Equal Employment Opportunity: Information on Personnel Actions, Employee Concerns, and Oversight at Six DOE Laboratories
Published: 2005-02-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In April 2002, GAO identified the need to strengthen equal employment opportunity (EEO) oversight at three Department of Energy (DOE) national weapons laboratories and recommended that DOE and the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) collaborate to ensure the laboratories complied with EEO requirements. GAO was subsequently asked to examine six other DOE laboratories and determine (1) whether differences exist for managerial and professional women and minorities compared with men and Whites in salaries, merit pay increases, separation patterns, and promotion rates; (2) what EEO concerns laboratory women and minorities have raised; and (3) what DOE and OFCCP have done to implement GAO's earlier recommendation.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004, GAO found some statistically significant differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns for managerial and professional women and minorities when compared with men and Whites, and differences in promotion rates when compared with White men. These differences remained despite holding constant factors such as age, education, and occupational category. Women were paid 2 to 4 percent less than men at five of the six laboratories, while minorities were paid about 2 percent less than Whites at one laboratory. Merit pay increases were comparable for all groups at three of the six laboratories. At the other three laboratories, merit pay increases were higher for women and minorities at one, higher for women at another, and lower for minorities at the third. Separation patterns for women and minorities were generally comparable to men and Whites. However, at one laboratory, women were more likely to leave than men, and at another laboratory, minorities were more likely to leave than Whites. At one laboratory, selected minority groups were promoted at a rate less than 80 percent of the rate for White men (a "rule of thumb" used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and OFCCP). Statistically significant differences do not prove or disprove discrimination; rather, they provide information at an aggregate level and may indicate a need for further investigation into their practical significance. Concerns of women and minority staff at the laboratories focused primarily on underrepresentation, the lack of career development opportunities, and the need for an improved laboratory work environment. Complaints investigated or resolved within the laboratories varied among the laboratories and included issues such as sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Complaints filed with outside agencies such as EEOC most often cited concerns with pay and terminations. The highest number of external complaints filed dealt with sex or race matters. As a result of GAO's April 2002 recommendation, OFCCP and DOE staff met to discuss the possible creation of a more formal relationship through a memorandum of understanding. While reviewing OFCCP's draft memorandum, the Department of Labor raised questions about DOE's authority and responsibility for EEO matters at the laboratories, and as a result, OFCCP has not sent the draft memorandum to DOE for coordination. OFCCP maintains that Executive Order 11246, as amended, made DOL solely responsible for enforcing federal contractors' compliance with EEO requirements, and this authority has been delegated to OFCCP by DOL. DOE officials agree, but maintain that DOE's requirement for its contractors to promote diversity through diversity plans is independent from OFCCP's jurisdiction. Accordingly, GAO believes that the departments of Labor and of Energy need to clarify and reach agreement about DOE's role concerning its contractors' diversity activities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Energy (DOE) is the largest civilian contracting agency  in the federal government, with about 90 percent of its annual budget spent  on contracts. As part of its contract costs, DOE can reimburse its  contractors for litigation costs associated with cases brought against  them. Since fiscal year 1998, DOE has approved nearly $57 million for  reimbursement to its contractors for equal employment opportunity (EEO)  litigation costs. About $10 million of the $57 million is attributable to six of  DOE’s multiprogram laboratories, and pending lawsuits could increase this  amount substantially. These six laboratories—Argonne, Brookhaven,  Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories,  and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory—are  managed and operated for DOE by contractors that perform basic scientific  research and environmental remediation. These laboratories employ about  21,000 staff, of which approximately 66 percent are managers and  professionals. Both former Secretaries Abraham and Richardson issued  policies calling for all DOE managers, including contractors, to foster a  culture that embraces diversity and to ensure that all employees have equal  opportunity with respect to hiring, promotions, and professional  development.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,  employers cannot discriminate against their employees or job applicants  on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has primary responsibility  for enforcing compliance with the act for the U.S. workforce.
Executive Order 11246, as amended, which applies to federal contractors,  such as those that manage and operate many of DOE’s laboratories,  prohibits the same type of discrimination as prohibited by Title VII, and  also requires that employers take affirmative action to ensure that  employees and job applicants are treated fairly without regard to race,  color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Department of Labor enforces  the executive order and has assigned this responsibility to its Office of  Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). OFCCP investigates  complaints of employment discrimination, conducts compliance  evaluations, and takes administrative and enforcement actions when  necessary. Under an agreement between EEOC and OFCCP, EEOC  generally investigates individual complaints of discrimination against  federal contractors, while OFCCP generally investigates discrimination complaints filed against federal contractors involving groups of people or  patterns of discrimination.
