manufacturing performance.
Agency: Education:
Program: Advanced Placement & International Baccalaureate Programs;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Alignment of Secondary School Graduation Requirements with
the Demands of 21st Century Postsecondary Endeavors and Support for P-
16 Education Data Systems Origin;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Foreign Language Partnership Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Math Now for Elementary and Middle School Students Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Math Skills for Secondary School Students;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Promising Practices in STEM Teaching;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Summer Term Education Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: repealed by COMPETES '10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Education:
Program: Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow (bachelor’s and master’s
programs);
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: No FY 12[B] appropriations;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM[C] teacher training.
Agency: Energy;
Program: Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Research and development.
Agency: Energy;
Program: Hydrocarbon Systems Science Talent Expansion
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Program: National Energy Education Development
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: Repealed by COMPETES ’10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Program: Nuclear Science Talent Expansion Program
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Discovery Science and Engineering Innovation Institutes;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Distinguished Scientist Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Early Career Awards for Science, Engineering, and Math
Researchers;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Experiential-Based Learning Opportunities;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: Repealed by COMPETES ’10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Protecting America’s Competitive Edge;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Pilot Program of Grants to Specialty Schools for Science and
Mathematics;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: Repealed by COMPETES ’10;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Energy;
Subagency or office: Science[F];
Program: Summer Institutes;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Advanced Technological Education;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM undergraduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Research and development.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Faculty Early Career Development Program;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Research and development.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Graduate Research Fellowship Program;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM graduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM graduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Laboratory Science Pilot Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Math and Science Education Partnerships;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM[C] teacher training.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Major Research Instrumentation Program;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: Research and development.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Research Experiences for Undergraduates;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM undergraduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM[C] teacher training.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: Science Master’s Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '07;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: No FY 12[B] appropriations;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM graduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: STEM Talent Expansion Program;
Origin: Existed before COMPETES;
Funding: Funded[A];
Current status: Currently operating;
Focus area of implemented program: STEM undergraduate.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
Program: STEM Training Grant Program;
Origin: New under COMPETES '10;
Funding: Not funded;
Current status: N/A;
Focus area of implemented program: N/A.
Agency: Totals;
Origin:
Existed before COMPETES: 12;
New under COMPETES '07: 23;
New under COMPETES '10: 5;
Funding:
Funded: 18;
Not funded: 22;
Current status:
Repealed by COMPETES ’10: 9;
No FY 12[B] appropriations: 3;
Currently operating: 13;
Focus area of implemented program:
Research and development: 4;
Manufacturing performance: 3;
STEM[C] teacher training: 3;
STEM undergraduate: 3;
STEM graduate: 3.
Sources: GAO analysis of data from Congressional Research Service
reports and relevant federal agencies.
[A] Programs were funded in at least one fiscal year from fiscal year
2008 through fiscal year 2012.
[B] FY refers to fiscal year.
[C] STEM refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
[D] NIST refers to National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[E] The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program did not receive
federal funding in fiscal year 2012, but continues to operate with
private funding.
[F] Science refers to the Office of Science.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Note: Page numbers in draft report may differ from those in this
report. GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.
United States Department of Commerce:
The Secretary of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
July 1, 2013:
Ms. Karla Springer:
Assistant Director:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Springer:
The Department of Commerce (Department) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) appreciate the opportunity to review
and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability Office report
entitled, "America COMPETES Acts: Overall Appropriations Have
Increased and Have Mainly Funded Existing Research Entities."
The support for NIST's programs provided by these Acts has been
invaluable in strengthening the innovative capacity of the United
States and furthering the mission of the Department. The COMPETES Acts
have played a significant role in strengthening and expanding MST's
abilities to fulfill its mission and address critical national
challenges in the multiple fields, including manufacturing,
cybersecurity, and healthcare.
