DIVERSITY IN THE 

TECHNOLOGY 

SECTOR

Federal Agencies 

Could Improve 

Oversight of 

Equal Employment 

Opportunity 

Requirements

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, House of Representatives

November 2017

GAO-18-69

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-69, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, House of Representatives

November 2017

DIVERSITY IN THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR

Federal Agencies Could Improve Oversight 

of Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements

What GAO Found

The estimated percentage of minority technology workers increased from 2005 

to 2015, but GAO found that no growth occurred for female and Black workers, 

whereas Asian and Hispanic workers made statistically significant increases (see 

figure). Further, female, Black, and Hispanic workers remain a smaller proportion 

of the technology workforce—mathematics, computing, and engineering 

occupations—compared to their representation in the general workforce. These 

groups have also been less represented among technology workers inside the 

technology sector than outside it. In contrast, Asian workers were more 

represented in these occupations than in the general workforce. Stakeholders 

and researchers GAO interviewed identified several factors that may have 

contributed to the lower representation of certain groups, such as fewer women 

and minorities graduating with technical degrees and company hiring and 

retention practices. 

Estimated Percentage of Technology Workers by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, 2005-2015

Note: Changes from 2005 to 2015 were statistically significant at p-value <0.05 except for changes 

for female, male, and Black workers. All population estimates have Relative Standard Errors of less 

than 7 percent. “Other” includes American Indian or Alaskan Native, and “Two or More Races”. 

White, Black, Asian, and “Other” categories include only non-Hispanic members.

Both the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP) have taken steps to enforce equal employment and affirmative action 

requirements in the technology sector, but face limitations. While EEOC has 

identified barriers to recruitment and hiring in the technology sector as a strategic 

priority, when EEOC conducts investigations, it does not systematically record 

the type of industry, therefore limiting sector-related analyses to help focus its 

efforts. EEOC has plans to determine how to add missing industry codes but has 

not set a timeframe to do this. In addition, OFCCP’s regulations may hinder its 

ability to enforce contractors’ compliance because OFCCP directs contractors to 

set placement goals for all minorities as a group rather than for specific 

racial/ethnic groups. OFCCP also has not made changes to its establishmentbased approach to selecting entities for review in decades, even though changes 

have occurred in how workplaces are structured. Without taking steps to address 

these issues, OFCCP may miss opportunities to hold contractors responsible for 

complying with affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. 

View GAO-18-69. For more information, 

contact Cindy Brown Barnes at (202) 512-

7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Technology companies are a major 

source of high-paying U.S. jobs, but

some have questioned the sector’s 

commitment to equal employment 

opportunity. EEOC provides federal 

oversight of nondiscrimination 

requirements by investigating charges 

of discrimination, and OFCCP enforces 

federal contractors’ compliance with 

affirmative action requirements. GAO 

was asked to review workforce trends 

in the technology sector and federal 

oversight.

This report examines (1) trends in the 

gender, racial, and ethnic composition 

of the technology sector workforce; 

and (2) EEOC and OFCCP oversight 

of technology companies’ compliance 

with equal employment and affirmative 

action requirements. GAO analyzed 

workforce data from the American 

Community Survey for 2005-2015 and 

EEOC Employer Information Reports 

for 2007-2015, the latest data available 

during our analysis. GAO analyzed 

OFCCP data on compliance 

evaluations for fiscal years 2011-2016. 

GAO interviewed agency officials, 

researchers, and workforce, industry, 

and company representatives.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes 6 recommendations, 

including that EEOC develop a timeline 

to improve industry data collection and 

OFCCP take steps toward requiring 

more specific minority placement goals 

by contractors and assess key aspects 

of its selection approach. EEOC 

neither agreed nor disagreed with its 

recommendation, and OFCCP stated 

the need for regulatory change to alter 

placement goal requirements. GAO 

continues to believe actions are

needed, as discussed in the report.
Page i GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Letter 1

Background 4

Technology Workforce Grew between 2005-2015, but Women and 

Some Minority Groups Continued to be Less Represented 11

EEOC and OFCCP Have Taken Steps to Oversee Equal 

Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Requirements, 

but Face Limitations 30

Conclusions 45

Recommendations for Executive Action 46

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49

Appendix II Technology Occupations 59

Appendix III North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes 

Identified as Technology-Related Industries 61

Appendix IV Percentage by Race/Ethnicity in Different Job Categories in 

Companies Within and Outside the Technology Sector, 2015 63

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 64

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70

Tables

Table 1: Percentage of Women Within the Technology Sector in 

All Job Categories, 2007, 2011, and 2015 21

Table 2: Percentage of All Workers Within the Technology Sector 

by Job Category and Race/Ethnicity, 2007, 2011 and 

2015 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Table 3: Top Industries Employing the Highest Concentration of 

Technology Workers, American Community Survey, 2014 51

Table 4: Cross-walk of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) System Codes to U.S. 

Census Bureau Occupation Codes 59

Table 5: List of North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) Codes Identified as Technology-related 

Industries 61

Table 6: Percentage by Race/Ethnicity in Different Job Categories

in Companies Within and Outside the Technology Sector, 

2015 63

Figures

Figure 1: Top 10 Geographic Areas for Technology Sector 

Employment in the United States, 2014 5

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Workers in Technology 

Workforce and General Workforce by Gender, 2005-2015 13

Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Workers in the Technology 

Workforce and General Workforce by Race/Ethnicity, 

2005-2015 14

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Technology Workforce and 

General Workforce by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2015 15

Figure 5: Estimated Percent of Technology Workers Within and 

Outside the Technology Sector by Race/Ethnicity and 

Gender, 2015 17

Figure 6: Percentage of Workers by Gender in Different Job 

Categories in Companies Within and Outside the 

Technology Sector, 2015 19

Figure 7: Percentage by Minority Status and Race/Ethnicity in 

Different Job Categories in Companies Within and 

Outside the Technology Sector, 2015 22

Figure 8: Proportion of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees Awarded 

by Field and Gender of Recipient, 2014 25

Figure 9: Proportion of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree’s Awarded 

by Field and Race/Ethnicity, 2014 27
Page iii GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Abbreviations

AAP affirmative action program

ACS American Community Survey

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System

EEO-1 Employer Information Report

EEOC U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FAAP Functional Affirmative Action Program

FPDS-NG Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation

IMS Integrated Mission System

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

MOU memorandum of understanding

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

OFCCP Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

S&P Standard & Poor’s

SOC Standard Occupational Classification

STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 16, 2017

The Honorable Robert C. “Bobby” Scott

Ranking Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Scott:

Since the 1990s, the technology sector has become a major source of 

employment in the United States, and the sector is projected to continue 

to grow and produce high-paying jobs. As the technology sector has 

grown, the nation’s overall workforce has become more diverse and this 

trend is expected to continue into the future. Recently, media reports, 

technology workforce organizations, and policymakers have raised 

questions about diversity in the technology sector workforce and the 

extent to which companies are making changes to improve diversity and 

prevent discrimination. Diversity has been a focus not only because of 

concerns about equal access to these growing and high paying jobs, but 

because studies have associated a diversity of perspectives with 

enhanced innovation and other business advantages. Federal law 

promotes equal employment opportunity by prohibiting companies from 

discriminating in employment on the basis of race and gender, among 

other things, and generally requires companies contracting with the 

federal government to comply with affirmative action and other equal 

employment opportunity provisions. The U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) are the 

primary federal agencies that enforce these requirements.

You asked us to review gender, ethnic, and racial diversity trends in 

technology companies and federal oversight of antidiscrimination laws in 

this sector. This report examines (1) the demographic trends in the 

representation of women and racial and ethnic groups in the technology 

sector for the last 10 years, and (2) the efforts by EEOC and OFCCP to 

oversee technology companies’ and technology contractors’ compliance 

with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements.

There is no common definition of technology workers or which industries 

comprise the technology sector. Therefore for this report, we defined 

technology workers as people who work in occupations in the fields of 

computing, engineering, and mathematics. We defined the technology 

sector as a group of industries with the highest concentration of 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

technology workers, such as computer systems design and software 

publishing, which is an approach similar to what other federal agencies 

have used recently to analyze trends within this sector.1 To describe the 

demographic trends within the technology workforce from 2005 through 

2015, we analyzed workforce data from the American Community Survey 

(ACS) administered by the U.S. Census Bureau and from the EEOC’s 

Employer Information Reports (EEO-1). 

For this report, we used ACS data to estimate populations in technology 

occupations which we refer to as technology workers, or the technology 

workforce. We compared the technology workforce to the general 

workforce, which we defined as workers in all other occupations, 

excluding workers in technology occupations, as a benchmark to 

understand trends for the technology workforce in the context of overall 

workforce trends.

2 In addition, we conducted further analysis of ACS data 

to compare technology workers within and outside the technology sector. 

Using EEO-1 data, we also analyzed workforce trends among similar 

occupations in the workforces of companies within and outside the 

technology sector. Our analysis was not designed to determine the 

presence or absence of discrimination. 

To understand diversity in academic preparation for technology 

occupations, we reviewed 2014 degree completion data from the National 

Center for Educational Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) as tabulated by the National Science Foundation.3

Using a variety of sources, such as academic research and interviews 

with representatives from academia, we defined technology-related fields

 1

We identified 15 industries with the highest concentration of technology workers using 

Census industry codes. The concentration of technology workers in these industries 

ranged from a high of 62.2 percent in the computer systems design and related services

industry to a low of 19.33 percent in the wired telecommunications carriers industry. See 

appendix I for more information regarding our industry selection, including the specific 

industries we included. Appendix II provides a list of the specific occupations we included 

in our analysis as technology occupations to identify the technology workforce. Appendix 

III provides the North American Industry Classification System codes for the industries we 

identified with the highest concentration of technology workers. 

2

For this analysis, we excluded individuals in the Armed Forces and those not in the labor 

force. We included individuals identified as 1) civilian employed, at work, 2) civilian 

employed, with a job but not at work, and 3) unemployed.

3

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 

Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015.

Special Report NSF 15-311. Arlington, VA.
Page 3 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

as degree programs in computer science, engineering, and mathematics.

Through a review of documentation, electronic testing, and/or interviews 

with agency officials knowledgeable about the data, we found these data 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To review EEOC and OFCCP’s oversight efforts related to technology 

companies’ and federal technology contractors’ compliance with federal 

equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements, we 

reviewed relevant federal statutes, regulations, and agency policies and 

conducted interviews with agency officials. We analyzed OFCCP data on 

affirmative action compliance evaluations from fiscal year 2011 through 

2016. We assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing agency 

documentation and interviewing agency officials, and we determined that 

the OFCCP data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.4

Additionally, we interviewed academics and representatives from 

workforce and industry organizations that either promote diversity or 

advocate for the technology sector, as well as representatives of eight 

information technology companies who work on diversity and inclusion 

and compliance issues, to obtain information about challenges and 

opportunities for diversity in the sector, and perspectives on federal 

oversight of antidiscrimination laws.5 The views expressed by the 

companies’ representatives may not be representative of all technology 

companies on these issues. See appendix I for more information on our 

methodology.

 4

We did not evaluate the agencies’ specific procedures for handling complaints or 

investigations. Also, our review was focused only on their activities with respect to 

race/ethnicity and gender. We previously reported on OFCCP’s oversight procedures in 

September 2016. See GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity: Strengthening Oversight 

Could Improve Federal Contractor Nondiscrimination Compliance, GAO-16-750 

(Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2016). We have also previously reported on EEOC’s 

private sector enforcement program. See GAO, Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission: Sharing Promising Practices and Fully Implementing Strategic Human 

Capital Planning Can Improve Management of Growing Workload, GAO-08-589 

(Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2008) and EEOC: Burgeoning Workload Calls for New 

Approaches, GAO/T-HEHS-95-170 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 1995).

5

The eight companies were among the top 67 information technology companies identified 

on the Standard & Poor’s 500 list of the nation’s leading companies. We refer to these 67 

companies as “leading technology companies” in this report. We identified for interviews 

the top companies from this list of information technology companies that were located in 

the San Francisco Bay area and were also federal contractors at some point between 

fiscal year 2011 and 2016. 
Page 4 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to November 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The technology sector has major employment hubs across the country, 

including the San Francisco Bay area, the greater New York City region, 

and the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria region (see fig. 1). In addition, 

technology workers are employed at companies outside the technology 

sector, such as in the retail or financial services industries.6 For example, 

a large retail company may require technology workers to create and 

manage their online sales activities, but the company itself would be 

considered part of the retail industry.

 6

Technology companies also include workers in occupations beyond those related to 

mathematics, computing, or engineering such as attorneys, human resource professionals 

and sales support staff. 

Background

Technology Sector
Page 5 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Figure 1: Top 10 Geographic Areas for Technology Sector Employment in the United States, 2014

Note: For the graphic, we rounded to the nearest hundred. According to EEOC, EEO-1 Single, 

Headquarters, and Establishment Reports were used for this analysis. 
Page 6 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Private companies are generally prohibited by federal law from 

discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin, age, and disability status.7 Additionally, federal contractors 

and subcontractors are generally required to take affirmative action to 

ensure that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to 

race, sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender 

identity, and to employ or advance in employment qualified individuals 

with disabilities and qualified covered veterans.8 EEOC is responsible for 

enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws, and OFCCP enforces 

affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements for federal 

contractors. EEOC and OFCCP have some shared activities and have 

established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to minimize any 

duplication of effort. For example, under the MOU, individual complaints 

filed with OFCCP alleging discrimination under Title VII are generally 

 7

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employers with 15 or more 

employees from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), 2000e-2(a). The Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employers from discriminating in employment on the 

basis of age, defined as being age 40 and over. 29 U.S.C. §§ 623, 631(a). The Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from 

discriminating in employment on the basis of disability, among other things. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12111(5), 12112. Whether a specific employer would be a covered entity under these 

statutes would depend on meeting requirements unique to each statute, as well as agency 

regulations and legal precedent. 