Under the executive order, DOE is responsible for ensuring that its  contracts contain the EEO provisions OFCCP requires, for cooperating  with OFCCP, and for providing information and assistance as needed. In  addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires DOE to ensure  that it carries out the requirements of the subpart of the FAR concerning  EEO and that it cooperates with and assists OFCCP in fulfilling that office’s  responsibilities. The primary responsibility for complying with EEO  requirements rests with the laboratory managers. In addition to  implementing its responsibilities concerning EEO, DOE has a policy to  promote diversity in its contractors’ workforce. The DOE Acquisition  Regulation (DEAR), which supplements the FAR, requires that  management and operating contracts contain a clause requiring  contractors to prepare diversity plans. DOE’s policy in pursuit of diversity  is also reflected in its contracting officers’ guidance.
In an April 2002 report, GAO identified the need to strengthen EEO  oversight at three of DOE’s nine multiprogram laboratories—Los Alamos,  Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories----and  recommended that DOE and OFCCP work more collaboratively to ensure  the laboratories’ compliance with EEO.
As agreed with your office, this report examines the status of women and  minorities at DOE’s other six multiprogram laboratories. Specifically, for  fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004, we examined (1) whether statistically  significant differences exist between women and minorities when  compared with men and Whites in their salaries, the amount of their merit  pay increases, and their separation patterns, and whether there were  substantial differences in the promotion rates of groupings of laboratory  staff by race/ethnicity and sex when compared with White men; (2) what  EEO concerns women and minorities raised at these laboratories; and (3)  what actions DOE and OFCCP have taken to implement GAO’s  recommendation to work collaboratively. We did not draw conclusions  about whether the laboratories have or have not discriminated against any  employee or group of employees. Our analysis of differences in salaries,  merit pay increases, separations, and promotions focuses on managers and  professionals, while our review of employee concerns includes all  laboratory staff.
To determine whether there were differences in salaries, merit pay  increases, and separation patterns for women and minorities when  compared with men and Whites, and in promotion rates of groupings of  laboratory staff by race/ethnicity and sex when compared with White men,  we used data from each laboratory’s personnel database for fiscal years  2001 through mid-2004. For our analyses of statistically significant  differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separations, we developed  laboratory-specific regression models. By statistically significant  differences, we mean that we are 95 percent confident that these  differences are too large to have been produced by chance or random  fluctuations and that they reflect real differences in the populations being  compared. Our analyses of statistically significant differences are not  designed to prove or disprove discrimination in a court of law like analyses  conducted by OFCCP or EEOC, nor do they establish whether the  differences are of practical significance that would require corrective  action by the laboratories. Rather, our analyses use a standard method  designed to provide information at an aggregate level about differences in  personnel actions, such as salaries, merit pay increases, and separation  patterns, for women and minorities at the laboratories that may need  further investigation. Because the laboratories have somewhat different  personnel systems and practices, our analyses of salaries, merit pay  increases, and separation patterns included variables specific to each  laboratory, as well as those common to all six. For example, we included  laboratory-specific controls for organizational structure and occupational  classification systems. Additionally, we included controls for age; tenure at  the laboratory or within grade; employment status (postdoctoral, part-time  and temporary status); management status; citizenship; and education level  where data were available. Consequently our analyses of statistically  significant differences are not exhaustive, nor do they prove or disprove  discrimination. Rather they are designed to identify issues or problems that  may need to be investigated further.
To determine whether promotion rates of groupings of laboratory staff by  race/ethnicity and sex were substantially different from White men, we  applied the 80 percent rule set out in the federal government’s Uniform  Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. We determined that the  laboratories’ personnel data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the EEO concerns of women and minorities at the  laboratories, we interviewed representatives from employee groups for  women and minorities at the laboratories and reviewed recent DOE and  laboratory surveys and studies. We also collected data from each  laboratory on complaints filed and investigated within the laboratory  (internal complaints). Finally, we examined complaints filed with  organizations outside of the laboratory, such as EEOC, OFCCP, or a state  and local fair employment practices agency (external complaints). We did  not attempt to prove or disprove the validity of these concerns, nor did we  assess the laboratories’ efforts to address them. We determined that the  data we collected were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the actions DOE and OFCCP have taken to implement our  2002 recommendation, we met with DOE and OFCCP officials responsible  for implementing our recommendation and for EEO oversight at DOE’s  laboratories. We also examined the roles and responsibilities of DOE  headquarters and field offices, OFCCP, EEOC, and the contractors in  ensuring that the laboratories comply with EEO requirements.
We conducted our review from February 2004 through December 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix I contains our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The six nonweapons multiprogram laboratories we reviewed—Argonne,  Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest  National Laboratories, and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental  Laboratory—are managed by contractors from both universities and  private industry. The laboratories have a total workforce of about 21,000  employees and range in size from fewer than 2,500 at Lawrence Berkeley to  more than 5,000 at Idaho. Figure 1 shows the location of these six  multiprogram laboratories.