Attached for your consideration are our consolidated comments on this
report. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim Stowers,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs, at (202) 482-3663.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Penny Pritzker:
Enclosure:
Department of Commerce Consolidated Comments on GAO's Draft Report on
America COMPETES Acts (GAO-13-612):
The Department of Commerce (Department) has reviewed the draft GAO
report entitled, "America COMPETES Acts: Overall Appropriations Have
Increased and Have Mainly Funded Existing Research Entities" and
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the content of the draft
report. The draft report focuses only on programs that were
specifically authorized in either the America COMPETES Act of 2007, or
the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (the COMPETES Acts),
which, for the Department's National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), include the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program
(BPEP), the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program
(MEP), and the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). While these are or
have been important programs for NIST, the Department considers that,
as scoped, the draft report does not fully capture the significant
positive impact that the COMPETES Acts have had on NIST. [See comment
1]
In addition to the three specific extramural programs discussed in the
report, the COMPETES Acts have provided critical support for NIST's
core Laboratory Programs. The NIST Laboratory Programs work at the
frontiers of measurement science to ensure that the U.S. system of
measurements is firmly grounded on sound scientific and technical
principles. NIST Laboratories address increasingly complex measurement
challenges, ranging from the very small (nanoscale devices) to the
very large (vehicles and buildings), and from the physical (renewable
energy sources) to the virtual (cybersecurity and cloud computing). As
new technologies develop and evolve, NIST's measurement research and
services remain central to innovation, productivity, trade, and public
safety.
The NIST Laboratory Programs provide industry, academia, and other
federal agencies with:
* Scientific underpinnings for basic and derived measurement units,
international standards, measurement and calibration services, and
certified reference materials;
* Impartial expertise and leadership in basic and applied research to
enable development of test methods and verified data to support the
efficient commercialization and exchange of goods and services in
industry and commerce;
* Expertise and support for the development of consensus-based
standards and specifications that define technical and performance
requirements for goods and services, with associated measurements and
test methods for conformity; and;
* Unique, cutting-edge User Facilities that support innovation in
materials science, nanotechnology discovery and fabrication, and other
emerging technology areas through the NIST Center for Neutron
Research, which provides world-class neutron measurement capabilities
to the U.S. research community, and the NIST Center for Nanoscale
Science and Technology, which supports nanotechnology development from
discovery to production.
The COMPETES Acts have played a significant role in strengthening and
expanding NIST's abilities to fulfill its core mission
responsibilities, and to address critical national challenges in
multiple fields, including manufacturing, cybersecurity, and
healthcare.
Specific Comments:
Page 11 — Footnote 9 states: "NIST's previously existing Baldrige
Performance Excellence Program did not receive appropriations in
fiscal year 2012 but is currently operating using private funds,
according to agency officials." The Department wishes to emphasize
that the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) remains an
authorized program and operates as a key component of NIST's unique
portfolio of programs that strengthen U.S. innovation and
economic competitiveness. While BPEP did not receive appropriated
funding in either FY 2012 or 2013, NIST's activities through BPEP have
been supported by a significant, on-going, multiyear gift from the
Baldrige Foundation, reflecting the intent and spirit of BPEP's
authorizing legislation, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Improvement Act of 1987 (Pub. Law 100107; 15 U.S.C. § 371 la, as
amended). Accordingly, NIST suggests the following, more
complete, footnote 9 statement: "NIST's Baldrige Performance
Excellence Program (BPEP) did not receive appropriations in FY 2012 or
2013. According to agency officials, however, BPEP remains an
important operating component of NIST's unique portfolio of programs
that strengthen U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness. BPEP
activities in FY 2012 and 2013 were supported by a significant, and on-
going, multi-year gift from the Baldrige Foundation." [See comment 2]
Page 16 — The section under the heading "Manufacturing performance"
references (in footnote 16) an FY 2009 MEP Client Impact survey for
the following Draft GAO Report statement: "A survey of MEP clients
found that, for some clients, the program was successful in generating
positive results measured in terms of sales, investment levels, cost
savings, and jobs created or retained." It is pointed out that the
draft report does not reference the most recent MEP Client Impact
survey, to which NIST had previously directed GAO staff. [See comment
3] These most recent survey results can be found at: [hyperlink,
http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/MEP-Measuring-Results-Mar13-v2.pdf].