8

Executive Order 11246 prohibits covered federal contractors—generally, holders of 

federal contracts and subcontracts of over $10,000—from discriminating in employment 

decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 

national origin. It also requires these contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that 

equal employment opportunity is provided in employment without regard to these 

protected characteristics. Under OFCCP’s implementing regulations, non-construction 

contractors with contracts of $50,000 or more and 50 or more employees must develop 

and maintain a written affirmative action program, including an affirmative action plan. 

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires covered federal contractors and 

subcontractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified 

individuals with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 793. The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment 

Assistance Act of 1974 requires covered contractors to take affirmative action to employ 

and advance in employment qualified covered veterans. 38 U.S.C. § 4212(a). 

Federal Requirements 

Related to Equal 

Employment Opportunity 

and Affirmative Action
Page 7 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

referred to EEOC.9 In addition, on occasions when EEOC receives a 

complaint not within its purview, such as cases that involve veteran 

status, but over which it believes OFCCP has jurisdiction, it will refer the 

complaint to OFCCP.

The EEOC, created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces 

federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, 

sex, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability.10 As the nation’s 

primary enforcer of antidiscrimination laws, EEOC investigates charges of 

employment discrimination from the public, litigates major cases, and 

conducts outreach to prevent discrimination by educating employers and 

workers. In fiscal year 2016, EEOC received about 91,500 charges, 

secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination, and filed 114 

lawsuits.11

According to EEOC, many states, counties, cities, and towns have their 

own laws prohibiting discrimination, usually similar to those EEOC 

enforces, as well as agencies responsible for enforcing those laws, called 

Fair Employment Practices Agencies. However, in some cases, these 

agencies enforce laws that offer greater protection to workers. An 

individual can file a charge with either the EEOC or with a Fair 

Employment Practices Agency. When an individual initially files with a 

Fair Employment Practices Agency that has a worksharing agreement 

with the EEOC, and the allegation is covered by a law enforced by the 

EEOC, the Fair Employment Practices Agency will dual file the charge 

with EEOC (meaning EEOC will receive a copy of the charge), but will 

usually retain the charge for processing. If the charge is initially filed with 

 9

Under the MOU, all complaints of employment discrimination filed with OFCCP alleging a 

Title VII basis (race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or retaliation) shall be received as 

complaints simultaneously dual-filed under Title VII. OFCCP acts as EEOC’s agent for the 

purposes of receiving the Title VII component of these complaints. When OFCCP receives 

such a complaint and determines that the employer is not a federal contractor subject to 

Executive Order 11246, it shall transfer the complaint to EEOC. OFCCP will retain, 

investigate, process, and resolve complaints alleging discrimination of a systemic or class 

nature on a Title VII basis in dual-filed complaints. Under the MOU, OFCCP can also 

retain certain individual complaints so as to avoid duplication and ensure effective law 

enforcement. See Coordination of Functions; Memorandum of Understanding, 76 Fed. 

Reg. 71,029 (Nov. 16, 2011). 

10EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, and Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 

among others. 

11EEOC reported it resolved 97,443 charges and 139 lawsuits in fiscal year 2016. 

U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission
Page 8 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

EEOC and the charge is also covered by state or local law, EEOC dual 

files the charge with the state or local Fair Employment Practices Agency 

(meaning the Fair Employment Practices Agency will receive a copy of 

the charge), but EEOC ordinarily retains the charge for processing.

EEOC also pursues a limited number of cases each year designed to 

combat systemic discrimination, defined by the agency as patterns or 

practices where the alleged discrimination presented by a complainant 

has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic 

location. EEOC can also initiate a systemic investigation under Title VII 

with the approval of an EEOC commissioner, called a “commissioner 

charge”, provided the commissioner finds there is a reasonable basis for 

the investigation.12 In addition, EEOC district directors can approve 

systemic investigations, called “directed investigations” which are initiated 

by EEOC field office directors under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act.13

Under Title VII, EEOC generally requires that large employers and nonexempt federal contractors file Employer Information Reports (EEO-1 

reports) annually,14 which collect employees’ demographic data by 

business location on sex, race, and ethnic group for 10 occupational job 

categories.15 According to EEOC documentation, EEO-1 data are used in 

investigations of Title VII violations, litigation, research, comparative 

analyses, class action suits, and affirmative action plans.

The OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that the nearly 200,000 federal 

contractor establishments comply with federal nondiscrimination and 

affirmative action requirements. Under Executive Order 11246 and other 

federal laws and regulations, covered federal contractors and 

 1242 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(b), 29 C.F.R. § 1601.11. 

1329 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).

14Private employers with 100 or more employees and all non-exempt federal prime 

contractors or first-tier subcontractors who have 50 or more employees and have a federal 

contract, subcontract or purchase order of $50,000 or more are required to file an EEO-1 

report for each applicable establishment. EEOC collects these data under the authority of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its implementing regulations. 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c); 29 C.F.R. pt. 1602. 

15The 10 different job categories include (1) Executive/Senior Level Officials and 

Managers, (2) First/Mid Level Officials and Managers, (3) Professionals, (4) Technicians, 

(5) Sales Workers, (6) Administrative Support Workers, (7) Craft Workers, (8) Operatives, 

(9) Laborers and Helpers, and (10) Service Workers. 

Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs
Page 9 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating in employment on the 

basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 

national origin and are required to take affirmative action to help ensure 

that all applicants and employees are treated without regard to these 

factors.16 In general, OFCCP’s regulations require covered contractors to 

comply with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and 

provide for enforcement procedures such as compliance evaluations and 

complaint investigations to assist OFCCP in ensuring federal contractor 

compliance with these regulations.

Among other provisions, OFCCP’s regulations generally require that 

covered contractors prepare and maintain an affirmative action program 

(AAP).17 Under OFCCP’s regulations, an AAP is a management tool that 

is designed to ensure equal employment opportunity, with an underlying 

premise that the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of a contractor’s 

workforce should be representative of the labor pools from which the 

contractor recruits and selects.18 Companies must create an AAP for 

each business establishment—generally, a physical facility or unit that 

produces the goods or services, such as a factory, office, or store for the 

federal contractor.19 An AAP will also include any practical steps to 

address underrepresentation of women and minorities, such as 

expanding employment opportunities to underrepresented groups. 

Covered contractors must also comply with certain recordkeeping 

 16In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which initially prohibited 

contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, or 

national origin, and has since been amended to also cover sex, sexual orientation, and 

gender identity. OFCCP was established in 1965. OFCCP also enforces Section 503 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance 

Act of 1974, all as amended, which apply to federal contractors and subcontractors if they 

meet specific criteria, including contract dollar amount and employee count thresholds. 

However, OFCCP’s enforcement of these statutes regarding disabilities and veterans is 

outside the scope of this review.

17Generally, non-construction contractors that have 50 or more employees and a contract 

above $50,000 amount are required to prepare an AAP within 120 days of the 

commencement of the contract, and annually update the AAP. See generally 41 C.F.R. §§ 

60-2.1 to 60-2.35.

1841 C.F.R. § 60-2.10(a)(1). 

1941 C.F.R. § 60-2.1(b). A contractor must develop and maintain a written AAP for each of 

its establishments if it has 50 or more employees. 
Page 10 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

requirements, including records pertaining to hiring, promotion, lay off or 

termination, rates of pay, and applications, among other records.20

OFCCP’s enforcement program represents the majority of the agency’s 

activity and is carried out primarily by using compliance officers, who 

evaluate contractors’ compliance with various requirements, according to 

agency officials. In addition to conducting compliance evaluations, 

OFCCP also conducts investigations in response to complaints. In 2016, 

we reported that according to OFCCP officials, responding to complaints 

accounted for close to 16 percent of OFCCP’s enforcement activities.21

OFCCP selects contractor establishments for evaluations based on a 

number of neutrally applied factors, such as employee count at the 

establishment, contract value, or contract expiration date.22 We previously 

found that OFCCP reviews, on average, 2 percent of federal contractor 

establishments annually.23

As we previously reported, as part of its compliance evaluations, OFCCP 

is to review the selected contractor’s hiring, promotion, compensation, 

termination, and other employment practices to determine whether 

contractors are maintaining nondiscriminatory hiring and employment 

practices.24 OFCCP conducts evaluations at the establishment level.25

When a contractor establishment is selected for evaluation, OFCCP 

sends the contractor a “scheduling letter” requesting the AAP and 

 2041 C.F.R. § 60-1.12.

21The agency also carries out compliance assistance efforts, which generally include 

conducting outreach to contractors and issuing guidance. See GAO-16-750.

22OFCCP’s process for identifying establishments under its jurisdiction requires pulling 

information from multiple information sources, such as federal acquisition and 

procurement databases, EEO-1 reports, Dun & Bradstreet data, and U.S. Census Bureau 

data. 

23GAO-16-750. 

24GAO-16-750. 

25If OFCCP determines that a business is subject to OFCCP’s jurisdiction because of a 

federal contract, it may determine that all of the business’s establishments or facilities, 

including subsidiaries, are subject to the federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action 

requirements, regardless of where the federal contract is held. Executive Order 11246 

requires every government contract, except those exempted by the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL), to include nondiscrimination and affirmative action provisions, but allows 

DOL to provide, by rule, regulation, or order, for the exemption of facilities of a contractor 

that are “in all respects separate and distinct from activities of the contractor related to the 

performance of the contract.” See 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.5(b)(2). 
Page 11 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

supporting data, such as the percentage of women and minority staff at 

the workplace by job group. Then, a compliance officer is to conduct a 

desk audit, which is an off-site review of the submitted materials. If 

necessary, the compliance officer may also conduct an on-site review or 

further off-site analysis to make a final determination as to whether the 

contractor is in compliance. In addition to looking at whether federal 

contractors maintain nondiscriminatory hiring and employment practices, 

which can result in finding discrimination violations, OFCCP also 

frequently finds other types of violations, such as failure to keep 

necessary records or conduct annual reviews of equal employment and 

affirmative action efforts. These findings by the agency often require 

administrative changes on the part of the contractor, such as improved 

record-keeping. There are many different forms of remedies for 

discrimination violations, including financial, employment, and 

organizational change remedies.26 Although rare, under some 

circumstances, OFCCP may bar a contractor from doing business with 

the government.

 26OFCCP resolves most violations with conciliation agreements—agreements between 

OFCCP and the contractor—that outline remedial action that contractors agree to take to 

correct violations. These agreements may require the contractor to use a range of 

remedies depending on the facts of the case, including corrective remedies and makewhole relief. 

Technology 

Workforce Grew 

between 2005-2015, 

but Women and 

Some Minority 

Groups Continued to 

be Less Represented
Page 12 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

From 2005 to 2015, the estimated number of workers in the technology

workforce—people who worked in mathematics, computing, or 

engineering occupations—increased at a higher rate (24 percent) than 

the estimated number of workers in the general workforce (9 percent), 

according to ACS data.27 In 2015, the technology workforce comprised an 

estimated 7.5 million workers, an increase of slightly over 1.4 million 

workers since 2005.28 (For a complete list of the occupations we include 

as technology occupations, see appendix II).

Most technology workers have a college degree and have a higher 

median income than workers in the general workforce. Specifically, in 

2015, an estimated 69 percent of technology workers held at least a 

bachelor’s degree, compared to 31 percent of workers in the general 

workforce.29 In 2015, the estimated median income for technology 

workers was $81,000 compared to $42,000 for the general workforce.

 27In this report, the general workforce refers to workers in all other occupations, excluding 

workers in technology occupations. While this comparison includes workers who do not 

have qualifications similar to technology workers, it illustrates how changes in worker 

demography contrast with trends among highly paid technology workers. Later in our 

report, we provide specific comparisons between technology workers inside and outside 

the technology sector. For comparisons of ACS data over time, we tested all changes for 

technology workers and the general workforce from 2005 to 2015 for statistical 

significance at the p-value<.0.05 and all findings were significant unless otherwise noted 

in the text. All population estimates used in this report have less than 7 percent of Relative 

Standard Errors.

28Technology workers made up an estimated 4.6 percent of all workers in the overall 

workforce. 

29This includes bachelor’s, master’s, professional, and doctorate degrees.

Compared to General 

Workforce, the Technology 

Workforce Grew at a 

Higher Rate and 

Continued to be More 

Educated and Better Paid

Women and Certain 

Minority Groups Continued 

to be Less Represented in 

the Technology Workforce 

and Sector
Page 13 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

From 2005 to 2015, the percentage of women in the technology 

workforce remained flat and women remained a smaller proportion of the 

technology workforce compared to their representation in the general 

workforce.30 In 2015, women represented 22 percent (about 1.6 million 

workers) of workers in technology occupations, compared to 48.7 percent 

of workers in the general workforce (see fig. 2).

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Workers in Technology Workforce and General 

Workforce by Gender, 2005-2015

a

The change for female and male workers was not statistically significant between 2005 and 2015.

Note: For the graphic, we rounded to the nearest whole number. For comparisons of ACS data over 

time, we tested whether changes from 2005 to 2015 were statistically significant at the p-value <0.05 

level. All population estimates used in this report have Relative Standard Errors of less than 7 

percent.

Although the estimated percentage of minority technology workers as a 

whole had grown since 2005, we found that this trend did not apply to 

Black technology workers. Specifically, from 2005 through 2015, although 

the number of Black workers increased as the technology workforce 

grew, there was no statistically significant change in their representation 

as a percentage of the entire technology workforce.31 In contrast, from 

 30Although the number of women in the technology workforce grew by an estimated 

317,000 since 2005, the percentage of women in the technology workforce has remained 

flat since that time due to overall workforce growth.

31Since 2005, Black technology workers increased by an estimated 115,000 to total nearly 

500,000 workers in 2015.

Comparison of Technology 

Workforce to General 

Workforce, by Gender and 

Race
Page 14 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

2005 to 2015, Hispanic and Asian technology workers had statistically 

significant increases in their representation in the technology workforce.32

Even with the increase in their numbers in the technology workforce, 

Black and Hispanic technology workers remained a smaller proportion of 

these workers compared to their representation in the general workforce. 