Executive Order 11246, as amended, provides generally the same  prohibitions against discrimination for federal government contractors as  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The order states that  federal contractors will not discriminate against an employee or applicant  for employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  In addition to the requirements of Title VII, the order further states that  federal contractors will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants  and employees are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex,  or national origin in personnel actions, including recruitment and hiring,  pay, benefits, promotion, selection for training, demotions and transfers,  lay-offs, and termination. Under OFCCP regulations, the contractors must  develop affirmative actions plans that spell out the steps they will take to  ensure EEO.
OFCCP’s regulations implementing the executive order require  contractors, including the laboratories, to submit data annually to EEOC on specific job categories, by race/ethnicity and sex. Private-sector  employers provide annual employment statistics by sex for each of nine  major job categories and for each of five population groups: Whites,  Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Pacific Islanders, and American Indians or  Alaskan Natives. We used data on race/ethnicity, sex, and the nine job  categories that the laboratories are required to provide to EEOC and  combined those data into three job category groups: managers and  professionals; technicians, clerks, and craft workers; and operatives,  laborers, and service workers.
Figure 2 shows the six laboratories’ staff by job category.
According to their 2003 data, the six laboratories vary somewhat in the  composition of their staffs. While minorities account for less than 10  percent of the staff at Idaho, they account for more than 30 percent at  Lawrence Berkeley. Figure 3 shows the proportion of Whites to minorities  at the six laboratories.
The ratios of men to women were similar across the laboratories, ranging  from 61 percent men and 39 percent women at Pacific Northwest to 75  percent men and 25 percent women at Idaho. Figure 4 shows the  composition of staff at all six laboratories by sex.
The laboratories take a number of actions to fulfill their EEO  responsibilities. These include, among other things,   submitting information on the composition of their labor force to EEOC   developing affirmative action programs that are designed not only to  improve the number of women and minorities for specific jobs in which  they are underrepresented but to ensure that the laboratory has fulfilled  its EEO responsibilities;  preparing diversity plans, which detail the laboratories’ efforts to  promote workforce diversity by training employees on the importance  of diversity at the laboratories and on the prevention of racial profiling;  providing mechanisms through which staff can raise EEO concerns or   developing annual self-assessments on their EEO performance for  DOE’s review.
Appendix II provides more detailed data for each of the six laboratories.
section_title: Available Data Show Some Statistically Significant Differences in Salaries, Merit Pay Increases, and Separation Patterns for Managerial and Professional Women and Minorities and One Instance of Substantially Lower Promotion Rates
paragraphs: For fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004, we found some statistically  significant differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation  patterns for managerial and professional women and minorities when  compared with men and Whites. We also found one instance in which  promotion rates for selected minorities were substantially lower than for  White men. Statistically significant differences do not prove or disprove  discrimination; rather, they provide information at an aggregate level about  differences in personnel actions and may indicate a need for further  investigation.
subsections: section_title: Women Tended to Receive Lower Salaries than Men, While Salaries for Minorities Were Generally Equal to Those of Whites
paragraphs: We found statistically significant differences in salaries for women when  compared with men in managerial and professional job categories at five of  the six DOE laboratories, and for minorities in managerial and professional  job categories when compared with Whites at one laboratory. These  statistical differences remained after holding constant occupational  classification, organizational division, age, tenure at the laboratory or  within grade, employment status (including postdoctoral, part-time and temporary status), management status, citizenship, and education level  where data were available. Table 1 presents the results of our analysis.
section_title: Half of the Laboratories Showed Differences in Merit Pay Increases for Either Women or Minorities or Both Compared with Men and Whites
paragraphs: While our analysis showed that the merit pay increases for full-time and  nontemporary managerial and professional women and minorities tended  to be statistically comparable to merit pay increases for their respective  counterparts at three of the laboratories, results were mixed at the other  three laboratories. These statistical differences remained after holding  constant occupational classification, organizational division, performance  score, age, salary, tenure at the laboratory or within grade, employment  status, management status, citizenship, and education level where data were available. Merit pay increases were higher for women and minorities  at one, higher for women at another, and lower for minorities at the third  compared with men and Whites. Table 2 presents the results of our  analysis.
section_title: Separation Patterns for Women and Minorities Were Generally Comparable to Men and Whites
paragraphs: Managerial and professional women tended to separate from their jobs  (leave) at a comparable rate as men at five of the six laboratories. Similarly,  managerial and professional minorities tended to leave their jobs at a  comparable rate as Whites at five of the laboratories. However, at one  laboratory, women were more likely to leave than men, and at another  laboratory, minorities were more likely to leave than Whites. These  statistical differences remained while holding constant performance score,  age, salary, tenure at the laboratory or within grade, employment status,  management status, citizenship, and education level where data were  available. Separations include both voluntary actions, such as retirement,  and involuntary actions, such as reductions in force and terminations for  cause. While a greater likelihood of separation is not necessarily indicative  of race or sex-based problems at the laboratories, race and sex-based  patterns of separation are important to evaluate in order to ensure they are  not indicative of broader concerns about women’s or minorities’ treatment  at the laboratories. Table 3 presents the results of our analysis.
