DSEC Overview

DSEC grounds its strategy in a coordinated, consortium model designed to build a future-ready defense STEM workforce. Through career-connected experiences for students and educators across the K–16 continuum, DSEC connects STEM learning opportunities to DoW pathways and careers. The consortium pursues this vision through five strategic goals. 

Goal 1: Inspire community engagement in DoW STEM education programs and activities to provide meaningful STEM learning opportunities for students and educators. 

DSEC creates a continuum of meaningful STEM experiences that build awareness, interest, and sustained participation among students and educators across school, out-of-school, and community settings. 

Goal 2: Attract the Nation’s and DoW’s current and future STEM workforce through multiple pathways to educational and career opportunities. 

DSEC uses career-connected learning to help students explore, enhance, and excel in STEM careers through mentorship, job shadowing, internships, simulations, and pathway-aligned learning connected to DoW careers and the defense industrial base.

Goal 3: Increase participation of students and educators in STEM education and workforce development programs, activities, and outreach.

DSEC expands access to high-quality STEM learning and workforce development opportunities by engaging students and educators through intentional outreach, partner programming, and community-based activities that broaden participation and strengthen connections to future STEM pathways. 

Goal 4: Advance the efficiency and effectiveness of STEM education and workforce development programs, activities, and outreach through evaluation and assessment. 

DSEC deploys a shared research and evaluation system that generates near-, mid-, and long-term evidence on participant outcomes, regional hub effectiveness, consortium health, and alumni trajectories. These findings inform program refinement and strategic decision-making. 

Goal 5: DSEC will leverage the consortium as a force multiplier to amplify the reach, visibility, and outcomes of DoW STEM. 

DSEC strengthens alignment across consortium members, regional hubs, STEM ecosystems, and outreach channels to scale promising practices, deepen community partnerships, and amplify DoW STEM’s national visibility and impact. 

DSEC's goals reinforce the consortium’s role as a coordinated mechanism for strengthening defense STEM pathways, scaling promising practices, and responding to emerging workforce needs. 

At the end of the Base Period, DoW STEM released a new strategic plan. DSEC’s strategy remains tightly aligned with the vision, mission, and goals established in the new plan.

Alignment to America’s Talent Strategy

America’s Talent Strategy: Building the Workforce for the Golden Age provides a comprehensive plan to address the workforce needs of American companies, integrate existing workforce development systems, strengthen accountability for workforce training programs, upskill American workers, and expand alternatives to traditional 4-year college pathways (U.S. Department of Labor et al., 2025). DSEC aligns with this strategic framework by advancing a coordinated, career-connected approach to building the United States’ future defense STEM workforce.

Further, DSEC operationalizes the workforce priorities described in America’s Talent Strategy through a consortium model that connects STEM education, career exploration, community-based engagement, and evidence-informed improvement. DSEC coordinates implementation, increases visibility of DoW STEM opportunities, expands access to meaningful STEM experiences, and uses data to refine programming. In this way, DSEC helps build early and sustained pathways into STEM fields that are critical to national security, including AI, cybersecurity, hypersonics, and advanced manufacturing.

U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Commerce, & U.S. Department of Education. (2025). America's talent strategy: Building the workforce for the golden age. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OPA/newsreleases/2025/08/Americas-Talent-Strategy-Building-the-Workforce-for-the-Golden-Age.pdf

U.S. Department of War DoW STEM. (2026). The Department of War STEM strategic plan. DoW STEM Strategic Plan_FY 26-30.pdf

Overview of Continuous Improvement Concepts

After results from the evaluation of the first year of the Base Period were complete (in the fall of 2025), the Consortium Management Committee identified a set of continuous improvement concepts to guide the work of the consortium for the second Base Period year:

• Focus on consortium efficiency through effective use of personnel and resources.
• Enhance consortium agility and responsiveness.
• Deepen data-informed decision-making through collaboration across the consortium.
• Increase consortium engagement with military-connected participants in varied educational settings.

Below, we report on action steps taken and progress made toward each of the continuous improvement concepts. Achieving these concepts pushes the consortium toward the strategic goals introduced in the “Strategy and Goals” section of this Biennial Program Review (BPR).