In contrast, Asian workers were an increasing share of the technology 

workforce, where they remained more represented than they were in the 

general workforce (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Workers in the Technology Workforce and General Workforce by Race/Ethnicity, 2005-2015

a

The change for Black workers was not statistically significant between 2005 and 2015.

Note: In 2015, there were an estimated 7.5 million technology workers. For the graphic, we rounded 

to the nearest whole percentage point. Race categories shown here and in other presentations of 

ACS data in this report include only non-Hispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other 

 32Since 2005, Hispanic technology workers increased by an estimated 218,000 to total 

about 540,000 workers in 2015, and Asian technology workers increased by an estimated 

440,000 to total about 1.2 million workers in 2015. This analysis includes data the Census 

Bureau collects from foreign-born persons. The Census Bureau collects data from all 

foreign-born persons who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal 

immigration status. The foreign-born population includes anyone who is not a U.S. citizen 

at birth. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data, in fiscal year 2015, 

approximately 77 percent of H-1B visas granted that year were to workers for computer, 

architecture, engineering, math or physical science occupations, and 81 percent of H-1B 

visa recipients were from India and China.
Page 15 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

categories. For the Asian category, we include Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander. The Hispanic category incorporates Hispanics of all races. Our analysis included American 

Indian or Alaskan Native, and “Two or More Races,” in the category reported as “Other.” All 

population estimates used in this report have Relative Standard Errors of less than 7 percent. For 

comparisons of ACS data over time, we tested the statistical significance of changes from 2005 to 

2015 for each race and all changes were significant at the p-value < 0.05 level unless otherwise 

noted.

We found that when we examined gender representation for each 

minority group, both Black and Hispanic men and women were less 

represented in the technology workforce compared to their representation 

in the general workforce. The same was true for White women, whereas 

White men, Asian men, and Asian women were more represented in the 

technology workforce compared to their representation in the general 

workforce (see fig. 4).

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Technology Workforce and General Workforce by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 2015

Note: Race categories shown here and in other presentations of ACS data in this report include only 

non-Hispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other categories. For the Asian category, we 

include Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The Hispanic category 

incorporates Hispanic workers of all races. Our analysis included American Indian or Alaskan Native, 

and “Two or More Races,” in the category reported as “Other.” All population estimates used in this 

report have Relative Standard Errors of less than 7 percent. We tested the statistical significance of 

differences between the technology workforce and general workforce for each group and all 

differences were statistically significant at the p-value <0.05 level.
Page 16 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

We defined the technology sector as those companies that have the 

highest concentration of technology workers and are in such industries as 

computer systems design and software publishing. Companies 

categorized as outside the technology sector, for example, retail or 

finance companies, may still employ some technology workers.33

However, we found differences in median incomes for technology workers 

within and outside the technology sector. In 2015, technology workers 

employed in the technology sector earned an estimated median income 

of $89,000 compared to median incomes of $78,000 for those working 

outside the technology sector.

We also compared the characteristics of technology workers within the 

technology sector and outside the technology sector, and found male and 

Asian technology workers were relatively more represented in the 

technology sector than outside the technology sector. Similar to the lower 

representation of female, Black, and Hispanic technology workers in 

technology occupations, we found technology workers from these groups 

were also more likely to work outside the technology sector than in the 

technology sector. For example, according to our analysis of 2015 ACS 

data, women represented an estimated 18 percent of all technology 

workers employed in the technology sector, compared to 25 percent of all 

technology workers employed outside the technology sector (see fig. 5).

White technology workers were also more represented outside the 

technology sector than within the technology sector. 

 33For example, technology workers comprised about 62 percent of workers in industries 

such as computer systems design and related services and 44 percent of workers in 

software publishing. Technology workers outside the technology sector may include, for 

example, in-house help desk or systems engineers who work for non-technology 

companies (like retail or finance). For a list of industries with the highest concentrations of 

technology workers, which we included in our definition of the technology sector, see table 

3 in appendix I. 

Comparison of Technology 

Workers Within and Outside 

the Technology Sector
Page 17 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Figure 5: Estimated Percent of Technology Workers Within and Outside the Technology Sector by Race/Ethnicity and Gender, 

2015

a

We tested the statistical significance of differences in the representation of technology workers in the 

technology sector compared to those outside the technology sector for each gender and race/ethnic 

group shown. We found all the differences were statistically significant at the p-value <0.05 level for 

each group except for “Other” races.

Note: Race categories shown here and in other presentations of ACS data in this report include only 

non-Hispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other categories. For the Asian category, we 

include Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The Hispanic category 

incorporates Hispanic workers of all races. Our analysis included American Indian or Alaskan Native, 

and “Two or More Races,” in the category reported as “Other.” All population estimates used in this 

report have Relative Standard Errors of less than 7 percent.

Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical workers 

such as sales people, and the lower representation of women and certain 

minorities in the technology sector was also present in such non-technical 

job categories.34 According to our analysis of EEO-1 data, women were 

less represented across the full range of management and nonmanagement positions at companies within the technology sector, 

including at leading technology companies, compared to their 

 34Eight percent of workers within companies that report EEO-1 data are employed within 

the technology sector. 

Employment Within and 

Outside the Technology Sector 

by Occupation
Page 18 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

representation in companies outside the technology sector.35 We 

determined this by comparing specific occupations at companies both 

within and outside the technology sectors using 2015 EEO-1 data.36 For 

example, women held about 19 percent of senior-level management 

positions at companies in the technology sector compared to nearly 31 

percent of such positions at companies outside the technology sector in 

2015. Women were also less represented in all of the remaining job 

categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and all other 

jobs) in the technology sector.37 (See fig. 6.)

 35We selected the leading information technology companies using Standard & Poor’s 

(S&P) 500 Information Technology Index list, which identifies the largest public information 

technology companies at a given time. In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 

independent companies in the world that have stocks trading within the United States, and 

we analyzed EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies. We modified the list of companies 

for analysis to account for mergers and other company restructuring. 

36EEO-1 data contains firm-level data that is annually submitted to EEOC generally by 

private-sector firms with at least 100 employees or federal contractors with at least 50 

employees that have a contract, subcontract or purchase order amounting to $50,000 or 

more. 

37The EEO-1 form collects data on 10 major job categories including: 1) Executives, 

Senior Level Officials and Managers; 2) First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers; 3) 

Professionals; 4) Technicians; 5) Sales Workers; 6) Administrative Support Workers; 7) 

Craft Workers; 8) Operatives; 9) Laborers and Helpers; and 10) Service Workers. In our 

analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative support workers, craft 

workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers. According to EEOC, most 

of the technology occupations that we consider as part of the technology workforce are 

included in the professional category. For the first/mid-level officials and managers 

category, we refer to this category as mid-level managers in this report.
Page 19 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Figure 6: Percentage of Workers by Gender in Different Job Categories in Companies Within and Outside the Technology 

Sector, 2015

Note: These percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. In our analysis, “all other jobs” 

combines sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and 

helpers, and service workers. We selected the leading information technology companies using 

Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Information Technology Index, which identifies the largest public 

information technology companies at a given time. In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 

independent companies in the world that have stocks trading within the United States, and we 

analyzed EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies. We modified the list of companies for analysis to 

account for mergers and other company restructuring. In our analyses, there is overlap between 

workers in leading technology companies and in the technology sector. However, the leading 

companies represent multiple lines of business across additional industry codes; therefore the 

analysis of leading companies includes additional workers outside of the technology industries we 

identified. See appendix I for more information. There were about 800,000 workers in the analysis for 

the leading technology companies, and 4.7 million workers in the technology sector analysis.

Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time for 2007, 2011, and 2015, 

we found women’s representation in management positions as well as 

among professionals and technicians at companies within the technology 

sector remained at about the same level, and decreased for “all other 

jobs” (see table 1).
Page 20 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector
Page 21 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Table 1: Percentage of Women Within the Technology Sector in All Job Categories, 2007, 2011, and 2015

Percentage of Women in Job Positions Within the Technology Sector

2007 2011 2015

Senior Officers and Managers 18.0 18.5 19.4 

Mid-level Officers and Managers 28.3 27.8 28.8 

Professionals 29.8 29.7 30.2 

Technicians 21.0 21.9 20.7 

All Other Jobs 48.2 44.9 43.0 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Employer Information Report (EEO-1) data. | GAO-18-69

Note: The percentages were rounded to the first decimal. This analysis includes data from leading 

technology companies. In our analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative 

support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers.

Similar to women, Black and Hispanic workers were less represented 

across multiple job categories in companies within the technology sector 

compared to those outside the technology sector (see fig.7).

38 For 

example, 1.8 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector 

were Black compared to 3.4 percent of senior level managers in all other 

sectors. Appendix IV provides percentages for each minority group in 

different job categories within and outside the technology sector. The 

lower representation of Black workers in the technology sector relative to 

their representation in other sectors was consistent across all job 

categories (mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other 

jobs”). Hispanic workers were less represented in the technology sector 

compared to outside the technology sector across all job categories 

(senior and mid-level managers, professionals, technicians, and “all other 

jobs”). Compared to their representation across job categories within the 

technology sector in general, Black and Hispanic workers had slightly 

greater representation at the leading technology companies in senior 

management and technician categories, and lower representation among 

mid-level managers, professionals, and holders of “all other jobs.”

Asian workers comprised a greater proportion of managerial and 

professional roles in the technology sector than in other sectors, 

according to our analysis of 2015 EEO-1 data. Asian workers represented 

11.0 percent of senior level managers in the technology sector compared 

 38On the EEO-1 form, employers are directed to report on the number of employees that 

are Hispanic separately from race categories. For example, an employee may be reported 

as Hispanic or Black, but not both.
Page 22 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

to 4.3 percent in industries outside the technology sector. This higher 

representation of Asian workers in the technology sector was consistent 

among mid-level managers, professionals and technicians. Asian workers 

were more represented in the same categories at the leading technology 

companies. However, a lower proportion of Asian workers held senior 

management positions compared to their representation in professional 

positions in both the technology sector and leading technology 

companies. Further, the proportion of Asian workers in mid-level 

management positions was also lower than their representation in 

professional positions, from which mid-level managers might be selected, 

in both the technology sector and leading technology companies. In 

contrast, a higher proportion of White workers were in senior and midlevel management positions compared to their representation in 

professional positions in both the technology sector and leading 

technology companies.

Figure 7: Percentage by Minority Status and Race/Ethnicity in Different Job Categories in Companies Within and Outside the 

Technology Sector, 2015

Note: These percentages were rounded to the nearest number. These percentages do not add to 100 

percent because an additional category, “two or more races,” is not depicted due to its small size. 

Two or more races represented a total of nearly 2 percent of workers in the leading technology 

companies and technology sector category and slightly over 2 percent of workers outside the 

technology sector. In our analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative support 

workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers. We selected the 

leading information technology companies using Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Information 

Technology Index list, which identifies the largest public information technology companies at a given 

time. In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 independent companies in the world that have stocks 

trading within the United States, and we analyzed EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies. We

modified the list of companies for analysis to account for mergers and other company restructuring. In 
Page 23 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

our analyses, there is overlap between workers in leading technology companies and in the 

technology sector. However, the leading companies represent multiple lines of business across 

additional industry codes; therefore the analysis of leading companies includes additional workers 

outside of the technology industries we identified. See appendix I for more information. There were 

about 800,000 workers in the analysis for the leading technology companies, and 4.7 million workers 

in the technology sector analysis.

Comparing EEO-1 data at three points in time—2007, 2011, and 2015—

we saw varied representation across job categories in the technology 

sector by race/ethnicity. For example, Black workers decreased in their 

representation in all job categories in the technology sector from 2007 to 

2015. In contrast, Hispanic and Asian workers increased in their 

representation in all job categories we examined from 2007 to 2015 (see 

table 2).

Table 2: Percentage of All Workers Within the Technology Sector by Job Category and Race/Ethnicity, 2007, 2011 and 2015

Percentage of White 

Workers in Job Position

Percentage of Asian 

Workers in Job Position

Percentage of Hispanic 

Workers in Job Position

Percentage of Black 

Workers in Job Position

2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015 2007 2011 2015

Senior Officers and 

Managers

86.4 84.4 83.0 8.1 9.8 11.0 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.1 1.8

Mid-level Officers 

and Managers

80.7 78.9 75.0 8.7 11.0 14.1 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.4 4.5 4.4

Professionals 72.5 69.8 67.1 16.6 18.8 20.5 4.6 4.9 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.3

Technicians 71.4 70.2 68.2 9.3 9.9 10.4 8.7 9.3 10.2 9.6 9.0 8.9

All Other Jobs 64.8 65.3 63.4 7.5 7.9 8.4 11.9 12.0 12.4 14.7 13.0 13.3

Total 71.2 70.1 67.7 11.5 13.4 15.0 7.5 7.4 7.7 9.0 7.8 7.7

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Employer Information Report (EEO-1) data. | GAO-18-69

Note: The percentages were rounded to the first decimal. This analysis includes leading technology 

companies. In our analysis, “all other jobs” combines sales workers, administrative support workers, 

craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers.

Several factors may contribute to the lower representation of female, 

Hispanic, and Black workers in the technology workforce and at 

companies in the technology sector, based on research and interviews 

with researchers and representatives from workforce and industry 

organizations and technology companies. These include the lower 

diversity of degree earners in technology-related fields, and companybased factors such as hiring practices and retention of women and 

underrepresented minorities.

The smaller proportion of women in the technology workforce may reflect 

the number of women earning technology-related degrees. Slightly over 

Several Factors May 

Contribute to the Lower 

Representation of Women 

and Certain Minority 

Groups in the Technology 

Workforce
Page 24 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

two-thirds of technology workers report having earned their bachelor’s 

degree in a computer, engineering, mathematics, or technology field.

39

However, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, the percentage 

of technology-related bachelor’s and master’s degrees earned by women 

is far less than for men, although women were comparable to men in their 

receipt of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees, 

and surpassed men in obtaining degrees in all other fields.

40 In 2014, 

about 60,000 women were awarded technology-related bachelor’s or 

master’s degrees (compared to about 50,000 in 2004) and about 190,000 

men were awarded such degrees (compared to about 147,000 in 2004). 