The 1.4 shown in table 3 indicates that women at Idaho were 40 percent  more likely to leave than men, while the 1.7 indicates that minorities at  Pacific Northwest were 70 percent more likely to leave than Whites. Had  our analysis shown that any group was less likely to leave than its  respective counterpart, we would have indicated this using a number less  than 1.
section_title: Promotions for Women and Minorities Were Generally Comparable to Those of White Men
paragraphs: We found that management promotions for groupings of laboratory staff by  race/ethnicity and sex generally met or exceeded 80 percent of the  promotion rate of White men, with the exception of Idaho. At Idaho, an  additional Black man and woman, and four additional Asian men would  have been needed to meet 80 percent of the promotion rate of White men.  However, Idaho promoted nearly twice the number of Hispanics than  would have been needed to meet the 80 percent criterion for that group.
Table 4 shows, for each laboratory, the number of actual promotions in the  3-1/2-year period by race/ethnicity and sex and the additional number of  promotions needed to reach 80 percent of the White male promotion rate.  Blank spaces indicate that the 80 percent rule was met or exceeded (no  additional staff needed to meet 80 percent of the White male promotion  rate).
section_title: Laboratory Staff Raised a Number of EEO Concerns
paragraphs: Women and minority staff expressed a number of concerns about their fair  and equitable treatment at the laboratories, focusing primarily on  underrepresentation, the lack of career development opportunities, and the  need to improve the laboratory work environment. We identified these  concerns through our interviews with representatives of the laboratories,  laboratory women’s and minority employee groups, and our review of DOE  and laboratory surveys and studies of laboratory staff. Furthermore,  according to our analysis of Title VII complaints filed and investigated  within the laboratories (internal), the issues identified from data provided  by the laboratories varied and did not lend themselves to comparison  across laboratories because the laboratories do not record and categorize  the complaints in a consistent manner. Finally, our analysis of Title VII  complaints filed and investigated by an organization outside of the  laboratories (external) identified pay and terminations as the most often  cited areas of concern. The highest number of external cases filed dealt  with sex or race matters. As discussed in the preceding section, we found  statistically significant differences in pay. We did not attempt to prove or  disprove the validity of these concerns, nor did we assess the laboratories’  efforts to address them.
subsections: section_title: Employee Groups, Surveys, and Studies Indicated Three Primary Concerns
paragraphs: According to our interviews with representatives of employee groups and  our review of DOE and laboratory surveys and studies, women and  minority staffs’ EEO concerns center primarily around three key areas: (1)  underrepresentation of women and minorities in science positions and  management positions, (2) lack of career development opportunities, and  (3) a laboratory work environment that needs improvement.
subsections: section_title: Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities
paragraphs: Women and minorities were primarily concerned with what they perceive  as underrepresentation at the laboratories, particularly in science and  management positions, according to our interviews and reviews of DOE  and laboratory surveys and studies. For example:  The representatives stated a need for increased efforts on the part of the  laboratories to increase representation of women and minorities in  science positions. According to a representative we spoke with, this  shortage occurred in part because of limited recruiting at universities  with large numbers of minorities, such as historically black colleges and  universities. The representatives also cited a need for increased  transparency in the hiring and promotion process.
More than 60 percent of the members of the Asian Pacific American  Committee at Oak Ridge believed that Asians were underrepresented in  management positions at the laboratory, according to a May 2002  survey. According to an official at Oak Ridge, the laboratory’s  management has established programs to identify and overcome  barriers to upward movement within the laboratory. For example, the  laboratory offered in-house professional training for Asian staff and  their managers, and the laboratory added leadership training specifically  for Asians to the management training curriculum.
section_title: Lack of Career Development Opportunities
paragraphs: Some women and minority staff raised concerns about the limited career  development opportunities available at the laboratories. For example:  Representatives of the employee groups suggested the laboratories  would benefit from instituting mentoring programs to help employees  plan and take control of their careers. The need for such programs is  compounded by the fact that women and minorities often do not have  role models in management positions, and therefore the laboratories  need to address how to help “grow staff” for such roles.
