NAC Human Capital Committee Lucy Fortson, Gerald Kulcinski (chm) Ioannis Miaoulis, and Jim Milgram October 14-16, 2008

Items to Cover Response to recommendation HC Fact Finding Presentations to Human Capital Committee –NASA TV (Mike Cabbage/Chris Shank) –NASA Education Program Update (Joyce Winterton)

HC Independent Evaluation of NASA TV Recommendation: An outside organization should be contracted to do an evaluation of the current effectiveness and viewership of NASA TV and to recommend a clear rationale and set of themes for its continuance. This outside entity should take into account the NASA internal 2007 review of NASA TV.

HC Independent Evaluation of NASA TV (cont.) Major reasons for proposing the recommendation: NASA TV was initiated, in part, to support the Shuttle Program; now that Shuttle retirement is now planned for 2010, it is reasonable to reassess. In addition, the emergence of the potential for internet-based delivery further supports the need to examine the program. At this point in time a number of decisions are being made that impact NASA TV, the information from a third-party evaluation would increase the overall probability of success as the current program undergoes updates. By understanding the effectiveness of the current program and viewership demographics, Strategic Communication could better target their current effort to develop an online infrastructure to enable the increasing effectiveness of NASA Education TV in the future.

HC Independent Evaluation of NASA TV Excerpts from NASA Response: The Strategic Communications/Public Affairs Office (PAO) believes that the previous 2007 review of NASA TV provided sufficient analysis of what is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the programming and that further outside evaluation is not needed at this time. Subsequent to the PAO presentation to the Human Capital Committee of the NASA Advisory Council of July 9, the PAO developed a comprehensive plan to produce improved content for programming for the NASA TV medium, along with NASA's Web site. ………………….. PAO recommends that any outside evaluation of the current effectiveness and viewership be conducted at some period in the future after this plan is implemented.

6 Presented to: NASA Advisory Council Presented by: Christopher Shank and Michael Cabbage NASA Television Oct. 14, 2008

7 What is the Problem? 2008 $2, $1, $1, $1, $ $ $519 Public Affairs Penalized for Outreach Activities “While many of NASA’s public affairs activities are appropriate, others continue to emphasize marketing the agency…” -OMB 7 1,000’s

8 The New Plan Step 1: Recognize NASA TV and NASA.gov as Agency resources Stop staffing and funding Multimedia as HQ PAO-specific – and NASA TV are the most powerful communications and outreach tools at the Agency’s disposalwww.nasa.gov –Represent the public face of NASA Future resource reviews should consider HOW we work and not just use existing line items as guides The bottom line… 8

9 The New Plan (cont.) Step 2: Keep the lights on! Restore Multimedia Contract $2.1M per year –Does not fund any new development Allows NASA TV and Web to survive Add one civil servant –Web Editor The bottom line… 9

10 The New Plan (cont.) Step 3: Invest in the Agency’s public visibility Fund $2.5 annual Multimedia –$600k per year development line items Fund $2.5M HDTV transition Fund $300k On-Demand –$85k per year The bottom line… 10

HC Response to NASA Good news-NASA is fully aware that there is a problem and moving to address the problem. Technical problem-can be solved by moving to HDTV but requires resources (present leadership is confident this can be solved with one time $2.5 M injection). Infrastructure problem (i. e., program coordinator and on-demand technology)-New leadership fighting for money to fix this issue (now $1.8/y needs $2.1M/y minimum).

HC Response to NASA (cont.) Need to centralize the content planning over the entire Agency. –Issue here appears to be with the lack of coordination and communication between HQ’s and Centers. –We support the PAO, AA for Strategic Communications, plan to strengthen intra-agency coordination. It is too soon to know whether they will be successful (new PAO director in present position for only three months).

HC Response to NASA (cont.) The HC committee consensus is to monitor situation over the next 6 months and receive progress reports at the next 2 NAC meetings. –Emphasis on quality of content and presentation. The HC committee accepts the NASA request to postpone the external review of NASA TV pending the outcome of the implementation of their current initiatives.

Background to Education Briefing Several Federal reports and the HC committee have requested that NASA Education measure its success by well defined metrics. A full year of assessment has been completed.

NASA Education NAC Briefing October 16, 2008 Joyce L. Winterton, Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Education National Aeronautics and Space Administration

16 Education Portfolio Strategic Framework Cultivate Diversity of Workforce Disciplines and Practitioners Employ Engage Educate Inspire Employ Educate Engage Inspire Elementary/ Secondary Education Outcome 2: Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a progression of educational opportunities for students, teachers and faculty. Higher Education Outcome 1: Contribute to the development of the STEM workforce in disciplines needed to achieve NASA’s strategic goals, through a portfolio of investments. Informal Education Outcome 3: Build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and informal education providers that promote STEM literacy and awareness of NASA’s mission.

