1. Science Planning in State Governments: New Developments
Georgia Institute of Technology
Quintin Kreth, PhD Student
Julia Melkers, Associate Professor
Undergraduate Research Team:
Nihal Shah
Sydney White
Christina Wells
University of Latvia (Advanced Social and Political Research Institute)
Anete Vingre, Researcher

2. Science, Science Planning, and Outcomes in the US States
States’ role in S&T policy has grown significantly over the last 30 years (Feldman & Lanahan, 2015).
States have been engaged in the support of jurisdictionally-based science and research initiatives through:
Program development
Funding (in some cases)
Policy coordination/management
State S&T Offices
States’ S&T plans provide metrics and goals for the evaluation of science/research initiatives.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of State Government Research and Development.

3. Managing and Evaluating State S&T Initiatives
Performance-based public management of the early 1990’s (GPRA and state equivalents)
State S&T plans, state science advisors, performance metrics
(Strategic) Science/RTD plans are mechanisms to articulate policy goals, expected outcomes, and performance metrics
No systematic review of state S&T planning documents since 1997.

4. NSF Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
Two regionally-specific research funding programs
EPSCoR
INBRE (IDeA Networks)
Goal: improve research capacity in jurisdictions
EPSCoR eligibility metric:
0.75% federal research funding
Mandatory link with state science plans (FY09)
Implications for science plans, evaluation and outcome metrics

5. Our Questions What is the state of state science policy planning?
Priorities
Key mechanisms
Metrics
Traditional measures
Scientific and technical human capital model:
Research capacity: Combination of scientists’ individual research skills, social capital in the scientific community, and access to scientific equipment. (Bozeman, Dietz, & Gaughan, 2001)
Are there any observable patterns or diffusion across states?
How has state planning for science changed in the last 20 years? vs

6. Scientific Priorities
Data and Methods
State Plans
Scientific Priorities
Economic Development
Funding
Human Capital
Triple Helix
Metrics
Collection and coding of state plans for:
Science
Education
Economic Development
Publicly-available plans (web-based)
Follow-up phone calls
Confirmed list with SSTI
Team of STEM undergraduates and doctoral students, faculty and international researcher
Detailed coding process
Student coding based on the Model of STHC, and studies of science, research capacity, technology-based economic development and STEM Ed
Tier 1 Coding
Broad categories
Tier 2 Coding
Second level categories
(as needed)
Tier 3/4 Coding
Fine Detail

7. Which States Have Active Science Plans?
34 states currently publish S&T plans, up from 16 in 1997.
28 of the planning states are EPSCoR states
Only 6 are non-EPSCoR states
4 non-EPSCoR states have dropped S&T planning since 1997 .

8. Origins of the Active Plans
Many plans have been in place for several years
Nebraska (1995)
Consultants heavily involved in drafting of plans
Plans seem to originate mostly from universities or economic development offices
Some have evidence of broad input and participation in crafting the plan
Some plans prepared by the EPSCoR offices

9. Origins of the Active Plans
Many plans have been in place for several years
Nebraska (1995)
Consultants heavily involved in drafting of plans
Plans seem to originate mostly from universities or economic development offices
Some have evidence of broad input and participation in crafting the plan
Some plans prepared by the EPSCoR offices

10. What is the Content of the Plans? Goals and Priorities
2-pronged approach to the goals of science29 plans discuss economic development.
28 discuss aspirations to improve startups and/or VC funding.
Large industry aspirations are highly correlated with discussion of investor recruitment and development (.444).
Startup aspirations are highly correlated with discussion of high- demand skill development (.467).
Economic Development
Large Industry
Large Industry Aspirations 15
Large Industry Achievements 5
Startups, entrepreneurs and Incubators
Startups, entrepreneurs, and incubators Aspirations 28
Startups, entrepreneurs and incubators Achievements 14
Scientific Priorities
Promotion of Research 10
Sector Focus
Policy Strength or Opportunity 22
Policy Problem 11

11. What is the Content of the Plans? Mechanisms
Human capital issues were a slightly lower priority than we expected, only appearing in 26 plans.
18 plans discuss K-12 STEM
17 discuss universities
Community colleges were not discussed in any of the plans.
Equity issues:
No plans include substantial discussion of women in STEM
3 discuss under-represented minorities in STEM
33 plans discuss funding and leveraging state funding for S&T
Human Capital
STEM Education
K-12 STEM Education 18
University STEM Ed. 17
Underrepresented Minorities in STEM 3
Community College or Sub-Baccalaureate
Women in STEM
Workforce Development and Training
High-Demand skill development 20
Retraining 7
Funding
Grants
Federal Grants 29
Foundation Grants 11
Leveraged Funding
Public-Private Partnerships 25
Investor Recruitment-development 24
State Subsidies
Direct State Grants or Assistance
Other Tax Incentives 12
R&D Tax Credit
Intergovernmental Relations
Other Federal Programs
EPSCoR 19
States 10
Triple Helix
Formal Partnerships 33
Commercialization 32

12. Science Plans as Foundations For Measuring S&T Capacity & Outcomes
Resources
Library resources
Research dollars
Economic Outcomes
Startups
Per Capita income
S&T employment in the state
Traditional Human Capital
STEM majors
STEM workforce
Research expenditures on STEM Ed
Facilities
Space allocated to externally funded STEM researchers
Scientific Technical Capital
Regional and global research alliances

13. Conclusion and Next Steps
States continue to utilize plans to communicate goals and mechanisms relevant to science.
EPSCoR appears to have had an influence.
More needs to be understand of this influence and related diffusion
States are uneven in considering STHC as they plan for S&T capacity development & outcomes
Yet, many S&T plans do not include clear and quantified goals, strategies, and metrics.