Progress Toward Continuous Improvement Concepts

Focus on consortium efficiency through effective use of personnel and resources

During the Base Period, the project management and integration team prepared templates for partner subcontracts for the Option Period. They made several changes to the statement of work template to align partners around the importance of realizing efficiencies in their work. First, the template included the following request:

Provide a statement below (brief paragraph or list of points) that indicates how you planned your Option Period budget with an emphasis on maximizing the amount spent on direct programming for participants (students and educators).

The template also notified partners that the project management and integration team will be contacting them in 4 to 6 months to ask about the status of their plans, as well as for information on any other budget efficiencies realized.

Second, the template required partners to identify how they would use several DSEC resources, including the career-connected learning framework, the Critical Technology Area–specific toolkits, the suite of resources for military-connected students, and the reflective questions on program design and delivery. The production of high-quality shared resources that can be used by all STEM education partners is a key lever for overall efficiency because it means that partners do not need to create their own.

Curating responses to these new sections of the partner statements of work allows consortium leadership to identify innovative strategies used to increase efficiency and put DSEC resources into practice. Future Quarterly Meetings will provide opportunities for partners to discuss and share their strategies as well as their progress on maximizing funds spent on direct programming for participants.

The management elements also made changes to consortium structure and processes to support partner budget efficiency. During the second year of the Base Period, all Quarterly Meetings were virtual, eliminating travel costs for all partners and expenses related to meeting space. Additionally, Element 1 shortened the length of the Quarterly Meetings by an hour. During the Base Period, Element 1 noted that some partner work groups met regularly, even when not necessarily needed to complete a deliverable. To avoid this potential inefficiency in the Option Period, the consortium is shifting from partner work groups to design sprints. These shorter, timebound collaborative efforts focus on generating solutions to specific questions and problems of practice raised by partners to eliminate the “standing” nature of the partner work groups.

Lastly, a key consortium-led event will not occur during the Option Period. The sunsetting of the DoW STEM Technical Exchange after 2025 frees more consortium funding to support STEM education partners and their efforts, both during the remainder of the Base Period (when planning for the next event would have begun), as well as during the Option Period when there would have been considerable effort by the consortium management team and partners related to event preparation and attendance.

Enhance consortium agility and responsiveness

As technology and national defense needs evolved during the Base Period, DSEC responded by designing new resources and opportunities for partners to learn and reflect on developments. The Critical Technology Areas partner work group developed a toolkit for each area which includes a plain-language definition of the area, compelling statistics, how to map skills in the area to STEM programming, and ideas for aligned activities. With the toolkit structure in place, the consortium will be able to generate new toolkits efficiently, should there be a shift in Critical Technology Areas or a change in DoW focus toward a new technology or priority topic during the Option Period.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already reshaping the defense sector and represents an opportunity for DSEC STEM education partners to embed AI into their learning experiences for students, educators, and families, as well as using it as a tool to increase effectiveness and efficiency within their organizations. During the Base Period, the consortium dedicated time to discussing and learning about AI during multiple Quarterly Meetings. For example, during the in-person Quarterly Meeting in February 2025, uniformed and civilian members of the 688th Cyberspace Wing, Sixteenth Air Force joined STEM program leaders from San Antonio to discuss the ways the region strives to generate the talent needed to staff this important group. The August 2025 Quarterly Meeting included a session titled “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan,” which focused on how partners could contribute to the plan’s goals; the February 2026 Quarterly Meeting built on that discussion. Six STEM education partners shared how they have focused programming on AI.

Because DoW values the development of career pathways into the defense industrial base (DIB), in addition to its own laboratories and installations, DSEC set up feedback loops to hear from key leaders within that sector, specifically about emerging trends in their workforce needs. One mechanism involved DIB representation on DSEC’s STEM Advisory: Leaders from Rolls-Royce, Boeing, the Emerging Technologies Institute, and Northrop Grumman provided their perspectives and insights by participating in this advisory group. Additionally, several members of the DIB (Booz Allen Hamilton, Intel, Northrop Grumman, and RTX) joined multiple defense agencies to add a new section to DSEC’s career-connected learning framework. While the framework originally focused on student and educator perspectives, representatives from the public and private sectors collaborated to develop an employer view that supports industry partners as they work to build their talent pipelines. Representatives from DIB organizations led concurrent sessions and served as mainstage speakers during the DoW STEM Technical Exchange, further building the consortium’s ability to be responsive to needs of these critical employers.