According to an August 2003 study at Argonne, career development for  women ranked as one of the top three goals for the women’s group to  focus its future efforts. It also cited women’s lack of familiarity with  career paths for science and technology positions at the laboratory as a  problem. The report suggested that clearer identification of these paths  would be beneficial to all employees, particularly minorities, who lack a  significant number of role models at the laboratory.
section_title: Laboratory Work Environment
paragraphs: Although the representatives of the employee groups stated that  management has worked to create a better atmosphere for women and  minorities at the laboratories, they identified a number of issues that  continue to concern them. For example:   According to staff at Idaho, diversity and EEO matters have lost  visibility as a management issue because the laboratory has changed its  Diversity/Affirmative Action Specialist within the human resources  office from a full-time, management position to a part-time  nonmanagement position. However, an Idaho official told us that the  position focuses full-time on EEO issues, but other human resources  duties may be performed if time permits.
According to staff at Lawrence Berkeley, the laboratory established a  diversity committee to encourage understanding of cultural differences  among employees. However, the committee does not have upper  management representation and therefore possesses limited influence.  According to a Lawrence Berkeley official, the laboratory created the  Best Practices Diversity Council in January 2003 to address these  concerns. The council does have management representation and works  to implement diversity best practices and processes at both the division  and laboratory level.
According to a 2001 Update Survey conducted at Brookhaven, women  responded less favorably than laboratory staff overall about whether the  laboratory provided a working environment that was accepting of sex  differences. In addition, Black and Hispanic employees responded less  favorably than laboratory staff overall about whether laboratory  management supported diversity in the workplace.
section_title: Internal Complaints Covered a Variety of Issues
paragraphs: During the 3-1/2-year period we examined, five of the six laboratories  received 187 internal complaints dealing with race, color, religion, sex, or  national origin concerns. Because the process for collecting and  recording information, particularly specific data, on internal complaints is  different at each laboratory, we were not able to compare numbers and  types of complaints filed across the laboratories. Furthermore, the  laboratories have a number of avenues available to employees for filing  internal complaints, ranging from working through their direct supervisor  to working through the laboratory’s human resources or EEO offices. As a  result, some of the laboratories do not have one centralized repository for  collecting specific or consistent information on each complaint.  Consequently, we were not able to ensure that the information we received  included the entire universe of internal complaints filed at the laboratories.  Nevertheless, the information does provide an overall picture of the  complaints dealing with race, color, religion, sex, or national origin at each  laboratory and general characteristics about the complainants. In addition,  the data represent complaints filed by staff and investigated within the  laboratories and do not necessarily indicate any illegal activity on the part  of the laboratories.
Table 5 presents the most often cited issues as classified by the laboratories  for the internal complaints at each laboratory that provided these data.
Our analysis of the type of staff filing these complaints at each laboratory  shows the following:   At Argonne, Idaho, and Pacific Northwest, women filed the majority of  the complaints.
At Oak Ridge, men filed the majority of the complaints.
At Lawrence Berkeley, the complaints were evenly divided between men  and women.
At Argonne, Idaho, and Pacific Northwest, White staff filed the majority  of the complaints.
At Oak Ridge, Asian staff filed the highest number of complaints.
At Lawrence Berkeley, Asian and Black staff filed the highest number of  complaints.
section_title: External Complaints Most Often Cited Pay and Terminations as Areas of Concern
paragraphs: Laboratory employees filed 48 complaints dealing with Title VII concerns  between fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004. The highest number of  external cases filed dealt with sex or race matters. Lawrence Berkeley  reported the highest number of complaints (17), followed by Brookhaven  (14). As table 6 shows, pay and termination were the two issues cited most  often.
As table 7 shows, minorities filed 34 of the 48 complaints, with Black  women filing the highest number of any minority group (11 of 48).
section_title: OFCCP and DOE Have Distinct Roles and Responsibilities for EEO
paragraphs: In our April 2002 report, we recommended that DOE and OFCCP explore  the costs and benefits of a more formal, collaborative relationship toward  their common goal of EEO compliance at the laboratories. OFCCP and  DOE staff met to discuss the implementation of the recommendation and  the possible creation of a more formal relationship through a memorandum  of understanding. OFCCP provided the draft memorandum to the  Department of Labor’s Office of the Solicitor for review to ensure that it  complied with applicable laws and regulations. As a result of its review, the  Office of the Solicitor raised questions about DOE’s legal authority to  monitor and to enforce Executive Order 11246, as amended. As a result,  OFCCP has not sent the draft memorandum to DOE for coordination. In  addition, in the course of this review, GAO observed that the DEAR  requires that DOE management and operating contracts contain a diversity  clause, requiring the contractor to submit a diversity plan to DOE. Also,  DOE’s guidance for contracting officers contains provisions calling on the  contracting officer to evaluate the contractor’s diversity activities. While  OFCCP has not reached any conclusions, it has concerns that DOE’s  implementation of these diversity provisions might encroach upon  OFCCP’s EEO enforcement authority.