NIST accordingly urges that the following be added to this section:
"The most recent MEP Client Impact survey results[Footnote 1] found
that over FY 2011 and 2012, the average new and retained sales per
client as a result of MEP services were $1.1 M, the average cost
savings per client were $161,000, the average new investment per
client was $321,000, and an average of nine jobs were created and
retained per client. Assuming the base funding of $125M over FY 2011
and 2012, the program's return on investment (ROI) ratios, based on
client-reported impact, included total sales ROI of 118:1, cost
savings ROI of 18:1, and client investment ROI of 35:1. MEP has
created or retained a job for every $1,028 of federal investment, and
has created a new job for every $3,357 of federal investment." [See
comment 4] In addition, NIST notes that a recent study, not referenced
in the draft report, that benchmarked the small manufacturing programs
of different countries, found that the U.S. ROI was significantly
higher than that of the similar programs of most other nations,
despite the fact that the MEP program is funded at a level nearly
1/30th of that of similar programs in Japan and 1120th of that of
similar programs in Germany.[Footnote 2]
Page 24 — Figure 4 on page 24 does not clearly communicate the
authorization of funding for TIP or its current status. "While funding
for TIP was authorized in the America COMPETES Act of 2007, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 did not specifically
authorize funding for TIP. Furthermore, in contrast to the BPEP, which
has not been eliminated, FY 2012 saw the elimination of the TIP
program. Therefore, the draft report should note for clarity that TIP
did not receive federal appropriations in FY 2012, that NIST is in the
process of winding down TIP program operations, and that agency
officials expect that by FY 2014, all TIP awards will be closed out
and all associated staff positions will be eliminated. [See comment 5]
Appendix III Footnotes:
[1] Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Delivering
Measurable Results to Manufacturing Clients: Fiscal Year 2011 Results
(Washington, D.C.: March, 2013).
[2] Ezell and Atkinson, Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation, International Benchmarking of Countries Policies and
Programs Supporting SME Manufacturers (study prepared for the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, September, 2011).
The following are GAO's comments on the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's (NIST) letter, dated July 1, 2013.
GAO Comments:
1. The scope of our review is based on a mandate in the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (COMPETES 2010) that calls for
GAO to evaluate the extent to which programs authorized under the law
have been funded, implemented, and are contributing to achieving the
goals of the act. Our report addresses the total appropriations to
NIST in fiscal years 2008 through 2012 in our first objective. To
satisfy the needs of our congressional clients, we focused our review
on programs for which COMPETES 2010 and the America Creating
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
Education, and Science Act of 2007 (COMPETES 2007) specifically
authorized funding.
2. Our draft report notes that the Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program is currently operating using private funds, according to
agency officials. We clarified in our footnote that the program
remains authorized to receive funding. We did not include information
about funding for fiscal year 2013 because that is beyond the scope of
our review.
3. The scope of our review includes program evaluations published from
2008 through 2012. The draft report includes the findings from the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership's (MEP) fiscal year 2009 client
impact survey, which was the most recent survey published in our time
frame. The results of the MEP 2011 client impact survey, which was
published in March 2013, were outside the scope of our review.
4. To identify the evaluations we included in our analysis, as
described in appendix I, we conducted a literature search and asked
the agencies to provide evaluations of the programs that were
published from 2008 through 2012. We conducted an initial review of
the summaries of the reports or publications identified and excluded
those that did not appear to evaluate how well programs were working.
Based on the summary of the publication cited in NIST's letter, we
concluded it was not in our scope, and it was not included in the
selection of studies we reported on. When drafting our report, we
provided agency officials with information on the studies to be
included, and Commerce officials did not bring this publication to our
attention at that time. However, upon receiving NIST's comments, we
reviewed our criteria for identifying studies, and we continue to
believe that our approach to identifying and selecting studies was
appropriate.
5. We believe figure 4 clearly communicates the authorization of
funding for the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) under COMPETES
2007. Figure 4 also shows that TIP did not receive appropriations in
fiscal year 2012, and that the program is not currently operating.
Further, in the body of our report, we say that according to agency
officials TIP is in the process of shutting down. We do not provide
information about fiscal year 2014 because that is outside the scope
of our review.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Karla Springer (Assistant
Director), Nicole Dery, Cindy Gilbert, Michael Kendix, Cynthia Norris,
Marietta Mayfield Revesz, and Barbara Timmerman made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The National Academies comprises four organizations: the National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of
Medicine, and National Research Council. The group gathered in 2010
was made up of members of the committee that wrote the 2007 National
Academies report Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, which made
recommendations to ensure the United States maintains its leadership
in science and engineering.