During the Base Period, DSEC was responsive to DoW’s desire for greater collaboration across its STEM portfolio. The DoW STEM Technical Exchange (described in detail here) brought together efforts across DoW, including staff from its agencies and components and from DoW externally funded STEM efforts. The consortium management team continued to maintain strong relationships with leaders within Naval STEM and Air & Space STEM Outreach. When the Army launched a new STEM effort (the Army STEM Education Consortium), DSEC began collaboration by sharing the career-connected learning framework, as well as information on the common measures across partners. Within DoW STEM’s own investments, the Consortium Management Committee made regular posts to the DoW STEM Community on Amaze to share relevant information and opportunities across the funding portfolio. Leadership from the SMART Scholarship have joined DSEC Quarterly Meetings to share information about the program, and partners regularly request speakers and promotional items from the SMART Scholarship team as they build awareness of the opportunity.

Deepen data-informed decision-making through collaboration across the consortium

A key prerequisite to the effective use of data for decision-making is a high level of accuracy in the data. During the Base Period, the consortium management team streamlined how partners report their data and increased partner transparency into the data reported. With enhancements made during the Base Period, partners now access the administrative data reporting platform through Amaze. They enter administrative data aligned to each of their specific DSEC-funded programs (pre-populated from their statements of work), eliminating errors that occurred in the past when participants engaged in two or more programs with the same partner.

There is a separate link in Amaze where partners can view the administrative data they have entered and request updates when they realize changes are needed. Administrative data entered into the data reporting system is formatted in the same way as is needed for the BPR. When a program’s participant outcome survey is live, partners can see the number of responses submitted. Being able to see the “live” count of surveys gives partners time to reach back out to their participants to promote survey taking, if needed, which will improve their overall response rate and provide fuller participant-perspective data that can be used to enhance future programming.

The consortium management team uses Quarterly Meetings as opportunities to model the reflective practices needed to use data for decision-making. For example, during the November 2025 Quarterly Meeting, Element 2 led a presentation of consortium-level results from the first year of the Base Period, then transitioned partners into breakout-room discussions to use a protocol to describe, interpret, and draw implications from their data.

Increase consortium engagement with military-connected participants in varied educational settings

During the Base Period, STEM education partners set annual targets for their percentage of military-connected student participants. Setting these targets allows the partners to hold themselves accountable and helps the consortium management team reflect on partners’ successes in the recruitment of military-connected students. Those partners who consistently serve a high percentage of military-connected students, as well as those partners who make progress in increasing their percentage, can share best practices with other consortium members (which occurred during the October 2025 Quarterly Meeting).

The consortium continues to develop relationships that can be leveraged to build partner capacity to identify and serve military-connected participants. During the May 2025 Quarterly Meeting, team members from the partnerships and resources division of the DoW Education Activity (DoWEA) spoke with partners to raise awareness of their external grants program. Because school districts are eligible for the grant program only when their military-connected population is 10% or greater, applicants and successful grantees are excellent outreach targets for DSEC partners looking to serve military-connected students.

Ultimately, the indicator that best captures progress on this continuous improvement concept is the percentage of military-connected students served by DSEC. During the first year of the Base Period, 19.2% of the students served by DSEC partners were military-connected. During the second year, this percentage dropped to 16.9%, indicating the need for this continuous improvement concept to remain an area of focus as the consortium moves into the Option Period.

Our key findings include qualitative and quantitative data provided by STEM Outreach Partners, Hub Leads, and participants themselves. 

Wherever possible we have included comparisons from the first year to the second year of the reporting period. Additionally, given the fluctuation in participant numbers from year-to-year, we have reported in percentages rather than actual numbers to provide a more accurate and fair comparison of the changes from one year to the next.