According to OFCCP, it is the only executive agency with the authority to  enforce a contractor’s compliance with Executive Order 11246, as  amended. Before the executive order was amended in 1978, responsibility  for compliance with EEO obligations was dispersed among 11 different  agencies, including DOE. Because agency standards, procedures, and  reporting requirements were not uniform, contractors faced differing  agency requirements. The amended executive order concentrated full  responsibility for EEO contractor compliance, including the authority to  issue regulations and binding orders with the Secretary of Labor, who  delegated this responsibility to OFCCP. Under the executive order, the  contracting agencies are responsible for including the EEO clause in each  nonexempt contract, cooperating with the Secretary of Labor by  providing the information and assistance the Secretary requires, and  complying with the terms of the executive order and implementing  regulations and orders. The obligations of contracting agencies,  contractors, and subcontractors under the executive order are set out in  OFCCP regulations and provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation  (FAR).
OFCCP maintains that DOE lacks authority as part of contract  administration to evaluate a laboratory contractor’s compliance under the  contract with the EEO requirements of the executive order and its  implementing regulations. OFCCP states, for example, that DOE does not  have authority to reduce the contractor’s fee for EEO violations cited by  OFCCP. In OFCCP’s view, DOE’s reduction of a contractor’s fee would be  tantamount to imposing a monetary penalty on the contractor, which is not  authorized under the terms of the executive order and its implementing  regulations. In addition, according to OFCCP, to permit DOE to impose  standards or sanctions beyond those administered by OFCCP could  reintroduce inconsistencies and the conflicts between EEO objectives and  procurement objectives that led to the 1978 centralization of EEO  enforcement within the Department of Labor.
DOE officials agree that OFCCP is solely responsible for the administration  and enforcement of the EEO provisions of government contracts. In this  regard, DOE states that its EEO responsibilities are limited to those  conferred by the FAR, that is, to include the appropriate provisions and  clauses in solicitations and contracts and to refer complaints to and  cooperate with OFCCP, as prescribed by the FAR.
In addition to the FAR requirements for EEO, DOE has diversity policies  that are reflected in the DEAR requirement that each management and  operating contract contain a diversity clause, and in provisions of DOE’s  reference guidance for contracting officers. DOE views its activities with  regard to the inclusion of the DEAR diversity clause and pursuit of diversity  as independent of OFCCP’s jurisdiction. However, OFCCP has pointed out  several areas in the DEAR and DOE’s guidance as possibly infringing on  OFCCP’s EEO enforcement authority. For example:  The DEAR requires each management and operating contract to contain  a clause requiring that the contractor submit a diversity plan to the DOE  contracting officer within 90 days of the effective date of the contract.This plan, at a minimum, is to address the contractor’s approach for  promoting diversity through its workforce, education and community  outreach, subcontracting, economic development, and the prevention of  racial profiling. DOE’s policy guidance for contracting officers states  that this plan may discuss how the contractor has or plans to establish  and maintain result-oriented EEO and affirmative action programs in  accordance with the requirements of EEO and affirmative action  contract clauses and how the contractor’s organization includes or plans  to include elements/dimensions of diversity that might enhance such  programs. OFCCP told us that these provisions raised concerns about  DOE’s implementation of the diversity plan requirement.
According to DOE’s policy guidance for contracting officers, each DOE  contracting officer is to evaluate the contractor’s performance in  implementing its diversity plan. In addition, contracting officers are to  evaluate the extent to which the plan demonstrates the contractor’s  commitment, among other things, to diversity, cultural sensitivity, and  inclusion in all aspects of its business practices, the workplace, and  relations with the community at large.
OFCCP believes that DOE’s diversity plan requirements and policy may put  DOE in the position of evaluating contractors’ compliance with the  requirements of the EEO laws that OFCCP is solely responsible for  enforcing and encroach upon OFCCP’s enforcement authority. DOE states,  however, that its efforts to promote diversity under its contracts through  the diversity clause are independent of enforcement of the EEO clause and  OFCCP’s authorities under the executive order. DOE views its efforts as  being in pursuit of an agency value of workforce diversity in carrying out its  mission.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOE has issued policies that are intended to ensure that the department  maintains a respectful and productive work environment for both federal  and contractor employees. While our findings of statistically significant  differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns for  managerial and professional women and minorities compared with men  and Whites and our finding of a difference at one laboratory in promotion  rates for certain minority groups compared with White men do not prove or  disprove discrimination, they may indicate a need for further investigation.
