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-08-01• Fact Finding Presentations to Human

Capital Committee– NASA TV (Mike Cabbage/Chris Shank)– NASA Education Program Update (Joyce

Winterton)

HC-08-01 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-08-01 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-08-01 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 CouncilPresented by: Christopher Shank and Michael Cabbage

NASA Television

Oct. 14, 2008

7

What is the Problem?

2008 $2,10

0

2009 $1,82

4

2010 $1,53

2

2011 $1,20

1

2012 $819

2013 $519

2014 $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

1,00

0’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

–www.nasa.gov and NASA TV are the most powerful communications and outreach tools at the Agency’s disposal–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 EducationNAC Briefing

October 16, 2008

Joyce L. Winterton, Ph.D.Assistant Administrator for Education

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

16

Education Portfolio Strategic Framework

Cul

tivat

e D

iver

sity

of W

orkf

orce

D

isci

plin

es a

nd P

ract

ition

ers

Employ

Engage

Educate

Inspire

Employ

Educate

Engage

Inspire

Elementary/ Secondary EducationOutcome 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 EducationOutcome 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 ObjectivesOutcome 1: Higher Education

Outcome 2: Elementary and Secondary Education

Outcome 3: Informal Education

Faculty and Research SupportStudent SupportStudent Involvement, Higher EducationCourse DevelopmentTargeted Institution Research and Academic Infrastructure

Educator Professional Development, Short Duration Educator Professional Development, Long DurationCurricular Support ResourcesStudent Involvement, K-12

Educational Support Resources Professional Development for Informal Education ProvidersInformal 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 1Higher

Education

Outcome 2K-12

Outcome 3Informal

Education

Office of Ed 13 11 3

ARMD 8 0 0

ESMD 10 12 6

SMD 46 178 97

SOMD 11 10 0

Centers 30 15 1

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 UpdateNASA 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 UpdateNASA 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 UpdateNASA 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 OutcomeTotal: $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 SourceTotal: $191,855,766

27

FY08 NASA Education Funding by SourceTotal: $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 AlignmentNASA Education

Objectives Output Measures

OutcomeMeasures

EfficiencyMeasures

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 GrantEPSCoRURCCIPAIRTCUNSTI-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

MUSTSpace GrantURC GSRPUSRPJPFPCIPAIR