17 Outcomes and Objectives Outcome 1: Higher Education Outcome 2: Elementary and Secondary Education Outcome 3: Informal Education Faculty and Research Support Student Support Student Involvement, Higher Education Course Development Targeted Institution Research and Academic Infrastructure Educator Professional Development, Short Duration Educator Professional Development, Long Duration Curricular Support Resources Student Involvement, K-12 Educational Support Resources Professional Development for Informal Education Providers Informal Education Provider Involvement Opportunities

18 Portfolio Review Thematic Questions –(Outcome 1) Where do NASA interns generally come from, to what extent are their majors aligned with NASA’s core competencies, and to what degree are they later hired by NASA or other aerospace organizations? Are the supply (number of interns) and demand (placement opportunities at Centers, industry, universities) what they need to be? –(Outcome 2) Can we show our projects provide a pipeline of authentic educational experiences for students from school to employment in STEM disciplines, and if not, what adjustments are required? Do our projects in fact involve NASA content and current missions? How or how not? –(Outcome 3) Provide a cluster analysis of the investments and draw conclusions on what truly belongs, what audiences are targeted, what audiences are missing and recommendations on how we may evaluate clusters.

19 Number of Projects by Funding Organization and Outcome Total: 451 Outcome 1 Higher Education Outcome 2 K-12 Outcome 3 Informal Education Office of Ed13113 ARMD800 ESMD10126 SMD SOMD11100 Centers30151

20 PART 2007 Fall Update Support for NASA Workforce – What we know about higher education student participants: 9,746 underrepresented students participated in NASA education programs (fewer due to budget cuts) 2,474 students received significant support Space Grant (received at least $5K or 160 hours) 59,468 additional students were served through Space Grant projects and activities

21 PART 2007 Fall Update Support for NASA Workforce – What we know about higher education student participants one after participation: 45% are employed by NASA, aerospace contractors, universities & other education institutions In addition: 43% went into related STEM careers Data from undergraduates indicate: 30% are seeking advanced education

22 PART 2007 Fall Update NASA Education Improving STEM Education – What we know about K-12 Education: 62% of educators who participate in NASA training programs use the resources in their instruction 50% of SEMAA students plan to work in STEM careers

23 PART 2007 Fall Update NASA Education National reach of STEM Education – 408,774 K-12 students participated in NASA activities 230,867 K-12 students, their parents and teachers participated in Space Grant precollege activities 45,305,795 Page views through the Education website ($0.032 cost per page view)

24 PART 2007 Fall Update NASA Education Engaging and Inspiring – What we know about Informal Education: 350 Museums and Science Centers are actively engaged in major NASA events 1750 Informal education providers are served by NASA resources 214,106 Individuals participated in Space Grant Informal Education projects and activities

25 FY08 NASA Education Funding by Outcome Total: $191,855,766 *Crosscutting costs include conference support, liens, database development, evaluation, etc. Outcome 1-Contribute to the development of the STEM workforce. $113 M, 58% Outcome 2: Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines. $54 M, 28 % Outcome 3 : Build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and informal education providers-$20 M, 11% Crosscutting Costs-$5.5 M, 3%

26 FY08 NASA Education Funding by Source Total: $191,855,766

27 FY08 NASA Education Funding by Source Total: $191,855,766

Questions?

29 Performance Measures Outcome I: Contribute to the development of the STEM workforce in disciplines needed to achieve NASA’s strategic goals, through a portfolio of investments, –Number of new or revised courses targeted at STEM skills needed by NASA that are developed with NASA support. (Output) –Number of institutions served in designated EPSCoR states. (Output) –Number of underrepresented and underserved students participating in NASA education programs. (Output) –Percentage of student participants employed by NASA, aerospace contractors, universities, & other educational institutions. (Outcome) –Percentage of undergraduate students who move on to advanced education in NASA- related disciplines. (Outcome) –Percentage of higher education program participants who have participated in NASA elementary or secondary programs. (Output)

30 Performance Measures Outcome II: Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a progression of educational opportunities for students, teachers and faculty –Percentage increase in number of elementary and secondary student participants in NASA instructional and enrichment activities. (Output) –Percentage of elementary and secondary educators using NASA content-based STEM resources in the classroom. (Output) –Percentage of elementary and secondary educators who participate in NASA training programs who use NASA resources in their classroom instruction. (Outcome) –Level of student interest in science and technology careers resulting from elementary and secondary NASA education programs. (Outcome)

31 Outcome III: Build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and informal education providers that promote STEM literacy and awareness of NASA’s mission, –Percentage of Museums and science centers that participate in NASA networks and that use NASA resources in programs & exhibits. (Output) Global Efficiency Measures – Applicable to all outcomes –Cost per participant of programs (Efficiency) –Ratio of funds leveraged by NASA funding support (Efficiency) –Dollar invested per number of people reached via e-Education technologies (Efficiency) Performance Measures

32 Objectives, Metrics and Project Alignment NASA Education ObjectivesOutput Measures Outcome Measures Efficiency Measures Add’l Ed. Measures Projects Faculty and Research Support Number of under- represented students participating Ratio of funds leveraged against NASA Funding Ratio of proposals submitted to NASA awards received Space Grant EPSCoR URC CIPAIR TCU NSTI-MI Student Support Number of under- represented students participating % of NASA students employed % moving on to advanced education % of higher education students who participated in K-12 projects % of higher ed students working in other STEM Industries MUST Space Grant URC GSRP USRP JPFP CIPAIR