OFCCP and DOE agree that OFCCP has sole responsibility under the  executive order for the administration and enforcement of the EEO  provisions of government contracts. However, the agencies do not appear  to agree about the extent to which DOE has authority to implement its  diversity policies. While DOE views its implementation of the DEAR  diversity clause and diversity guidance as independent of OFCCP’s  authorities, OFCCP has raised concerns about whether DOE’s  implementation might encroach upon its enforcement authority. Although  we commend DOE for its desire to have a diverse workforce and its  initiative for including contract clauses to achieve that goal, the  departments of Labor and of Energy need to clarify and reach agreement  about DOE’s role concerning its contractors’ diversity activities.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To understand the implications of the statistical differences we found and  evaluate their practical significance, we recommend that the Secretary of  Labor direct OFCCP to work with the laboratories to determine their  causes and take the necessary corrective steps, if appropriate, to address  any EEO problems identified.
We also recommend that the Secretaries of Labor and of Energy work  together to define the scope of DOE’s contract administration oversight  responsibility for diversity.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided DOE and the Department of Labor with draft copies of our  report for their review and comment. DOE’s written comments on our  report did not address our recommendations, but DOE stated that it is  ready to continue its effort to work with OFCCP to define the working  relationship of the two departments. DOE also expressed concern about  the accuracy of our analyses stating that the criteria that we used differed  from that used by the laboratories and OFCCP. Actually, the methodology  that we use is similar to the methodology that OFCCP has recently  proposed that federal contractors with more than 250 employees use to  conduct annual self-evaluations of compensation practices. Our analyses  of salaries, merit pay, and separation patterns at each of the laboratories  included factors that OFCCP’s proposed guidance identifies as legitimately  affecting compensation, such as experience, education, and performance,  as well as several other factors that some of the laboratories specifically  identified. In fact, we tested a number of modifications to our models in  response to questions posed by several of the laboratories. None of these  modifications resulted in significant changes to our findings. Furthermore,  as we state in our report, unlike the analyses conducted by OFCCP, our  analyses do not, and were not designed to, prove or disprove  discrimination. Rather, our analyses are intended to identify issues or  problems that may need to be investigated further.
DOE also commented that our analyses were questionable because we  revised the statistics for Idaho. DOE suggested that if similar vigor were  applied to all the report’s statistics, other changes might result. We  disagree. The revisions to the Idaho statistics were not the result of a  change to our methodology, but resulted from including additional data  provided by the laboratory during the report’s comment period. The other  laboratories had provided this data earlier. Instead of undermining the  validity of our analyses, our actions reflect our commitment to reporting  complete and accurate information.
Lastly, DOE restated its position that its role in fostering contractors’  workforce diversity does not conflict with OFCCP’s role in enforcing  contractors’ equal employment obligations.
In its written comments, the Department of Labor pointed out that  OFCCP’s methods of statistical analysis differ from the analysis methods  we used in this report and that OFCCP’s methods are designed to  determine if a contractor is engaged in unlawful employment  discrimination. Our report recognizes this role for OFCCP and clearly  states that our analyses are not designed to prove or disprove  discrimination in a court of law like OFCCP’s analyses. Our report clearly  states that our analyses are designed to provide information at an aggregate  level about differences in personnel actions that may need further  investigation. Because our analyses identified statistically significant  differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns, and  substantial differences in promotion rates for women and minorities at the  six laboratories, we have recommended that OFCCP work with the  laboratories to determine the causes of these differences and take the  necessary corrective steps, if appropriate, to address any EEO problems  identified. In response to our recommendations, the Department of Labor  stated that OFCCP will continue to work with DOE with regard to contract  oversight.
DOE’s and the Department of Labor’s written comments are presented in  appendixes III and IV, respectively.
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 of this report to appropriate  congressional committees; the Secretary of Energy; the Secretary of Labor;  the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the Director,  Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix details the methods we used to (1) determine whether there  were differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns  for women and minorities when compared with men and Whites, and in the  promotion rates of groupings of laboratory staff by race/ethnicity and sex  compared with White men, for fiscal years 2001 through mid-2004; (2)  describe equal employment opportunity (EEO) concerns raised by  laboratory staff; and (3) determine the actions the Department of Energy  (DOE) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)  have taken to implement our earlier recommendation to work more  collaboratively to ensure the laboratories’ compliance with EEO. In  addition, this appendix provides information on the methods we used to  develop the personnel data provided in the background section of the letter  and in appendix II.