Evaluation Approach

DSEC evaluation uses a multi-tiered approach, with evaluation questions connected to participants, programs, regional hubs, and the Consortium. Data systems and visualizations support the data collection, analysis and reporting of each evaluation question. 

Evaluation Question 1:	National and Regional Partners, Programs, and Participants
To what extent are programs demonstrating progress toward meeting and achieving near-term participant outcomes and program outputs?
Evaluation Question 2:	Regional Hubs
To what extent are hub regions demonstrating progress toward and achieving intended regional outputs?
Evaluation Question 3:	Consortium
To what extent is the Consortium demonstrating progress toward and achieving intended outputs?
Evaluation Question 4:	Student Follow-Up Study
To what extent is participation in STEM programming associated with DoW STEM's medium and long-term outcomes?
Data Systems and Visualizations

Data Sources 

• Administrative program data submitted annually by DSEC partners following program completion. This includes participant counts, demographics, and location data.
• Participant outcome survey data from students and educators collected directly from participants across all DSEC programs using differentiated surveys based on developmental appropriateness (students) and grade band and discipline (educators).  
• Social networking data collected biannually through a Consortium Hub Health Effectiveness Framework (CHHEF) survey of all DSEC partners to assess patterns and levels of communication and collaboration across the Consortium. 
• Interviews with Hub Lead organizations to assess progress towards their region’s goals. 

Evaluation Question 1: Near-Term Program Outputs

There was an increase in both student and educator participants from the first to the second year.

The overall number of DSEC participants increased from 55,506 in the first year to 89,008 in the second year, an increase of 60.3%. The combined total of participants for both years was 144,514. 

The number of students increased 61.8%, from 53,387 in the first year to 86,371 in the second year. The increase in students served overall can be attributed to several factors:

• The addition of the FIRST Robotics Championship Event in the second year added 23,582 student participants.
• The addition of STEM NOLA as a DSEC partner added three student-focused programs. (1,016 students). 
• Two programs completed full development in the first year and were able to expand programming to students in the second year – SAMSAT DoW STEM Mode and Learning Undefeated DoW Breakout Box. 
• Across student-serving programs, 22 of 50 increased their participant numbers from the first to the second year of Base Period. 

The number of educators increased 24.4%, from 2,119 in the first year to 2,637 in the second year. The increase in educators could be attributed to two main factors:

• The addition of teacher-focused programming at some previously student-only programs.
• The expansion of existing educator-focused programming – NSTA Professional Learning Community of Practice. 

Participant Type	Year 1	Year 2	Change
Students	53,387	86,371	+61.8%
Educators	2,119	2,637	+24.4%
Overall (both groups)	55,506	89,008	+60.3%

Middle and high school students comprised the majority of student participants in both the first and second year.

Secondary school students (grades 6-12) represented over 80% of DSEC participants in both years. Three partners did not collect grade level data in the second year, resulting in an increase in students in Grade level unknown.

Student Grade Level	Year 1	Year 2	Overall
Pre K – 5	11.0%	6.5%	8.2%
Grades 6-8	46.8%	34.9%	39.5%
Grades 9-12	38.5%	48.1%	44.4%
Postsecondary*	1.7%	1.0%	1.3%
Grade level unknown	2.0%	9.5%	6.6%

*Postsecondary includes students in 2-year programs, 4-year programs, and graduate students. It also includes students identified as “not in school,” who are no longer in grades K-12, but who are not enrolled in a formal postsecondary program.

The percentage of military-connected students served decreased from the first to the second year, while the number of military-connected educators remained constant.

While the total number of military-connected student participants increased from the first to the second year, the second year of programming saw a larger gain in students who were not military-connected. Due to this, the overall percentage of military-connected students served decreased from 19.2% in the first year to 16.9% in the second year. 

DoW STEM defines military-connected students as follows:

• Military children: dependents of members of the active-duty armed forces.
• Military-connected: military children plus dependents of members of the National Guard and Reserves

Students	Military-connected	Percentage	Nonmilitary-connected	Percentage
Year 1	10,266	19.2%	43,121	80.8%
Year 2	14,588	16.9%	71,809	83.1%
Overall	24,824	17.8%	114,934	82.2%

Military-connected educators remained fairly constant from year to year, accounting for 5.7% of all educators in the first year and 5.5% of educators in the second year.

