NASA OIG: NASA Education Efforts Are Unclear, Lack Data and Tracking, Miss Opportunities

Keith’s Note: If you have read NASAWatch for the past 28+ years then you’ve been reading my rants about lack of quality education and outreach at NASA – regardless of the name that NASA affixes to the office that is supposed to be doing this. NASA has an unparalleled and unvarnished brand identity with decades of embedded global reach that continues to grow unabated. Yet the agency squanders this opportunity by underfunding its educational activities, refusing to coordinate activities internally, and installing managers who do not have formal education administration backgrounds. According to the NASA OIG Audit of NASA’s Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Engagement: “OSTEM’s performance goals are unclear and lack robust metrics, making it difficult to correlate goals to outcomes or measure success” … “OSTEM does not collect comprehensive cost or obligation data that would benefit decision-makers.” … “Furthermore, we identified issues with OSTEM’s monitoring of grants and cooperative agreements, including missing documentation in the grant and cooperative agreement files, insufficient post-award monitoring, and incomplete grant closeouts. Similarly, OSTEM does not track grant subrecipients, relying on prime recipients to ensure subrecipients are aware of award terms and conditions.” … “In our view, NASA may be missing opportunities to invest limited resources in less competitive jurisdictions, and we estimate that $12.6 million could be put to better use within EPSCoR over the next 5 years.” … “OSTEM is missing opportunities to target NASA’s future workforce more directly.”

WHAT WE FOUND

OSTEM is making progress managing and coordinating a diverse group of STEM engagement activities across the Agency and continues to operate against a backdrop of uncertainty, with its efforts challenged by a history of budget cuts and proposed elimination of the office. However, we identified several areas for improvement in OSTEM operations. First, OSTEM’s performance goals are unclear and lack robust metrics, making it difficult to correlate goals to outcomes or measure success. Additionally, defining STEM engagement activities can be challenging in a STEM-focused agency like NASA, and this can result in incomplete tracking of STEM engagement spending. We found OSTEM does not collect comprehensive cost or obligation data that would benefit decision-makers. OSTEM is developing a system called STEM Gateway to better track and provide oversight and transparency of the Agency’s STEM activities. However, not all Mission Directorates plan to use the system, which will significantly impact the completeness of STEM engagement data that NASA reports to Congress and other stakeholders. We also found the project plans for OSTEM’s four projects generally included 15 of the 23 selected requirements but that risk assessments were incomplete and 8 other requirements were absent. Furthermore, we identified issues with OSTEM’s monitoring of grants and cooperative agreements, including missing documentation in the grant and cooperative agreement files, insufficient post-award monitoring, and incomplete grant closeouts. Similarly, OSTEM does not track grant subrecipients, relying on prime recipients to ensure subrecipients are aware of award terms and conditions.

We found that NASA may not be directing funding for EPSCoR according to the project’s design. EPSCoR aims to help institutions in eligible jurisdictions build capabilities and enhance their ability to secure federal research and development funding. NASA currently uses National Science Foundation criteria to determine which jurisdictions are eligible for EPSCoR funding, but several of these jurisdictions successfully compete for NASA research and development grant funding and already have competitive aerospace research capabilities. For example, NASA, by using National Science Foundation EPSCoR eligibility, is funding four NASA EPSCoR jurisdictions—Alabama, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—that receive more than 0.75 percent of all NASA grants and cooperative agreements. Similarly, some jurisdictions not eligible under the National Science Foundation criteria do not compete as effectively for NASA funding. OSTEM officials explained they were not aware of the potential flexibilities governing NASA’s EPSCoR jurisdictions and the use of the National Science Foundation jurisdictions for EPSCoR stemmed from a long-standing practice. In our view, NASA may be missing opportunities to invest limited resources in less competitive jurisdictions, and we estimate that $12.6 million could be put to better use within EPSCoR over the next 5 years.

Finally, OSTEM is missing opportunities to target NASA’s future workforce more directly. In 2021, NASA identified 19 mission critical workforce needs, including 12 in STEM fields. Despite identification of these critical needs, we found OSTEM could better align its engagement activities to help build the pipeline for NASA’s future workforce and to advance NASA’s missions. Instead, OSTEM designs engagement activities that focus on getting students interested in STEM nationally as opposed to NASA’s specific needs. OSTEM also has limited engagement activities targeting future skilled technical workers—such as current and future community college or trade school students—and instead focuses mainly on K-12, undergraduate, and graduate-level programs. As the leader for the Agency’s STEM engagement functions, OSTEM is uniquely positioned to use its expertise and resources to help address the Agency’s future workforce needs.

WHAT WE RECOMMENDED

We made seven recommendations to improve NASA’s STEM engagement activities. To the Associate Administrator for STEM Engagement, we recommended re-evaluating OSTEM’s performance goals; developing a procedure to ensure OSTEM tracks and reports funding for all STEM engagement activities; applying relevant policy requirements to project plans; and developing a process to ensure mandatory reporting and monitoring for grants. We also recommended that the Administrator re-evaluate EPSCoR jurisdictions to ensure effective and equitable distribution of Agency funds. Finally, we recommended the Deputy Administrator require NASA organizations to capture STEM engagement activities in STEM Gateway and collaborate to identify NASA’s critical workforce needs and target STEM engagement activities accordingly.

We provided a draft of this report to NASA management who concurred or partially concurred with our recommendations and described planned actions to address them. While the Agency disagreed with developing a plan to increase engagement activities aimed at skilled and technical workers as part of Recommendation 7, they will enhance career awareness activities aimed at these occupations. Our report emphasizes the impact a shortage of skilled technical workers would have on meeting NASA’s mission, and we therefore encourage NASA to continue evaluating how their STEM engagement activities can further target skilled technical occupations. We consider management’s comments responsive; therefore, the recommendations are resolved and will be closed upon completion and verification of the proposed corrective actions.

Full report