[2] Pub. L. No. 110-69, 121 Stat. 572 (Aug. 9, 2007).
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-358, 124 Stat. 3982 (Jan. 4, 2011).
[4] For the purposes of this report, we are considering Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy to be a program.
[5] National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Rising above the
Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter
Economic Future. (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007).
[6] GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education:
Strategic Planning Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs Across
Multiple Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-108]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2012).
[7] GAO, 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, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-127R] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7,
2010).
[8] Appropriations for Science were authorized under the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 for fiscal years 2007-2009.
[9] NIST's previously existing Baldrige Performance Excellence Program
received appropriations in fiscal year 2011, but it did not receive
appropriations in fiscal year 2012. It remains authorized to receive
funding and is currently operating using private funds, according to
agency officials.
[10] Commerce officials noted that it can take years to implement loan
guarantee programs. They expect the Loan Guarantees for Innovative
Technologies in Manufacturing program to issue its first loans in late
2014 or early or mid-2015. The Loan Guarantees for Science Park
Infrastructure program is in an earlier stage of implementation;
Officials did not yet have a timeline for issuing loans under this
program.
[11] Our review included findings from 21 studies, including Committee
of Visitors reports, covering 13 programs. See appendix I for
information on how we identified studies for this report.
[12] See appendix I for information on how we selected evaluation
examples. Many of these evaluations reported a number of findings. We
reported what we considered to be the evaluations' main findings.
[13] Yonghong Wu, "Tackling Undue Concentration of Federal Research
Funding: An Empirical Assessment on NSF's Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)," Research Policy 39 (2010):
835-841.
[14] GAO, Department of Energy: Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants' Prior Funding,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-112] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 13, 2012).
[15] Department of Energy Office of Inspector General, Audit Report:
The Advanced Research Projects Agency -Energy, OAS-RA-11-11
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 2011). ARPA-E is required to undergo a
comprehensive evaluation of its activities in 2015, after it has been
in operation for 6 years.
[16] Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Delivering Measurable
Results to Manufacturing Clients: Fiscal Year 2009 Results
(Washington, D.C.: March, 2011). These findings were based on MEP
surveys of program clients; fewer than 50 percent of respondents
reported that MEP had an impact on sales, investment levels, jobs
created, or jobs retained. A majority of client respondents did report
cost savings in areas such as labor, materials, inventory, and energy.
[17] Stone & Associates and the Center for Regional Economic
Competitiveness , Re-examining the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Business Model: Alternatives for Increasing the Program's Impact on US
Manufacturing Sector Performance (study prepared for the NIST
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, McLean, VA, October 2010).
[18] Frances Lawrenz et al., University of Minnesota Evaluation of the
Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program: Final Summary Report
(Minneapolis, MN: August 2009).
[19] National Science Foundation Committee of Visitors, Fiscal Year
2011 Report Template for NSF Committee of Visitors: Robert Noyce
Teacher Scholarship Program (Washington, D.C.: October 31-November 1,
2011).
[20] Allison Kirchhoff et al., University of Minnesota Evaluation of
the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, Final Report Section
Six: A Model of the Pathway to Retention in High Need Settings,
Analysis of the Noyce Scholar Interviews (Minneapolis, MN: May 2009).
[21] Mary P. Hancock and Susan H. Russell, Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) in the Directorate for Engineering (ENG): 2003-
2006 Participant Survey (Menlo Park, CA: August 2008).
[22] Lori Thurgood, Christopher Ordowich, and Prudy Brown, Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) in the Directorate for
Engineering (ENG): Follow-Up of FY2006 Student Participants (Menlo
Park, CA: October 2010).
[23] Jennifer Carney et al., Evaluation of the National Science
Foundation's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
Program (IGERT): Follow-Up Study of IGERT Graduates (Arlington, VA:
February 2011).
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-127R].
[25] For GAO's definition of program evaluation, see GAO, Designing
Evaluations: 2012 Revision, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-208G] (Washington, D.C.: January,
2012).
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select
“E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
[End of document]