Teachers were the most frequent educator participants across both years.

Teachers accounted for more than half of participants in both years, with an increase of 14.6% from the first to the second year. The largest shifts for Other educator type (+12.7%) and Unknown educator type (-20.7%) primarily came from RoboNation’s data submissions for the SeaPerch program.

Educator Type	Year 1	Year 2	Change
Teachers	56.2%	70.8%	+ 14.6%
School administrators	6.4%	2.0%	-4.4%
Counselors	4.0%	<1.0%	- 3.0%
District administrator or staff	3.0%	4.1%	+ 1.1%
Other educator type	5.2%	17.9%	+ 12.7%
Unknown educator type	25.2%	4.5%	-20.7%

The data shows a need to improve data collection for educator grade level. Educator grade level amounts held fairly consistent from year-to-year; however, a large increase in the number of Unknown grade level forced percentage reductions for Grades 6-8 and Grades 9-12 even though there was a slight increase in teacher counts for both of these grade bands. 

For the first year of Base Period, the majority of Unknown grade level came from RoboNation’s Sea Perch program, representing 18.5% of teachers overall. For the second year of Base Period, RoboNation dramatically increased the number of teacher participants, but did not collect grade level information for them (21.4% of teachers overall). Coupled with TIES STEM-on-the-Go Digital Fabrication Fleet, which also did not collect educator grade level (9.3% of teachers overall), these two programs increased the unknown grade level percentage with an 8.3% increase overall for this category.

Educators by Grade Level	Year 1	Year 2	Change
Grades PreK – 5	16.1%	15.3%	- 0.8%
Grades 6-8	16.5%	14.5%	- 2.0%
Grades 9-12	25.8%	21.2%	- 4.6%
Multiple grades*	9.2%	10.2%	+ 1.0%
Postsecondary**	6.8%	5.30	- 1.8%
Unknown grade level	25.5%	33.8%	+8.3%

*Multiple grades include K-12, K-8, 6-12, and Other

** Postsecondary includes 2-year or technical college, 4-year college (undergrad, graduate, post-doctoral)

The overall number of volunteers increased from the first to the second year as more partners reported volunteers working with their programs. 

The number of volunteers increased from 2,373 in the first year to 4,980 in the second year, a 110% increase. The number of programs reporting volunteers increased from 19 in the first year to 26 in the second year, a 37% increase. 

MATHCOUNTS Competition Series and FIRST Championship Season accounted for 69% of all volunteers in the first year. The addition of the FIRST Championship Event in the second year combined with MATHCOUNTS Competition Series accounted for 57% of volunteers, along with FIRST Championship Season at 32%.

FIRST reported the majority of DoW personnel for both years (96% in the first year; 94% in the second year).   

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased student interest and engagement in STEM (formal and informal)

Elementary students

Students in these grades were asked to rate their STEM interest and the extent to which participating in DSEC programming increased their STEM interest. Over 95% of K-8 student DSEC participants are interested in STEM. (n = 1,883). In addition, over 86% of these participants said that DSEC programming increased their interest in STEM (n = 1,355).

Middle school, high school, and postsecondary students

STEM interest and engagement for this group of students was measured through a combination of questions related to future course taking plans, interest in extracurricular pursuits, and intended STEM majors. Over 74% of responding high school participants indicated that they would take more than the required STEM courses for graduation (n = 2,380). When asked about taking advanced STEM courses, such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or dual enrollment, 86% indicated that they would do so (n = 829).  There was insufficient data from this group to report on DSEC programming effects. 

DSEC Near Term Outcome: Increased participant STEM competencies (STEM skills, knowledge, abilities, and confidence) 

Across the consortium, 90% of elementary students (grades K-5) were confident in their STEM ability (n = 1,741). A similar percentage of respondents indicated that DSEC programming helped to increase their confidence (92%, n = 468).