(See fig. 8.) An estimated 218,000 technology workers were added to the 

technology workforce in 2015, according to our analysis of 2015 

American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In 

addition, technology degrees are also issued at the associate’s level. 

 39To conduct this analysis, we analyzed data from the 2014 ACS 1-Year Public Use 

Microdata Sample on field of degree for bachelor’s degree. We identified bachelor’s 

degrees that are technology-oriented as those within the following four fields: computing, 

engineering, mathematics, and technology. 

40We relied on analysis of IPEDS data tabulated by the National Science Foundation, 

which published a report in 2015 using these data on the representation of different 

groups in science and engineering education and employment. See National Science 

Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Women, Minorities, 

and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015. Special Report NSF 15-

311. Arlington, VA. Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
Page 25 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Figure 8: Proportion of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees Awarded by Field and 

Gender of Recipient, 2014

Note: STEM fields are a subset of all fields and correspond to all science, technology, engineering, 

and math and technology-related fields. Technology-related fields are a subset of STEM fields which 

include computer science, engineering, and mathematics. Nearly 60,000 women and 190,000 men 

earned bachelor’s or master’s degrees in a technology-related field in 2014, according to our analysis 

of 2014 National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS) data as tabulated by the National Science Foundation in Special Report NSF 15-311.

IPEDS data are based on degree-granting institutions eligible to participate in Title IV federal financial 

aid programs. 

Two researchers told us that women often have the academic preparation 

to enter into technology-related degree programs, but they may choose 

not to pursue such degrees because of instances of gender bias within 

technology classes. Our prior work reported on studies that found women 

leave STEM fields at a higher rate than their male peers, citing one study 

that found women leave STEM academic positions at a higher rate than 

men in part due to dissatisfaction with departmental culture, faculty 

leadership, and research support.41 Further, a 2012 consulting firm report 

 41GAO, Women in STEM Research: Better Data and Information Sharing Could Improve 

Oversight of Federal Grant-making and Title IX Compliance, GAO-16-14 (Washington, 

D.C.: December 3, 2015).
Page 26 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

found that businesses viewed as male-dominated tended to attract fewer 

women at the entry level.

42

In addition, according to our analysis of 2014 IPEDS data, three minority 

racial or ethnic groups each constituted 10 percent or fewer of bachelor’s 

and master’s degree earners in a technology-related field. Specifically, 

among the 202,200 earners of degrees in a technology-related field in 

2014, there were about 20,000 Hispanic recipients, 13,000 Black 

recipients, and 18,000 recipients who were Multiracial or other race, 

which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown 

Race, and Two or more Races, i.e. respondents who selected one or 

more racial designations.

43 Among all minority groups, Asian students, 

including Pacific Islander, earned the highest proportion of technologyrelated degrees (about 24,000 individuals).44 (See fig. 9).

 42Sandrine Devillard, Wieteke Graven, Emily Lawson, Renée Paradise, and Sandra 

Sancier-Sultan, Women Matter 2012: Making the Breakthrough (McKinsey & Company, 

2012). Researchers conducted interviews with human resource executives, executives 

responsible for diversity, or other top executives at over 200 European companies to ask 

about the companies’ diversity practices. The views expressed may not be representative 

of all executives in the study.

43Data by race and ethnicity are for U.S. citizens and permanent residents only because 

these data are only collected for this group. In 2014, there were 47,887 temporary 

residents who earned a bachelor’s or master’s degree in a technology-related field.

44By comparison, in 2004, about 11,000 Hispanic students, 12,000 Black students, and 

22,000 Asian students were awarded technology-related bachelor’s or master’s degrees. 

Data for the Two or More Race category, which we included in our Multiracial or other 

student category, were not available in 2004. About 102,000 White students earned such 

degrees in 2004 (compared to about 127,000 in 2014). In addition, as a point of reference, 

according to BLS, in 2016, 60 percent of Asian workers and 43 percent of White workers 

participating in the labor force had obtained at least a bachelor’s degree, and 28 percent 

of Black workers and 20 percent of Hispanic workers had at least a bachelor’s degree.
Page 27 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Figure 9: Proportion of Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree’s Awarded by Field and Race/Ethnicity, 2014

Note: STEM fields are a subset of all fields and correspond to all science, technology, engineering, 

and math and technology-related fields. Technology-related fields are a subset of STEM fields which 

include computer science, engineering, and mathematics. About 127,000 White, 24,000 Asian

(including Pacific Islander), 20,000 Hispanic, 13,000 Black, and 18,000 Multiracial or other race 

students (which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or Unknown Race, and Two or 

more Races, i.e. respondents who selected one or more racial designations) earned technologyrelated bachelor’s and master’s degrees, according to our analysis of 2014 National Center for 

Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data as tabulated by 

the National Science Foundation in Special Report NSF 15-311. Data by race and ethnicity are for 

U.S. citizens and permanent residents only because these data are only collected for this group. In 

2014, there were 47,887 temporary residents who earned a bachelor’s or master’s degree in a 

technology-related field. IPEDS data are based on degree-granting institutions eligible to participate 

in Title IV federal financial aid programs.

One barrier to entry into technology degree paths for Black and Hispanic 

students may be lower likelihood of access to preparatory academic 

programs in secondary school. In 2016, we reported that the K-12 public 

schools in the United States with students who are mostly Black or 

Hispanic offered disproportionately fewer math and science classes for 

their students.45 One researcher told us some colleges and universities, 

to help these students be academically successful, provide additional 

 45GAO, K-12 Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify 

Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination, GAO-16-345 (Washington, D.C.: April 21, 

2016).
Page 28 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

academic support such as tutoring to help bridge knowledge gaps. To 

address the uneven access to preparatory math and science classes, 

representatives from five technology companies told us they have started 

to invest in exposing Black and Hispanic children to technology 

occupations by, for example, developing online resources targeted to 

them and their parents and creating partnerships with secondary schools 

to improve their academic preparation in computer science.

However, we have previously also reported that the number of students 

graduating with STEM degrees may not be a good measure of the supply 

of STEM workers because students often pursue careers in fields 

different from the ones they studied.46 For example, a lower percentage of 

women who obtained technology-related degrees became technology 

workers compared to men who earned the same degrees, according to 

our analysis of 2015 ACS data. Specifically, among women who earned 

technology degrees, an estimated 33 percent worked as a technology 

worker compared to 45 percent of men who earned technology degrees.

Several representatives we interviewed from workforce and industry 

organizations and technology companies told us that recruitment 

practices may also have affected diversity in the technology workforce. 

For example, representatives from three workforce and industry 

organizations said technology companies tend to recruit from a select 

number of universities and colleges, thereby limiting their pool of potential 

applicants. To address this, representatives from several of the 

technology companies we interviewed told us they had changed 

recruitment practices and offered internships targeted to 

underrepresented groups. For example, representatives of four 

technology companies told us that their companies had expanded 

recruitment to include more schools. Representatives from two 

companies told us they offer programs such as summer and semester 

internships for which the company actively recruits from Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities and other specific schools to increase its pool 

of diverse candidates.

In addition, representatives from workforce organizations and technology 

companies discussed concerns and strategies to address companies’ 

hiring practices and internal cultures that may limit workforce diversity.

 46GAO, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Assessing the 

Relationship between Education and the Workforce, GAO-14-374 (Washington, D.C.: May 

8, 2014). 
Page 29 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

For example, one of these representatives said that technology 

companies often offer financial incentives to current employees to make 

referrals for new hires, which can result in reliance on social networks. 

These networks may be largely comprised of the same race and this 

practice therefore makes it harder for potential candidates from 

demographically different groups to have their resumes reviewed. 

Another workforce organization representative reported that some hiring 

managers filter out eligible candidates if their background and 

qualifications are not the same as those of previously successful 

employees. To address these concerns, representatives from one 

technology company told us that they had moved away from depending 

on referrals since this practice may result in leaders hiring people within 

their own networks, which generally does not increase diversity of gender 

or race/ethnicity. In addition, representatives from another company said 

they plan to begin reviewing resumes with names removed to limit bias by 

the reviewer. Further, representatives we interviewed from three 

technology companies told us they offer training to employees to help 

employees identify their own, unconscious biases.

Other factors may affect retention of women and underrepresented 

minorities. For example, a representative from a workforce organization 

said that women leave technology occupations at a higher rate than men 

because they feel as if they have not been given the same opportunities 

for promotion and advancement within the company. A 2016 study that 

examined women in engineering and science found that women’s 

concerns about pay and promotion are often an issue in male-dominated 

fields regardless of the industry. Further, this study found that retention 

difficulties become more severe as the share of men in the workforce 

increased and that affected women’s pay and promotion.47

Representatives from one company told us another challenge is the lack 

of Black workers at the top levels, which might make it more difficult for 

Black employees in particular to see a leadership path. Representatives 

we interviewed from five technology companies told us they had 

implemented efforts to increase retention and promotion rates among 

minority and female workers, for example, by developing a diversity and 

inclusion newsletter, employee resource groups with executive 

 47Jennifer Hunt, “Why do Women Leave Science and Engineering?” ILR 

Review,69(1)(2016). 
Page 30 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

sponsors,48 and internal training and classes for employees to improve 

their readiness to be promoted. 

Representatives from five technology companies told us that commitment 

of top leadership is an important factor that can help women and 

underrepresented minorities in the technology sector. For example, 

representatives from one company told us that top management support 

for diversity efforts, such as setting hiring goals, can help move a 

company in the direction of achieving representation goals and that 

leadership is very important to this effort. Representatives from several 

companies told us that there is often a business case for such changes: 

These companies work in a diverse, global environment and strive to 

make better products for diverse users. However, our prior work on 

workforce diversity in the financial services sector found that some

diversity initiatives faced challenges gaining the "buy-in" of key 

employees, such as the middle managers who are often responsible for 

implementing such programs.49

 48Employee resource groups are employee-led groups formed around common interests, 

issues and/or a common bond or background. 

49GAO, Financial Services Industry: Overall Trends in Management-Level Diversity and 

Diversity Initiatives, 1993-2008, GAO-10-736T (Washington, D.C.: May 2010). 

EEOC and OFCCP 

Have Taken Steps to 

Oversee Equal 

Employment 

Opportunity and 

Affirmative Action 

Requirements, but 

Face Limitations
Page 31 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

According to EEOC officials, EEOC primarily oversees compliance with 

equal employment opportunity requirements by investigating workers’ 

individual charges of employment discrimination filed against companies. 

EEOC has publicly acknowledged the low levels of diversity in the 

technology sector.50 However, we were unable to identify a specific 

number of charges received by EEOC against companies in industries 

that are part of this sector because EEOC does not require investigators 

to record the industry of the charged company. EEOC’s database of 

charges and enforcement actions—the Integrated Mission System 

(IMS)—has a data field for the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) industry code, the standard used by federal statistical 

agencies in classifying business establishments. However, we found that 

it is completed for only about half the entries in the system.51 EEOC 

officials in both the San Francisco and New York district offices told us 

that, while they cannot readily identify individual charges against 

technology companies, they believe they have received far fewer charges 

against technology companies than they would have expected given the 

public attention to the issue of diversity in the technology sector.52 In 

terms of systemic cases, according to EEOC, as of June 2017, the 

commission had 255 systemic cases pending since fiscal year 2011 

 50Transcript of Chair Jenny Yang’s remarks, EEOC Meeting, May 18, 2016.

51Industry is not a mandatory field for investigators to complete in the investigations data 

system. We attempted to assess the number of charges against technology companies 

that EEOC had received by matching charges recorded by EEOC with a list of about 

43,500 federal technology contractor establishments on the basis of company name, 

address, and Zip code. This analysis found 2,835 matching charges for fiscal years 2011-

2016 (compared to about 567,000 charges filed against companies in total during this 

timeframe). Among other limitations, this approach to estimating charges submitted to 

EEOC against federal technology contractors likely excludes charges citing contractor 

facility addresses other than that of the contracting office. To address this limitation, we 

conducted an additional match of these two sets of records using only company name. 

This match identified over 5 times the number of charges. Neither method would have 

captured charges against technology companies that are not federal contractors. 

52In the past few years, a number of news articles have cited concerns with diversity in the 

technology sector. See, for example, The Atlantic “Why is Silicon Valley So Awful to 

Women?” April 2017, and Bloomberg.com “Why Doesn’t Silicon Valley Hire Black 

Coders?” January 21, 2016.

EEOC and OFCCP Have 

Taken Steps to Oversee 

Compliance in the 

Technology Sector

EEOC
Page 32 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

involving technology companies (13 of these were initiated as 

commissioner charges and 8 were directed investigations involving age 

discrimination or pay parity issues).53 Officials from the New York region 

reported that they had seen an increase in systemic cases against 

technology companies in the past 3 years, largely involving practices of 

information technology staffing firms.

Several EEOC officials we interviewed noted that technology workers 

may be initiating few complaints at the federal level due to factors such as 

fear of retaliation from employers or the availability of other employment 

or legal options. According to EEOC officials, fear of retaliation can affect 

charges across sectors and, given the growth in the technology 

workforce, an individual who feels discriminated against may simply leave 

the company because there are many other opportunities for individuals 

with technical skills. They also said that technology workers may 

generally have greater wealth and can afford to hire private attorneys to 

sue in state court rather than go through the EEOC. Moreover, they said 

that some states, including California, have stronger employment 

discrimination laws that allow for better remedies than federal laws, which 

could lead employees to file charges at the state level rather than with the 

EEOC.