For students at the middle, high, and postsecondary level (grades 6-16), 90% indicated that they were moderately or strongly confident in their STEM ability (n = 2,709). Additionally, 41% indicated that participation in DSEC programming increased their confidence a little, while 40% felt that it increased their confidence a lot (n = 2,700).

For educators, 60% felt that DSEC programming had a moderate influence on their STEM teaching confidence (n = 547). In addition, 93% are confident in their ability to teach STEM and 90% expect their efforts in teaching STEM to yield positive student outcomes (n = 536). 

Increased competencies related to STEM skills, knowledge, and abilities are reported through program outcomes and can be viewed on individual program pages.

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Changes in teacher approaches to teaching about STEM concepts, practices, and careers in their classrooms

About 77% of educators reported using student-centered STEM teaching practices in their classrooms at least half of the time (n = 459). In addition, educators reported that participation in DSEC programming moderately (63%) or slightly (30%) influenced self-perception of their ability to use student-centered teaching practices (n = 548). 

A majority of educators perceived that learning 21^st century skills (goal setting, working with others, managing time, etc.) were important for their students (97%, n = 547). DSEC programming also influenced their perceptions of how essential these skills are with 71% indicating that their perceptions were moderately better (n = 545).

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest, in DSEC opportunities

Educators are often the people who make students aware of educational opportunities. Of those who responded to surveys, 78% felt that participating in DSEC programming moderately or strongly increased their awareness of DoW STEM opportunities available to students (n = 627). Of these respondents, 95% believed that investing in STEM education activities within DoW is good for the future of our country, and 87% perceived it important for DoW to continue investing in STEM education programs (n = 634).

It also bears mentioning that across all three hub regions, the Hub Leads worked to increase DSEC STEM events and program offerings in their local areas, thereby increasing community awareness of DSEC opportunities..

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, STEM research and careers

Elementary students were asked about their interest in pursuing a STEM career, with 70% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were interested (n = 1,755).

Middle school students were asked about both their awareness of and interest in pursuing a STEM career. Of responding participants, 66% indicated moderate or high interest in STEM careers (n = 2,426). Across STEM fields, almost half of students indicated an interest in science of engineering careers, with 44% indicating interest in technology and 35% in math (n = 2,238). DSEC programming had an influence on middle school students’ STEM career knowledge, with 87% of responding students agreeing that participation helped them learn about STEM careers (n =2,438), and 86% agreed that participation increased their interest in STEM careers (n = 2,430).

High school and postsecondary students answered retrospective items collected at a single post-program time point to capture their perceived changes in awareness and interest rather than in separate pre- and post-surveys.

A total of 2,937 students provided complete paired responses to the STEM career awareness measure. Overall, 64.0% (n = 1,879) reported increased awareness following participation, 33.8% (n = 993) reported no change, and 2.2% (n = 65) reported decreased awareness. The median retrospective pre-program awareness rating was some awareness (2, IQR = 1-2), while the median post-program rating increased to a lot of awareness (3, IQR = 2-3). The median change score was 1 (IQR = 0-1), with individual change scores ranging from -3 to +3.

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated a highly significant increase in STEM career awareness following participation (V = 53,679.5; p < .001). The effect was very large, as indicated by the rank-biserial correlation (r_rb = .943). Movement across response categories was overwhelmingly positive. Among students reporting no awareness before the program, only 20.8% remained in the lowest category, whereas nearly half (51.5%) reported either some awareness or a lot of awareness after participation. 

A total of 2,909 students provided complete paired responses for STEM career interest. Overall, 42.3% (n = 1,231) reported increased interest in STEM careers, 54.3% (n = 1,578) reported no change, and 3.4% (n = 100) reported decreased interest. The median retrospective pre-program interest rating was moderately interested (2, IQR = 1-3), and the median post-program rating was also moderately interested (2, IQR = 2-3). The median change score was 0 (IQR = 0-1), with changes ranging from -3 to +3 points. 

Despite the unchanged median, students were significantly more likely to report STEM career interest after participation than before participation (V = 60,146.5; p < .001). Effect size estimates indicated a very strong positive shift (r_rb = .864; r = .796). Notably, among students who reported being not at all interested before the program, approximately two-thirds moved into a higher interest category after participation. Similarly, over 46% of students who initially reported being a little interested moved into either the moderately interested or very interested categories. 