In addition, EEOC has acknowledged in a 2016 report that binding 

arbitration policies, which require individuals to submit their claims to 

private arbiters rather than courts, can also deter workers from bringing 

discrimination claims to the agency, leaving significant violations in entire 

segments of the workforce unreported.54 The report stated that an 

 53Given the smaller number of systemic cases compared to individual charges, EEOC 

was able to identify systemic cases against technology companies. To identify these 

cases, EEOC defined “technology company” using the same NAICS codes that were used 

in their report on diversity in the high technology sector. See U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, Diversity in High Tech, May 2016. For charges without a NAICS 

code, the officials looked for another charge on the list against the same company which 

listed a NAICS code. If an employer was on the list and no NAICS code was associated 

with any charge against it, the officials conducted a web search of the company to 

determine if it appeared to be similar to technology companies included on the list based 

on the associated NAICS code. The commission also reported 246 resolved systemic 

cases that were filed since fiscal year 2011 involving technology companies. Six of these 

were initiated as Commissioner Charges and 13 were directed charges involving age 

discrimination or pay parity issues. 

54U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Advancing Opportunity: A Review of 

the Systemic Program of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2016).
Page 33 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

increasing number of arbitration policies have added bans on class 

actions that prevent individuals from joining together to challenge 

practices in any forum. The report concluded that the use of arbitration 

policies hinders EEOC’s ability to detect and remedy potential systemic 

violations. Researchers report that the use of such clauses has grown 

and data on federal civil filings for civil rights employment cases reflect a 

marked reduction in the number of such filings.55

Beyond pursuing charges, EEOC has taken some steps to address 

diversity in the technology sector including research and outreach efforts. 

In May 2016, citing the technology sector as a source for an increasing 

number of U.S. jobs, EEOC released a report analyzing EEO-1 data on 

diversity in the technology sector in tandem with a commission meeting 

raising awareness on the topic.56 In addition, EEOC’s fiscal year 2017-

2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan identified barriers to hiring and 

recruiting in the technology sector as a strategic priority. EEOC has also 

been involved in outreach efforts with the technology sector. For example, 

the EEOC Pacific Region described more than 15 in-person or webinar 

events since 2014 in collaboration with OFCCP and local organizations 

focused on diversity in the technology sector. The topics of these events 

included equity in pay and the activities of these two agencies in 

enforcing nondiscrimination laws. Finally, in fall 2016, EEOC initiated an 

internal working group to identify practices to help improve gender and 

racial diversity in technology, but as of June 2017 had no progress to 

report.

OFCCP’s regulations require covered federal contractors to take 

proactive steps to ensure equal employment opportunity. OFCCP 

annually conducts routine evaluations of selected federal contractors, 

which includes those in the technology sector, for compliance with federal 

 55Consistent with this trend, data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on civil 

filings in U.S. District Courts indicate that lawsuits filed related to “Civil Rights –

Employment” decreased 45 percent moving from 21,152 to 11,687 cases between 2001 

and 2016, even as the overall number of civil filings for all purposes increased by about 8 

percent, moving from 254,523 to 274,552. 

56EEOC, Diversity in High Tech (Washington, D.C.: May 2016). 

OFCCP
Page 34 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements.57 To the extent 

that technology contractors are selected for evaluation through OFCCP’s 

normal selection process, these contractors are assessed for compliance 

with nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws as are other selected 

contractors. While evaluation of technology contractors occurs in the 

course of OFCCP’s routine activities, OFCCP does not currently use type 

of industry as a selection factor, according to officials. We also found that 

few (less than 1 percent) of OFCCP’s 2,911 closed technology contractor 

evaluations from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 resulted in discrimination 

violations, though 13 percent resulted in other violations, such as recordkeeping violations and failure to establish an affirmative action program 

(AAP). An AAP is a key tool OFCCP requires contractors to complete to 

ensure equal employment opportunity. The remaining 86 percent of 

evaluations either found no violations or ended in administrative closure.58

Technology contractor evaluations that had discrimination violations 

resulted in back pay, salary adjustments, or other benefits totaling more 

than $4.5 million for 15,316 individuals (averaging about $300 per award) 

for fiscal years 2011 through 2016.59 The vast majority of discrimination 

violations were on the basis of gender or race/ethnicity rather than 

disability or veteran status. Corrective actions OFCCP identified for 

federal technology contractors over this timeframe also included requiring 

contractors to fill a total of 410 job vacancies as they arise with applicants 

who had been denied employment on the basis of discrimination. In 

 57According to our prior report, OFCCP evaluations include, among other things, a 

determination of whether there are indicators of potential discrimination or violations that 

will require an onsite evaluation. In addition to statistical and anecdotal evidence of 

discrimination, indicators of potential discrimination or other violations also include, but are 

not limited to: patterns of individual discrimination, patterns of systemic discrimination, and 

patterns of major technical violations such as recordkeeping deficiencies or failure to 

maintain an AAP. The final determination of discrimination is made on a case-by-case 

basis, based on multiple factors. To look for indicators of potential discrimination, OFCCP 

conducts common statistical tests. GAO-16-750.

58Administrative closure means OFCCP must administratively close the complaint 

investigation for a variety of reasons, such as lack of jurisdiction or issues with the 

complainant filing timely or providing requested information. According to GAO’s prior 

work on OFCCP, in fiscal years 2010 through 2015, about 78 percent of all evaluations 

found no violations and about 2 percent had discrimination findings. GAO-16-750.

59According to OFCCP, in 2009-2016 the agency obtained over $85.9 million in monetary 

relief for nearly 147,000 employees and job seekers (an average of $584 per award). 
Page 35 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

addition, OFCCP recently filed three complaints against technology 

companies.60

According to our analysis, OFCCP conducted evaluations on 36 of the 65 

leading technology companies from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 

2016. During this timeframe there were 272 reviews of establishments—

physical business locations—affiliated with these 36 companies. Based 

on these evaluations, 15 of the 36 companies had administrative 

violations, and 2 of the 36 also had discrimination violations. As a result of 

the discrimination findings against these leading technology companies, 

541 individuals received monetary benefits totaling $783,387 (an average 

of $1,448 per award).

In terms of other steps to conduct oversight of the technology sector, 

OFCCP officials in the Pacific Region said they are hiring compliance 

officers with legal training to be better able to address needs for reviews 

in the technology sector, such as responding to lawyers representing 

technology contractors. Officials in both the Pacific and Northeast regions 

work closely with statisticians and labor economists on their cases, an 

effort officials said has increased over the past few years. OFCCP has 

also requested funding in its fiscal year 2018 congressional budget 

justification to establish centers in San Francisco and New York that 

would develop expertise to handle large, complex compliance evaluations 

in specific industries, including information technology.

 60These complaints were filed with the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law 

Judges. OFCCP filed a complaint against Palantir Technologies in September 2016 

alleging that the company discriminated against Asian applicants in the hiring and 

selection process for engineering positions. OFCCP entered into a consent decree in 

2017 to settle its complaint against Palantir, which resulted in nearly $1.7 million in back 

wages and other monetary relief for the affected individuals. OFCCP filed another 

complaint against Oracle America Inc. in January 2017 to resolve allegations of systemic 

compensation discrimination, among other issues. As of July 2017, this complaint was 

ongoing. Finally, OFCCP filed a complaint against Google in December 2016 alleging that 

the company was denying access to compensation records that OFCCP had requested as 

part of its compliance evaluation. In July 2017, an administrative law judge ruled that 

Google must provide OFCCP with some records, but denied requests for other records as 

being overly broad and unduly burdensome. OFCCP filed exceptions to the decision with 

the Administrative Review Board in August 2017 and the matter is currently pending there.
Page 36 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

We found that by not requiring an industry code in its investigations data, 

EEOC cannot analyze charge data by industry to help identify 

investigation and outreach priorities, in contradiction to EEOC strategic 

planning documents and EEOC Inspector General reports, which have 

emphasized the importance of doing so. By not requiring the use of the 

NAICS code for each entry in IMS, EEOC is limited in its ability to use 

these data for the purposes of identifying charges by industry sector and 

conducting sector-related analyses. Officials were aware of substantial 

gaps in coding of charges by industry and acknowledged limitations in the 

commission’s ability to analyze its investigations data by industry. 

However, officials expressed concern that routinely creating more 

complete records of the companies against which charges had been filed 

would require investigators to divert attention from their efforts to 

investigate charges. EEOC officials explained that the charging party 

provides initial information on the respondent company and requiring 

EEOC personnel to generate this information would slow down the 

process. They said their priority is to investigate individual charges, not to 

address larger trends or target specific industries.

In contrast, a number of EEOC reports have documented the value of 

analyzing charge data by industry to focus the agency’s outreach efforts 

and resource use. For example, EEOC’s Research and Data Plan for 

2016-2019 notes:

“The Strategic Enforcement Plan recommends using EEOC data to allow our 

enforcement and outreach efforts to focus on areas of significant concern. This 

might include tailoring outreach efforts for industries that experience greater 

likelihood of certain charges or informing enforcement decisions based on 

knowledge that certain industries have persistent problems, such as harassment. 

The data maintained in IMS provide a rich resource of information that can be 

used to explore the characteristics of industries that appear to have higher levels 

of certain allegations than comparative industries.”

EEOC Cannot Analyze

Charge Data by Industry 

to Identify Priorities and 

OFCCP Faces Challenges 

to Oversight of Technology 

Companies

EEOC
Page 37 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

In addition, reports completed by the Urban Institute for the EEOC Office 

of Inspector General in 2013 and 2015 similarly recommended analysis of 

charge data, including by industry, to help identify priorities and measure 

performance.61

While EEOC has plans to review a year of IMS data to clean it and 

determine how best to add missing industry codes, among other 

objectives, officials could not provide a specific timeframe for when this 

review would begin and end. Standards for internal control in the federal 

government state that management should use quality information to 

achieve the agency’s objectives and objectives should be defined in 

specific terms so they are understood at all levels of the entity. This 

involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how 

it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement.62 Efforts to scrub 

these data and identify missing codes could help EEOC determine how to 

collect industry information on an ongoing basis for all entries. Doing so 

would also help EEOC determine the level of NAICS code that would be 

feasible and useful for investigators to identify and input into IMS.63

Without analyzing its data on charges across industries, EEOC’s ability to 

proactively identify priorities for its outreach and enforcement resource 

use is limited.

We found that OFCCP also faces challenges that may hinder the 

agency’s oversight of technology companies. Specifically, OFCCP 

reported facing delays in receiving information from federal contractors, 

including technology companies, but has not yet evaluated whether its 

 61Evaluation of EEOC’s Outreach and Education, Urban Institute (Washington, D.C.: May 

2015) found that district staff reported they did not look at charge data in a systematic way 

to help develop their priority areas for outreach and education activities. The report 

recommended EEOC provide support to districts to analyze charge data among various 

categories, including industry, to help districts identify potential trends, opportunities, and 

priorities. Evaluation of EEOC’s Performance Measures, Urban Institute (Washington, 

D.C.: March 2013) recommended that EEOC should provide information on outcome 

measures to managers and district offices by key breakout categories, including industry 

code, to ensure accountability, better allocate resources, and optimize effectiveness.

62GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

63The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by 

federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments. The NAICS system has 

six levels of industry classification, with the smallest level (2-digit code) providing the most 

general industry classification, and the largest level (6-digit) providing the most specific 

classification.

OFCCP
Page 38 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

own policies and practices also impede its efforts to hold federal 

technology contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take 

affirmative action and not discriminate against protected groups. In 

addition, OFCCP regulations do not require federal contractors to 

disaggregate data for the purpose of determining placement goals for 

hiring, which may hinder contractors’ efforts to implement effective 

affirmative action programs.

OFCCP has not analyzed delays in obtaining information from 

contractors

OFCCP officials told us that they face delays in obtaining complete, 

accurate, and timely documentation from federal contractors, including 

technology companies, as part of the compliance review process. They 

said this limited their access to critical information and hindered OFCCP’s 

ability to determine whether discrimination had occurred. Officials in the 

Pacific Region reported that when issues are identified during OFCCP’s 

initial review that will require additional data, the data requests can be 

extensive. Consequently, technology contractors are taking longer to 

submit complete and accurate data that are needed to conduct analyses 

of the contractor’s workforce. In addition, officials in both the Pacific and 

Northeast regions reported that companies may not provide raw data as 

requested, or provide access to employees for OFCCP to interview, 

which is part of the compliance review process. Using 2015 OFCCP 

compliance evaluation data, we previously reported that close to 85 

percent of contractor establishments across all sectors did not submit an 

AAP within 30 days of being scheduled for an OFCCP compliance 

evaluation, as required by OFCCP policy.64 Officials told us of the 

potential need for a more flexible set of investigatory tools or sanctions, 

such as subpoena power to speed up data-gathering or penalties for 

delays in providing information, in order to obtain accurate and timely 

information. In the case of incomplete data, OFCCP officials said one 

option is to enter into an agreement with the contractor whereby the 

contractor will gather the missing data, and OFCCP will monitor the 

contractor’s efforts and review detailed records at a later date. However, 

they said that such an agreement could give the contractor an opportunity 

to modify the data in the contractor’s favor. Currently, OFCCP’s primary 

 64GAO-16-750.
Page 39 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

sanction is the threat of debarment, which makes a company ineligible to 

receive future federal contracts.65

At the same time, OFCCP officials acknowledged there may additionally 

be delays in their own review processes. In prior work, we’ve reported 

concerns by contractors and industry groups about lengthy and expansive 

OFCCP evaluations.66 However, OFCCP has not analyzed its data on 

closed evaluations to assess the cause of delays, which would help 

determine whether changes should be made to its internal processes or if 

stronger sanctions to obtain information from contractors are needed. 

Internal control standards state that management should identify, 

analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving its objectives. Further, 

it states that management should design appropriate mechanisms to 

enforce its directives to achieve those objectives and address related 

risks.67 Without more information on the root cause of the delays, these 

delays may continue, straining resources and inhibiting OFCCP’s efforts 

to identify potential discrimination.

OFCCP guidance for placement goals does not address specific 

minority groups

OFCCP regulations do not require federal contractors to disaggregate 

data for the purpose of determining placement goals for hiring, which may 

hinder contractors’ efforts to implement effective affirmative action 

programs. Federal contractors are required to prepare an AAP which is 

described as follows in OFCCP regulations:

“An affirmative action program is a management tool designed to ensure equal 

employment opportunity. A central premise underlying affirmative action is that, 

absent discrimination, over time a contractor’s workforce, generally, will reflect 

the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor 

recruits and selects. Affirmative action programs contain a diagnostic component 

which includes a number of quantitative analyses designed to evaluate the 

composition of the workforce of the contractor and compare it to the composition 

of the relevant labor pools. Affirmative action programs also include action-

 6541 C.F.R. § 60-1.27(b). According to OFCCP officials, debarments are infrequent 

because they are a last resort. Our prior work found there was on average, fewer than one 

debarment per year since fiscal year 2010. GAO-16-750.

66GAO-16-750. 

67GAO-14-704G.
Page 40 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

oriented programs. If women and minorities are not being employed at a rate to 

be expected given their availability in the relevant labor pool, the contractor’s 

affirmative action program includes specific practical steps designed to address 

this underutilization.” 68

OFCCP’s regulations also specify the contents of AAPs, which help the 

contractor to ultimately determine whether the percentage of minorities 

and women in each job group is consistent with the availability of 

minorities and women for those job groups.69 If not, then the contractor 

must create a placement goal for underrepresented groups. The 

regulations require contractors to provide disaggregated race and 

ethnicity data for some of the contents of the AAP, such as identifying the 

demographic breakdown of employees in order to create an 

organizational profile.70 The organizational profile shows the total number 

of male and female employees by specific group and depicts the staffing 

pattern within the establishment, which can help identify organizational 

units in which women or minorities are underrepresented or 

concentrated.71 However, for other requirements, such as creating 

placement goals, which are reasonably attainable objectives or targets to 

make the affirmative action program work, the regulations direct 

contractors to establish a single goal for all minorities.72 Specifically, with 

regard to identifying a need for a placement goal, the regulations state:

“The placement goal-setting process . . . contemplates that contractors will, 

where required, establish a single goal for all minorities. In the event of a 

substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the 

utilization of women or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be 

required to establish separate goals for those groups.”

According to OFCCP officials, a contractor may be required to establish 

separate goals for particular minority groups as part of a compliance 

 6841 C.F.R. § 60-2.10.

6941 C.F.R. § 60-2.15(a).

7041 C.F.R. § 60-2.11. 

71When compiling an organizational profile, companies must list employees by gender in 

each of the following groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American 

Indians/Alaskan Natives.

7241 C.F.R. § 60-2.16(d). The regulations require contractors to conduct a job group 

analysis and to compare the percentage of minorities and women in each job group with 

the availability for those job groups. 41 C.F.R. §§ 60-2.12 – 60-2.15.
Page 41 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

review. We found, however, that OFCCP’s regulations do not require 

federal contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of 

establishing placement goals in their AAP. This may hinder their efforts to 

implement effective AAPs, which are designed to assist the company in 

achieving a workforce that reflects the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of 

the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects. OFCCP 

officials in headquarters and in the field said, based on their experience 

evaluating companies’ compliance, it was not common for companies to 

have placement goals disaggregated by race and ethnicity in their AAPs. 

A diversity and inclusion officer we interviewed from one large technology 

contractor noted that the requirement in the AAP to identify the need for 

placement goals for minorities as a whole does not address 

underrepresentation in certain minority groups. According to the officer, 

the company does not count Asian workers in setting the company’s 

diversity goals because Asians are well represented and the company 

believes it should set a placement goal for groups for which the company 

knows it needs to make progress. Citing comments received during 

development of other regulations, OFCCP officials cautioned that an 

analysis of utilization disaggregated by race/ethnicity may be more 

challenging for smaller companies with fewer employees.

Further, looking at trends in diversity for minorities as a whole may not 

assist a company’s affirmative action efforts to identify groups that need 

particular outreach or support. Specifically, our analysis of workforce data 

found differences in representation for Black and Hispanic workers in the 

technology workforce compared to Asian workers. Under the current AAP 

regulations, companies may opt not to detect and address 

underrepresentation of particular minority groups since OFCCP does not 

require placement goals disaggregated by race/ethnicity. While OFCCP 

may be able to detect underrepresentation of particular minority groups 

during its reviews, the office reviews only 2 percent of federal contractor 

establishments each year. OFCCP officials said that they would need to 

amend their regulations in order to require disaggregated race/ethnicity 

information for placement goals on AAPs. The officials said 

disaggregating race in placement goals could help an establishment 

determine how to tailor outreach accordingly or better identify 

impediments to its equal employment opportunity efforts. However, they 

have not pursued this regulatory change because of competing priorities 

on their regulatory agenda. OFCCP’s mission includes holding federal 

contractors responsible for the legal requirements to take affirmative 

action and not discriminate against protected groups. However, not 

requiring contractors to set placement goals for each minority group may 

hinder OFCCP’s ability to effectively achieve this mission.
Page 42 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

OFCCP has not reviewed key aspects of its current approach to 

evaluations

OFCCP officials report the agency intends to incorporate additional 

information on gender, racial, and ethnic disparities by industry into its 

compliance evaluation selection process, but we found the methodology 

to determine the disparities may have weaknesses. We have previously 

reported on the challenges OFCCP faces with its enforcement efforts, 

and identified additional areas that may limit OFCCP’s enforcement of 

federal contractors’ equal employment and affirmative action efforts. For 

example, our 2016 report found that OFCCP’s weak compliance 

evaluation selection process, reliance on voluntary compliance, and lack 

of staff training create several challenges to its enforcement efforts.73 This 

report found that because OFCCP was not able to identify which factors 

are associated with risk of noncompliance, the agency does not have 

reasonable assurance that it is focusing its efforts on those contractors at 

greatest risk of not following nondiscrimination or affirmative action 

requirements. OFCCP agreed with recommendations we made to 

address these areas and detailed steps the agency would take. In 

particular, to strengthen its compliance evaluation process to select 

contractors at greatest risk of potential discrimination, the agency stated 

that it planned to incorporate information on pay disparities and 

employment disparities.74 OFCCP officials indicated this information 

would be based on analysis of gender and race/ethnicity by industry using 

ACS data and EEO-1 compensation data that was to be collected 

beginning March 2018. However, in August 2017, the Office of 

Management and Budget issued a memo suspending the pay-related 

data collection aspects of the EEO-1 form. Despite this change, OFCCP 

officials said they are exploring other options for focusing on 

compensation disparities by industry, including through the use of ACS 

data, administrative data, a previous study conducted by the Department 

of Labor, as well as options proposed by contractors. 

We also found OFCCP’s current methodology for identifying disparities by 

industry with the ACS data may have some weaknesses that could affect 

the accuracy of the outcomes. For example, its reliance on the broadest 

 73GAO-16-750.

74To address the reliance on voluntary compliance and lack of staff training, OFCCP is 

exploring annual certification of AAP updates and electronic submission of AAPs, as well 

as the establishment of a framework for future compliance officer training.
Page 43 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

industry level available may not sufficiently identify specific industries at 

elevated risk. Further, the methodology includes future plans to conduct 

the analysis for metropolitan areas. Given the importance of regional and 

local labor markets for assessing affirmative action efforts, regional and 

local analysis should also be completed before OFCCP incorporates this 

analysis into its selection process. It is important that OFCCP use reliable 

information in modifying its basic processes and setting priorities. For the 

reasons cited earlier regarding the importance of using quality information 

to make management decisions, it is important that OFCCP assess the 

quality of the methods for its analysis of employment disparities among 

industries. Without doing so, OFCCP may not accurately identify 

industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with 

nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements so it can focus its 

limited investigation resources most effectively.

Further, according to OFCCP officials, although the agency has made 

slight changes to various thresholds and factors for its selection process, 

the agency has not made any significant changes to the selection process

for about 10 years, and has made no changes to its establishment-based 

approach since OFCCP was founded in 1965. While OFCCP currently 

grounds its review of a contractor in a particular physical establishment, 

OFCCP officials acknowledged the changing nature of a company’s work 

can involve multiple locations and corresponding changes in the scope of 

hiring and recruitment. Officials we interviewed from five of our eight 

selected technology companies discussed their work spread across 

locations, including the United States or overseas, and the related 

challenges they face with OFCCP’s establishment-based approach to 

reviews. One company representative said the AAP is not useful because 

site specific plans do not connect to business decisions. However, 

OFCCP has not reviewed the implications for the effectiveness of its 

mission of continuing with its establishment-based approach to 

conducting compliance evaluations.

In addition, OFCCP officials acknowledged their inability, in identifying 

establishments for review, to consistently identify and include all 

subcontractors to which OFCCP rules should apply. They said the agency 

has not assessed the potential significance of any omissions of 

subcontractors from the oversight process. Internal control standards 

state that management should identify risks throughout the entity related 

to achieving its defined objectives to form a basis for designing risk 

responses, as well as the importance of periodically reviewing policies, 
Page 44 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

procedures and related control activities for continued relevance and 

effectiveness in achieving the agency’s objectives.75 OFCCP officials said 

they have informally discussed how to adjust their work based on how 

work is performed in today’s economy—with virtual sites, workplace 

flexibilities, and nontraditional forms of employment. However, due to 

competing priorities, they have not conducted a formal review of these 

key aspects of its current approach to selecting entities for review. They 

acknowledged such a review would be useful. Without assessing its 

current approach to its establishment-based reviews and identification of 

all relevant subcontractors, OFCCP does not have reasonable assurance 

that its approach can identify discrimination occurring within the 

companies it oversees and may be missing opportunities to identify more 

effective practices or adjust its methods to external changes.

While OFCCP has offered an option—the Functional Affirmative Action 

Program (FAAP)—for companies to move away from establishmentbased reviews and which may be more appropriate for some multi–

establishment contractors, uptake has been low and the agency has not 

conducted an evaluation of this program.76 Since 2002, OFCCP has 

allowed companies to create FAAPs, with OFCCP approval, which are 

based on a business function or unit that may exist at multiple 

establishments. As of May 2017, 73 companies across all industries had 

FAAPs in place. Further, some of the companies we interviewed were 

unaware that the FAAP was an option or believed it was cumbersome to 

establish given the complexity of their workforce. Asked why the FAAP 

has not been more broadly adopted, OFCCP officials hypothesized it 

could have to do with a requirement intended to ensure that companies 

with FAAPs would be reviewed at least as often as others, but that may 

result in these companies being reviewed more often than most. 

Standards for internal control for government agencies state that 

management should periodically review policies, procedures, and related 

control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving 

 75GAO-14-704G. 

76In addition, OFCCP conducts a small number of corporate management compliance 

evaluations each year, which focus on personnel activity at the corporate headquarters as 

well as affirmative action policies and procedures that ensure equal employment 

opportunity leading to advancement throughout the organization. OFCCP also reports 

conducting directed multi-establishment reviews which may be scheduled by OFCCP 

when it receives credible information of an alleged violation of a law or regulations the 

agency enforces.
Page 45 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

the entity’s objectives.77 Reviewing and refining the FAAP program could 

help OFCCP improve its ability to achieve its objectives and may provide 

broader insight for OFCCP’s overall enforcement approach.

Jobs in the high paying technology sector are projected to grow in coming 

years. Female, Black, and Hispanic workers, however, comprised a 

smaller proportion of technology workers compared to their 

representation in the general workforce from 2005 through 2015, and 

have also been less represented among technology workers inside the 

technology sector than outside it. Both EEOC’s and OFCCP’s mission is 

to combat discrimination and support equal employment opportunity for 

U.S. workers; however, weaknesses in their processes impact the 

effectiveness of their efforts. When conducting investigations, EEOC has 

not been consistently capturing information on industry codes. This 

impedes its ability to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used 

to more effectively focus its limited enforcement resources and outreach 

activities. Similarly, OFCCP faces delays in its compliance review process 

but it has not analyzed its closed evaluations to understand the causes of 

these delays and whether its processes need to be modified to reduce 

them. In addition, as part of their affirmative action programs federal 

contractors are only required to set placement goals for all minorities in 

general. By not requiring contractors to disaggregate demographic data 

for the purpose of establishing placement goals, OFCCP has limited 

assurance that these contractors are setting goals that will address 

potential underrepresentation in certain minority groups.

Further, OFCCP plans to incorporate information on disparities by 

industry into its process for selecting establishments for compliance 

evaluations, but has not fully assessed its planned methods. Without such 

assessment, OFCCP may use a process that does not effectively identify 

the industries at greatest risk of potential noncompliance with 

nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements. In addition, key 

aspects of OFCCP’s approach to compliance reviews of contractors’ 

affirmative action efforts have not changed in over 50 years, whereas the 

structure and locations of these companies’ work have changed. Finally, 

although OFCCP has developed an alternative affirmative action program 

for multi-establishment contractors, few contractors participate in this 

program. Because OFCCP has not evaluated the program, it does not 

 77GAO-14-704G.

Conclusions
Page 46 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

have information to determine why there has not been greater uptake and 

whether it provides a more effective alternative to an establishment-based 

AAP.

We are making a total of six recommendations, including one to EEOC 

and five to OFCCP. Specifically:

• The Chair of the EEOC should develop a timeline to complete the 

planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period and add 

missing industry code data. (Recommendation 1)

• The Director of OFCCP should analyze internal process data from 

closed evaluations to better understand the cause of delays that occur 

during compliance evaluations and make changes accordingly. 

(Recommendation 2)

• The Director of OFCCP should take steps toward requiring 

contractors to disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of 

setting placement goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal 

for all minorities, incorporating any appropriate accommodation for 

company size. For example, OFCCP could provide guidance to 

contractors to include more specific goals in their AAP or assess the 

feasibility of amending their regulations to require them to do so. 

(Recommendation 3)

• The Director of OFCCP should assess the quality of the methods 

used by OFCCP to incorporate consideration of disparities by industry 

into its process for selecting contractor establishments for compliance 

evaluation. It should use the results of this assessment in finalizing its 

procedures for identifying contractor establishments at greatest risk of 

noncompliance. (Recommendation 4)

• The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the current approach used for 

identifying entities for compliance review and determine whether 

modifications are needed to reflect current workplace structures and 

locations or to ensure that subcontractors are included. 