Educators also indicated that participating in DSEC programming increased their awareness of STEM careers (95%, n = 636) as well as increasing their understanding of how to teach students about STEM careers (96%, n = 636). 

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, DoW STEM research and careers

When asked about interest in a DoW STEM career, 31% of middle school students indicated moderate to high interest, with 30% indicating a little bit of interest (n = 2,413). Of these students, 79% agreed that DSEC programming helped them learn about DoW STEM careers. 

High school and postsecondary students answered retrospective items collected at a single post-program time point to capture their perceived changes in awareness and interest rather than in separate pre- and post-surveys.

A total of 2,869 students provided complete paired responses for DoW STEM career awareness. Among these students, 60.3% (n = 1,730) reported increased awareness, 37.2% (n = 1,067) reported no change, and 2.5% (n = 72) reported decreased awareness. The median retrospective pre-program rating was a little bit aware (1, IQR = 0-2), compared with a median post-program rating of some awareness (2, IQR = 1-3). The median change score was 1 (IQR = 0-1), with individual scores ranging from -3 to +3. Wilcoxon signed-rank results indicated a substantial increase in awareness of DoW STEM careers following participation (V = 55,744.0; p < .001). The effect size was very large (r_rb = .931; r = .843). In particular, there were large gains among students with lower initial awareness of DoW STEM careers. Nearly 40% of students who began in the lowest awareness category moved into some awareness or a lot of awareness categories after participating in the program. 

A total of 2,859 students provided complete paired responses for DoW STEM career interest. Overall, 48.6% (n = 1,388) reported increased interest in DoW STEM careers, 48.7% (n = 1,391) reported no change, and 2.8% (n = 80) reported decreased interest. The median retrospective pre-program interest rating was a little interested (1, IQR = 0-2), while median post-program interest rating increased to moderately interested (2, IQR = 1-2). The median change score was 0 (IQR = 0-1), with observed changes ranging from -3 to +3 points. 

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated significantly greater interest in DoW STEM careers following participation (V = 57,583.5; p < .001). Effect size estimates again indicated a very large positive shift (r_rb = .893; r = .823). Students who initially reported the lowest level of interest showed particularly strong gains. More than half of those who reported being not at all interested before participation moved into a higher-interest category after the program. 

Educator responses indicated that many were already somewhat or very familiar with STEM work at DoW (77%, n = 631). Across participants, 93% felt that participation in DSEC programming increased their awareness of DoW STEM careers (n = 631). 

Evaluation Question 2: To what extent are hub regions demonstrating progress toward and achieving intended regional outputs?

Hub regions shared common outcomes in their reporting categories.

Despite contextual differences, the three hub regions (San Antonio, Dayton, and Prince George’s County, Maryland) shared a common outcome in each identified Hub Lead role: 

Network Administrator: Increased the number of local STEM assets identified during their annual mapping activities with area stakeholders.

Catalyst: Developed partnerships with key stakeholder entities that increased the overall DSEC STEM events and program offerings in their local area.

Place-Based Local STEM Leader: Connected with local military partners to increase educational opportunities and raise awareness of STEM careers. 

Career-Connected Pathways Builder: Leveraged industry and DSEC partnerships to raise awareness of STEM careers in the region and increase educational programming focused on career-connected STEM learning. 

Additional information on hub region outcomes will be found in the Hub Health and Effectiveness Evaluation Report 2024-2026 which will be available in December 2026. 

Evaluation Question 3: To what extent is the Consortium demonstrating progress toward and achieving intended outputs?

Consortium connectivity patterns were consistent across years.

Analysis of social network data obtained through the Consortium and Hub Health and Effectiveness Framework survey (administered biannually) showed that connection patterns established early in the first year continued into the second year. This includes total interactions, how closely the Consortium is connected (density), the average number of connections among partners, and the type of interactions. 

Additional information on Consortium health will be available in the Consortium Health and Effectiveness Evaluation Report 2024-2026 available in November 2026.