(Recommendation 5)

• The Director of OFCCP should evaluate the Functional Affirmative 

Action Program to assess its usefulness as an effective alternative to 

an establishment-based program, and determine what improvements, 

if any, could be made to better encourage contractor participation. 

(Recommendation 6)

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 47 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor (DOL),

Commerce, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and 

the National Science Foundation (NSF).

We received written comments from DOL that are reproduced in appendix 

V. In addition, DOL, Commerce, EEOC, and NSF provided technical 

comments which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. 

DOL agreed with 4 of the 5 recommendations we made to improve 

oversight of federal contractors, and identified some steps it plans to take

to implement them. Specifically, the department agreed with our 

recommendations to analyze internal process data to better understand 

the cause of delays that occur during compliance evaluations, assess the 

quality of methods used to incorporate consideration of disparities by 

industry into the process to select contractors for review, and to evaluate

its current approach to identifying entities for review in light of changes in 

workplace structures, as well as its Functional Affirmative Action 

Program.

DOL stated that it appreciated, but neither agreed nor disagreed, with our 

recommendation to take steps toward requiring contractors to 

disaggregate demographic data for the purpose of setting placement 

goals in the AAP rather than setting a single goal for all minorities. The 

department said this would require a regulatory change with little 

immediate benefit as contractors are already required to collect 

demographic data on each employee and applicant, and must conduct indepth analyses of their total employment processes to identify where 

impediments to equal opportunity exist. While we acknowledge these 

data collection requirements for federal contractors, we remain concerned 

that without requiring contractors to also establish placement goals to 

address any underrepresentation for specific minority groups, contractors 

may not develop objectives or targets to make affirmative action efforts 

work. We maintain, therefore, that DOL should take steps toward 

requiring contractors to develop placement goals disaggregated by 

race/ethnicity. 

EEOC provided us a memo that it characterized as technical comments 

on the draft report. In these comments, EEOC neither agreed nor 

disagreed with our recommendation to develop a timeline to complete its

planned effort to clean IMS data for a one-year period, which would 

include adding missing industry codes, but stated that it was taking some 

actions to enhance these data. We continue to maintain a timeline should 

be developed to complete this review, which is needed for the 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 48 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

commission to conduct industry sector analysis that could be used to 

more effectively focus its limited resources and outreach activities. EEOC 

also emphasized the importance of systemic investigations, noting that 

while outreach may be somewhat useful in generating charges, individual 

charges are unlikely to make a substantial impact on a systemic practice 

affecting an entire employment sector. We maintain that the ability to 

analyze IMS data by industry could help EEOC to focus its resource use, 

including for systemic investigations. EEOC also noted staffing and 

resource constraints as issues faced by the commission. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Chair of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, and 

the Director of the National Science Foundation. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff should have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Cindy Brown Barnes

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Our two objectives were to: (1) identify the demographic trends in the 

technology workforce over the past 10 years, and (2) assess the efforts 

by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the 

Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 

(OFCCP) to oversee technology companies and technology contractors’ 

compliance with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action 

requirements. This appendix provides details of the data sources used to 

answer these questions, the analyses we conducted, and any limitations 

we encountered.

There is no commonly accepted definition of the technology sector or 

technology-oriented occupations. To arrive at our definition for the 

technology sector, we identified industries with the highest concentration 

of technology-oriented occupations, a similar approach to what other 

federal agencies have used recently to analyze trends within this sector.1

To identify technology-oriented occupations, we reviewed relevant 

research and interviewed researchers and other individuals 

knowledgeable about the technology sector.2 Based on this research, we 

defined technology-oriented occupations to include all computer, 

engineering and mathematical occupations, including managers.3 We 

selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and crosswalked those 

occupations to the corresponding U.S. Census Bureau occupation codes 

 1

Michael Wolf and Dalton Terrell, The high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to 

our economic future, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2016; and EEOC, Diversity in 

High Tech (Washington, D.C.: May 2016). 

2

See, for example, EEOC, Diversity in High Tech; Wolf and Terrell, “The high-tech 

industry”; and Julia Beckhausen, Occupations in Information Technology, U.S. Census 

Bureau, August 2016.

3

The Census Bureau periodically updates industry and occupation codes to reflect 

changes in the NAICS and SOC classification system, and provide crosswalks to facilitate 

analysis of data across the classification system. We used the Census 2002, 2007 and 

2012 detailed industry code list for the Census/NAICS industry crosswalk. We used the 

2002 and 2010 Census occupation codes for the Census/SOC occupation crosswalk.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Definition of Technology 

Sector and Technology 

Occupations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

to conduct our analysis.4 (For a complete list of the occupations we 

included as technology occupations, see appendix II).

We defined the technology sector as a group of industries with the 

highest concentration of technology workers. Using data from the 

American Community Survey, an ongoing national survey conducted by 

the U.S. Census Bureau that collects information from a sample of 

households, we identified the 15 industries with the highest concentration 

of technology workers. For this analysis, we used Census industry codes 

since we used this dataset for many of our analyses. The concentration of 

technology workers in these industries ranged from a high of 62.2 percent 

in the computer systems design and related services industry to a low of 

19.33 percent in the wired telecommunications carriers industry (see table 

3).5 Companies in the technology sector also employ non-technical 

workers, such as sales people.

 4

The SOC system is used by federal statistical agencies to classify workers into 

occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data. 

We decided to select these occupation groupings using the SOC system because it had 

been used by both EEOC and BLS in their recent reports, and the SOC system easily 

crosswalks to other data systems, including Census.

5

See Appendix III for corresponding 6-digit NAICS codes. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Table 3: Top Industries Employing the Highest Concentration of Technology 

Workers, American Community Survey, 2014

Industry Name

Concentration

of Technology

Workers in Industry

Workforce (percent)

Computer systems design and related services 62.20 

Software publishers 43.64

Computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing 38.17

Aerospace products and parts manufacturing 37.76

Data processing, hosting, and related services 34.10

Architectural, engineering, and related services 33.65

Electronic component and product manufacturing, not 

elsewhere classified 

33.39

Internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals 32.50

Communications, audio, and video equipment manufacturing 28.72

Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control 

instruments manufacturing

28.64

Other information services, except libraries and archives, and 

internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals

27.59

Aircraft and parts manufacturing 24.65

Telecommunications, except wired telecommunications 

carriers 

23.83

Scientific research and development services 19.40

Wired telecommunications carriers 19.33

Source: GAO analysis of American Community Survey Data 1-Year Public Use Microdata Sample. | GAO-18-69

Note: At the time this analysis was conducted, 2014 was the most current year for which American 

Community Survey data were available.

We cross-walked the industries we identified in the American Community 

Survey with corresponding industry codes from the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is the standard used by 

federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments. The 

other data sets used in this review use NAICS codes to identify industry. 

The NAICS system has six levels of industry classification, with the 

smallest level (2-digit code) providing the most general industry 

classification, and the largest (6-digit) providing the most specific 

classification.6 In total, we identified 55 6-digit NAICS industry codes that 

 6

According to the Census Bureau, a complete and valid NAICS code contains six digits. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

comprise the technology sector using this method. (See appendix III for a 

list of the 6-digit NAICS codes and industry names that correspond to the 

Census industries we identified.)

We compared our list of industries to those included in the 2016 reports 

by EEOC and the BLS on the technology sector. While each report 

includes a somewhat different set of industries depending on the authors’ 

particular definition of technology occupations, most of the 15 industries 

we selected overlap with industries selected in these other reviews. 

Stemming from their particular focus, these reports included some 

additional industries and/or occupations excluded from our analysis, such 

as those in the life sciences. We also compared our findings on the 

demographic trends in the technology workforce to 2016 EEOC and 

Census Bureau reports that reviewed diversity in the technology sector.7

Despite the definitional and methodological variations, the demographic 

trends found in these other reports were generally comparable to our 

findings.

To determine the demographic trends in the technology workforce over 

the past decade, we analyzed quantitative data on technology workers 

within and outside the technology sector from 2005 through 2015 from the 

Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample of the American 

Community Survey (ACS) for the years 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 

and 2015.8 ACS is an ongoing national survey that collects information 

from a sample of households. We analyzed trend data for gender, race, 

and ethnicity, and median salary by occupation and sector, and analyzed 

point-in-time data on educational background by occupation.9

We analyzed the percentage of technology workers who earned 

bachelor’s degrees in computer, engineering, mathematics, and 

 7

EEOC, Diversity in High Tech (May 2016) and Julia Beckhusen, “Occupations in 

Information Technology,” American Community Survey Reports, ACS-35, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, D.C.: 2016.

8

We used the American Community Survey rather than the Current Population Survey 

due to the much larger sample size in the ACS, which allowed us to analyze various 

population subgroups with more precision.

9

We excluded persons in the armed forces and not in the labor force. We included 

occupation for persons categorized as 1) civilian employed, at work, 2) civilian employed, 

with a job but not at work, and 3) unemployed. 

American Community 

Survey (ACS) Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

technology fields.10 For median salary, we analyzed data for workers who 

were employed full-time, which included those who, over the past 12 

months, reported usually working 35 hours or more per week and 50 

weeks or more per year, and those with wages greater than zero.

To account for the sample representation and design used in the ACS, 

we used the person weight present in the ACS data. We used the 

successive difference replication method to estimate the standard errors 

around any population estimate. For each comparison, we tested the 

statistical significance of the difference for men and women and for 

specific racial and ethnic groups at the p-value <0.05 level. In addition, we 

tested the statistical significance of the change between 2005 and 2015 

for each gender and racial/ethnic group.

For race categories using ACS data in this report, we included only nonHispanic members of White, Black, Asian, and Other categories. For the 

Asian category, we included Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander. The Hispanic category incorporated Hispanics of all 

races. Our analysis included American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Two 

or More Races, in the category reported as “Other.”

We assessed the reliability of the ACS generally and of data elements 

that were critical to our analyses and determined that they were 

sufficiently reliable for our analyses. Specifically, we reviewed 

documentation on the general design and methods of the ACS and on the 

specific elements of the ACS data that were used in our analysis. We 

interviewed Census Bureau officials knowledgeable about the ACS data 

and completed our own electronic data testing to assess the accuracy 

and completeness of the data used in our analyses.

 10To analyze the academic backgrounds for those in technology-oriented occupations, we 

analyzed data from the 2014 ACS 1-Year Public Use Microdata Sample on field of degree 

for bachelor’s degree. While the ACS collects data on the highest level of academic 

degree obtained, such as a high school diploma or doctorate, it only collects academic 

fields related to the degree for bachelor’s degree. To determine the fields of degree for 

bachelor’s degree that are technology-oriented, based on our review of literature and 

discussions with representatives from academia, we identified degrees within the following 

four categories: computing, engineering, mathematics, and technology. We omitted 

“medical technologies technicians” because this degree fits within life sciences, which is 

outside the scope of our definition of technology-oriented fields. In total, we analyzed data 

for 43 related degrees in ACS, such as computer science, aerospace engineering, and 

electrical engineering.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

To determine workforce trends in companies within the technology sector 

and at leading information technology companies, we analyzed data from 

EEOC’s Employer Information Reports (EEO-1) for the years 2007, 2011, 

and 2015.11 We report EEO-1 data starting in 2007 because EEOC made 

significant changes to its requirements related to the reporting of EEO-1 

data over time. For example, beginning in 2007, EEOC changed its 

requirements related to the reporting of data on managers and changed 

its practices for collecting certain racial/ethnicity information. EEO-1 

reports contain firm-level data that is annually submitted to EEOC, 

generally by private-sector firms with at least 100 employees or federal 

contractors with at least 50 employees that have a contract, subcontract 

or purchase order amounting to $50,000 or more.12 Companies that fit the 

above criteria submit separate EEO-1 reports for their headquarters as 

well as each establishment facility.13 EEOC requires employers to use the 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify their 

industry.

To identify trends using EEO-1 data for workers, we analyzed data for 

companies with the NAICS codes we initially identified as technology 

industries. We selected the leading information technology companies 

using Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Information Technology Index list, 

which identifies the largest public information technology companies at a 

given time. In October 2016, this list consisted of 67 companies in the 

world that have stocks trading with the United States, and we analyzed 

EEO-1 data from 65 of these companies.14 For both analyses, we 

analyzed EEO-1 data from all job categories by gender, race and 

 11Due to the complex nature of private business mergers and acquisitions, we analyzed 

data for the leading technology companies for 2015 only. 

12For this review, we only analyzed data from companies and federal contractors with at 

least 100 employees. 

13Establishment refers to an economic unit which produces goods or services, such as a 

factory, office, or store. In most cases, an establishment is at a single physical location.

14We modified the list of companies for analysis to account for mergers and other 

company restructuring. To identify which NAICS codes to use for the analysis of the 

leading technology companies, we used the 55 NAICS codes we initially identified as 

technology industries and added in any additional industry code that the headquarters 

company was assigned. This approach is consistent with EEOC’s analysis on the top 75 

companies in Silicon Valley in its High Tech report. See EEOC, Diversity in the High Tech 

Sector, 2016. In analyzing the data, we found that 13 of the 65 companies had 9 

additional NAICS codes associated with their company outside the original list of 55. For 

our analysis, we pulled EEO-1 data from any establishment of the 65 companies that had 

a NAICS code associated with any of the 64 different technology industries.

Employer Information 

Report (EEO-1) Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

ethnicity, and industry sectors. For job categories, the EEO-1 form 

collects data on 10 major job categories including 1) Executives, Senior 

Level Officials and Managers; 2) First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers; 

3) Professionals; 4) Technicians; 5) Sales Workers; 6) Administrative 

Support Workers; 7) Craft Workers; 8) Operatives; 9) Laborers and 

Helpers; and 10) Service Workers. In our analysis, “all other jobs” 

combines sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, 

operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers. We used the 

race/ethnicity categories used by the EEOC as follows: White, Black or 

African American, Asian (including Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander), Hispanic or Latino, and “Two or more Races” (including 

American Indian or Alaska Native).

We assessed the reliability of the EEO-1 data and determined that 

despite limitations, they were sufficiently reliable for our analyses.15 To 

determine the reliability of the EEO-1 data that we received from EEOC, 

we interviewed knowledgeable EEOC officials, reviewed relevant 

documents provided by agency officials and obtained on its website, and 

performed manual data testing for missing variables.

For our analysis of technology degree earners, we used degree 

completion data tabulated by the National Science Foundation from the 

National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) for the year 2014.16 Using a variety of 

sources, such as academic research and interviews with representatives 

from academia, we defined technology-related fields as degree programs 

in computer science, engineering, and mathematics.17 We analyzed 

IPEDS data by race and gender and who had obtained a bachelor’s or 

master’s degree in technology-related fields. We determined that the 

potential external candidates for technology positions generally had

obtained either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in a technology-related 

 15Prior to 2012, the NAICS code was an open-ended question; starting in 2012, it was 

used with a drop-down menu. It is possible that there may have been more entry errors 

prior to 2012 based on the open-ended nature of the question, but we could not identify or 

correct any errors that might have been incorporated. 

16National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 

Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2015.

Special Report NSF 15-311. Arlington, VA. 

17We did not include science, engineering, or other science and engineering technologies 

degrees in this analysis. 

Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System 

(IPEDS)
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

field. We used the race/ethnicity categories used by IPEDS as follows: 

White, Black, Asian (including Pacific Islander), Hispanic, and Multiracial 

or other (which includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Other or 

Unknown Race, and Two or more Races, i.e. respondents who selected 

one or more racial designations). Race and ethnicity breakouts are for 

U.S. citizens and permanent residents only, and thus do not include data 

on temporary residents. The analysis by gender includes temporary 

residents.

To determine the reliability of IPEDs data, we reviewed relevant 

documents obtained on the National Center for Education Statistics 

website, such as annual methodology reports and the handbook of NCES 

survey methods. We determined that data from IPEDs were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes.

To identify how EEOC and OFCCP have overseen technology 

companies’ compliance with federal equal opportunity and affirmative 

action requirements, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and 

regulations, EEOC and OFCCP policies, strategic planning documents, 

and operational manuals. We interviewed EEOC and OFCCP officials in 

headquarters, and in two regional locations selected based on the large 

proportion of technology companies in those areas. At EEOC, we met 

with officials from the San Francisco and New York district offices. At 

OFCCP, we met with officials from the Pacific and Northeast regional 

offices.

To explore charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC against 

technology companies, we planned to analyze data from the EEOC 

Integrated Mission System (IMS), which contains records on EEOC 

charges and enforcement activities. However, since industry code is not a 

mandatory field for investigators to complete, roughly half the entries did 

not have an industry code. Therefore, we could not reliably identify 

technology companies that have faced charges or enforcement. We 

attempted to match information we had developed on federal technology 

contractors with charges filed in the IMS database. Depending on the 

matching method we used, this yielded very different results and we 

determined this was not a sufficiently reliable method. Further, any 

matching method we used would have excluded technology companies 

that did not hold a federal contract.

To obtain information on evaluations of technology contractors completed 

by OFCCP and complaints received against technology contractors, we 

Analysis of EEOC and 

OFCCP Oversight
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

took a two-step approach.18 First, using the Federal Procurement Data 

System–Next Generation (FPDS-NG),19 we developed a list of company 

establishments and their subsidiaries that received federal contract 

obligations in fiscal years 2011-2015 under any of the 55 NAICS codes 

we included above as technology industries.20 We selected only company 

establishments that received 50 percent or more of their total federal 

contract obligations under these NAICS codes.21 Each establishment was 

counted only once regardless of how many federal contracts it received 

during the time period. Using this method, we identified 43,448 

establishments in our pool of “technology contractors.” To identify 

subsidiaries, which are also subject to OFCCP requirements and 

evaluations, we identified any other establishments that shared the global 

vendor code with the contractors we identified, regardless of their NAICS 

code. This yielded 2,116 additional contractors. Second, we matched the 

names (removing suffixes) of the technology contractors and their 

subsidiaries that we identified in FPDS-NG against OFCCP’s data on 

their evaluations of contractors to identify the evaluations of technology 

contractors that OFCCP opened and completed from fiscal year 2011 

through fiscal year 2016. We conducted a similar matching exercise to 

identify the complaints OFCCP received against technology companies. 

In addition, we identified which of the leading technology companies had 

completed evaluations between fiscal year 2011 through 2016.

We obtained information during interviews with researchers, and 

representatives of workforce and industry organizations and associations. 

In addition, we interviewed diversity and compliance representatives of 

 18OFCCP officials informed us that while NAICS code was available in their data system, 

it was not always completed until the agency made it mandatory in May 2015. Since we 

wanted to conduct our analysis for a longer period of time, we determined the industry 

data field was not reliable for this analysis.

19To assess the reliability of the FPDS-NG data, we performed electronic testing of 

relevant data elements, and reviewed internal control documents and data quality 

summaries. We determined that the FPDS-NG data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes.

20OFCCP officials told us they audited a random sample of violations data from fiscal year 

2011 through April 2016 and confirmed that the data from 2011 are accurate in identifying 

cases with discrimination or technical violations. 

21We excluded entities without Dun & Bradstreet’s Data Universal Numbering System 

(DUNS) numbers—a unique identifier required of all prospective contractors in order to do 

business with the government—or whose contract amount was negative (deobligation), if 

a consolidated or classified contract report, or an entity coded as educational institution, 

federal government or state/local government.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

eight of the leading information technology companies located in the San 

Francisco Bay area which were also federal contractors to discuss their 

efforts to increase diversity and to gain their perspectives on the federal 

role in overseeing compliance with nondiscrimination laws. These 

companies were:

• Adobe Systems Incorporated

• Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Facebook, Inc.

• Google Inc.

• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

• Intel Corporation

• Intuit Inc.

• Oracle America, Inc.
Appendix II: Technology Occupations

Page 59 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

This is the list of technology occupations that we used in our analyses. 

We selected our occupations using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes, and crosswalked those occupations to the corresponding U.S. Census Bureau 

occupation codes.

Table 4: Cross-walk of Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System Codes to U.S. 

Census Bureau Occupation Codes 

Standard 

Occupational 

Classification

(SOC) 2010 Code

National Employment Matrix/

SOC Occupational Title

Census

2014 Code Census Occupational Title

11-3021 Computer and information systems 

managers 

110 Computer and information systems managers

11-9041 Architectural and engineering 

managers 

300 Architectural and engineering managers

15-1111 Computer and information research 

scientists 

1005 Computer and information research scientists

15-1121 Computer systems analysts 1006 Computer systems analysts

15-1122 Information security analysts 1007 Information security analysts

15-1131 Computer programmers 1010 Computer programmers

15-1132 Software developers, applications 1020 Software developers, applications and systems 

software

15-1133 Software developers, systems 

software 

1020 Software developers, applications and systems 

software

15-1134 Web developers 1030 Web developers

15-1141 Database administrators 1060 Database administrators

15-1142 Network and computer systems 

administrators 

1105 Network and computer systems administrators

15-1143 Computer network architects 1106 Computer network architects 

15-1151 Computer user support specialists 1050 Computer support specialists

15-1152 Computer network support specialists 1050 Computer support specialists

15-1199 Computer occupations, all other 1107 Computer occupations, all other

15-2011 Actuaries 1200 Actuaries

15-2021 Mathematicians 1240 Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations, 

including mathematicians and statisticians

15-2031 Operations research analysts 1220 Operations research analysts

15-2041 Statisticians 1240 Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations, 

including mathematicians and statisticians

15-2091 Mathematical technicians 1240 Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations, 

including mathematicians and statisticians

Appendix II: Technology Occupations
Appendix II: Technology Occupations

Page 60 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Standard 

Occupational 

Classification

(SOC) 2010 Code

National Employment Matrix/

SOC Occupational Title

Census

2014 Code Census Occupational Title

15-2099 Mathematical science occupations, all 

other 

1240 Miscellaneous mathematical science occupations, 

including mathematicians and statisticians

17-2011 Aerospace engineers 1320 Aerospace engineers

17-2021 Agricultural engineers 1340 Biomedical and agricultural engineers

17-2031 Biomedical engineers 1340 Biomedical and agricultural engineers

17-2041 Chemical engineers 1350 Chemical engineers

17-2051 Civil engineers 1360 Civil engineers

17-2061 Computer hardware engineers 1400 Computer hardware engineers

17-2071 Electrical engineers 1410 Electrical and electronics engineers

17-2072 Electronics engineers, except 

computer 

1410 Electrical and electronics engineers

17-2081 Environmental engineers 1420 Environmental engineers

17-2111 Health and safety engineers, except 

mining safety engineers and 

inspectors 

1430 Industrial engineers, including health and safety

17-2112 Industrial engineers 1430 Industrial engineers, including health and safety

17-2121 Marine engineers and naval architects 1440 Marine engineers and naval architects

17-2131 Materials engineers 1450 Materials engineers

17-2141 Mechanical engineers 1460 Mechanical engineers

17-2151 Mining and geological engineers, 

including mining safety engineers 

1520 Petroleum, mining and geological engineers, including 

mining safety engineers

17-2161 Nuclear engineers 1530 Miscellaneous engineers, including nuclear engineers

17-2171 Petroleum engineers 1520 Petroleum, mining and geological engineers, including 

mining safety engineers

17-2199 Engineers, all other 1530 Miscellaneous engineers, including nuclear engineers

17-3021 Aerospace engineering and 

operations technicians 

1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3022 Civil engineering technicians 1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3023 Electrical and electronics engineering 

technicians 

1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3024 Electro-mechanical technicians 1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3025 Environmental engineering 

technicians 

1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3026 Industrial engineering technicians 1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3027 Mechanical engineering technicians 1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

17-3029 Engineering technicians, except 

drafters, all other 

1550 Engineering technicians, except drafters

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System and 2014 National Employment Matrix/ Standard Occupational Classification to 

American Community Survey Crosswalk. | GAO-18-69
Appendix III: North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Codes Identified 

as Technology-Related Industries

Page 61 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

This is the list of the 55 6-digit North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes we identified as technology-related industries. To 

develop this list, we identified the 15 industries with the highest 

concentration of technology workers using U.S. Census Bureau industry 

codes and then used the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 Industry Code List 

for Household Surveys to crosswalk the Census codes with NAICS 

codes.

Table 5: List of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes Identified as Technology-related Industries

NAICS Code NAICS Industry Name

334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing 

334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing 

334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 

334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing

334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing

334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 

334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 

334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing 

334417 Electronic Connector Manufacturing 

334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing 

334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing

334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing 

334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing 

334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 

334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process 

Variables 

334514 Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufacturing 

334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals 

334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing 

334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing 

334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing 

334613 Blank Magnetic and Optical Recording Media Manufacturing

334614 Software and Other Prerecorded Compact Disc, Tape, and Record Reproducing 

336411 Aircraft Manufacturing 

336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 

336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 

Appendix III: North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Codes 

Identified as Technology-Related Industries
Appendix III: North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Codes Identified 

as Technology-Related Industries

Page 62 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

NAICS Code NAICS Industry Name

336414 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing 

336415 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing 

336419 Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 

511210 Software Publishers

517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)

517410 Satellite Telecommunications

517911 Telecommunications Resellers 

517919 All Other Telecommunications 

518210 Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services

519110 News Syndicates

519130 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals

519190 All Other Information Services

541310 Architectural Services

541320 Landscape Architectural Services

541330 Engineering Services

541340 Drafting Services

541350 Building Inspection Services

541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services

541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services

541380 Testing Laboratories

541511 Custom Computer Programming Services 

541512 Computer Systems Design Services 

541513 Computer Facilities Management Services 

541519 Other Computer Related Services

541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology 

541712 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) 

541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 Industry Code List for Household Surveys and 2012 NAICS codes. | GAO-18-69
Appendix IV: Percentage by Race/Ethnicity in Different Job Categories in Companies Within and Outside the Technology Sector, 2015

Page 63 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Table 6: Percentage by Race/Ethnicity in Different Job Categories in Companies Within and Outside the Technology Sector, 2015

Percentage of White Workers

in Job Position

Percentage of Asian Workers

in Job Position

Percentage of Hispanic Workers

in Job Position

Percentage of Black Workers

in Job Position

Leading 

technology 

companies

In 

technology 

sector

Outside 

technology 

sector

Leading 

technology 

companies

In 

technology 

sector

Outside 

technology 

sector

Leading 

technology 

companies

In 

technology 

sector

Outside 

technology 

sector

Leading 

technology 

companies

In 

technology 

sector

Outside 

technology 

sector

Senior Officers 

and Managers 75.96 82.96 86.36 17.54 11.03 4.29 3.72 3.14 4.86 1.99 1.83 3.36

Mid-level 

Officers and 

Managers 63.88 75.03 76.79 27.39 14.09 5.52 4.42 5.07 8.41 3.01 4.42 7.74

Professionals 55.36 67.1 73.47 34.01 20.48 10.21 5.09 5.30 6.24 3.93 5.33 8.33

Technicians 63.56 68.16 66.15 12.70 10.44 6.56 11.48 10.16 10.62 9.66 8.93 14.58

All Other Jobs 66.84 63.43 56.06 11.50 8.41 4.37 9.42 12.41 18.42 10.00 13.29 18.59

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Employer Information Report (EEO-1) data. | GAO-18-69

Appendix IV: Percentage by Race/Ethnicity in Different Job 

Categories in Companies Within and Outside the 

Technology Sector, 2015
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 64 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 65 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 66 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 67 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 68 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 69 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 70 GAO-18-69 Diversity in the Technology Sector

Cindy Brown Barnes, (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant 

Director), Kate Blumenreich (Analyst-in-Charge), Sheranda Campbell, 

Julianne Hartmann Cutts, Clarita Mrena, Moon Parks, Alexandra Rouse, 

and John Yee made significant contributions to all phases of the work. 

Also contributing to this report were Rachel Beers, James Bennett, 

Hedieh Fusfield, Julia Kennon, Jean McSween, Jessica Orr, Dae Park, 

James Rebbe, Almeta Spencer, and Alexandra Squitieri.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100838)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.