Our review focused on personnel actions and EEO concerns at six DOE  multiprogram laboratories: Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne,  Illinois, and Idaho Falls, Idaho; Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton,  New York; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in  Idaho Falls, Idaho; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley,  California; Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. We  interviewed and obtained data and documentation from relevant officials at  DOE’s, OFCCP’s, and EEOC’s headquarters offices in Washington, D.C.;  DOE officials in the Chicago, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Richland operations  offices and the Berkeley and Brookhaven site offices; and laboratory  officials at the six laboratories. We performed our statistical analysis of  salaries, merit pay increases, and separation patterns by comparing women  to men, and minorities to Whites. For our analysis of promotions, we  compared men and women in each racial/ethnic group to White men. Our  statistical analysis of laboratory staff includes all exempt management and  professional staff at the laboratories.  Limited-term staff (such as  postdoctoral students who hold professional occupations on a temporary  basis) were included in the analysis of salaries, but not in the analyses of  merit pay increases, promotions, or separations. We reviewed only exempt  employees because they represent the majority of laboratory staff,  laboratories maintain personnel data for these employees, and their  salaries and benefits are not negotiated by a union.
To determine whether there were differences in salaries, merit pay  increases, and separation patterns for women and minorities when  compared with men and Whites, and in promotion rates for women and  minorities in each racial/ethnic group compared with White men, in fiscal  years 2001 through mid-2004, we applied statistical tests to the  laboratory-provided employee data on personnel actions. We requested  data for all exempt management and professional staff for the period we  reviewed. Because many of the laboratories were undergoing changes in  size, funding, and structure, we chose to analyze the most recent 3-1/2   years of personnel actions, rather than just 1 year. We believed the  3-1/2-year period would provide a more accurate picture of laboratory  compensation practices because unique funding or organizational effects  could produce marked differences in separations, merit pay increases, and  promotions in a particular year. Because we were combining information  across years, we reviewed the data to ensure individuals’ demographic  information remained constant (e.g., race, sex, education level). Where  necessary, we either excluded inconsistent cases or included variables in  the models to adjust for nonconstant data. We assessed the reliability of  each laboratory’s data by (1) using advanced electronic testing, (2)  reviewing documentation on the data systems, and (3) interviewing  knowledgeable staff about the data and data system internal controls and  quality reviews. Based on our assessment, we determined that the  personnel data from all laboratories were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
The federal government’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection  Procedures direct agencies to analyze personnel actions of groups  protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under the guidelines, agencies  analyze personnel actions separately by race/ethnicity and by sex. At  congressional request, we performed our statistical analyses in accordance  with these guidelines. We analyzed the laboratory data at the individual  level using the complete population of exempt management and  professional laboratory staff. The laboratories have somewhat different  personnel systems and practices, and although we applied the same  modeling techniques for each laboratory, we performed the analyses  separately for each laboratory. We consulted with the laboratories  regarding our analytical approach to ensure that we were receiving the  appropriate data for the analyses. Additionally, we consulted with OFCCP  about our methodology. Our analyses are not designed to prove or disprove  discrimination in a court of law; rather, they are designed to provide  information at an aggregate level about race/ethnicity and sex differences  in personnel actions at the laboratories. Therefore, our results do not  indicate whether discrimination has occurred.
subsections: section_title: Determining Statistical Differences in Salaries, Merit Pay Increases, and Separations
paragraphs: To determine whether there were statistically significant race/ethnicity and  sex differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separations at each  laboratory, we used multivariate regression techniques. Salaries and merit  pay increases were modeled with Ordinary Least Squares regression, and  separations were modeled with Logistic regression. Race/ethnicity and sex  differences in salaries, merit pay increases, and separations were  considered statistically significant if the probability of the t-statistic or  chi-square value associated with the coefficient was 0.05 or lower. In other  words, we regard race/ethnicity and sex differences in salaries, merit pay  increases, and separations as significant if they have less than a 5 percent  probability of resulting from chance or random fluctuations. Although a  probability of .05 was used as a minimum indicator of statistical  significance, results for women’s salaries at all five laboratories had  probabilities of .001 or less. That is, the observed sex differences in salaries  have, at most, a 1 in 1,000 chance of reflecting only random fluctuations in  salaries. We chose this analytic design because it (1) is widely used in  human capital literature to evaluate differences in compensation and other  employment-related subjects, (2) allowed for the most straightforward and  parallel analysis of the laboratories’ personnel data, and (3) is an  appropriate statistical method for answering our first objective.
The models for salaries, merit pay increases, and separations included  variables commonly used to explain variation in personnel actions, such as  education level, age, and laboratory tenure. In addition, we included  laboratory-specific variables, such as occupational category and  organizational division, to control for the laboratory’s unique classification  system for comparing similarly situated individuals. Including these  variables allowed us to determine whether pay differences between women  and men and minorities and Whites existed despite their equality in  position and in other human capital characteristics, such as tenure and  education level. We controlled for these factors because they are widely  used in human capital models, are generally used by the laboratories in  their compensation analysis, and are available from all six laboratories. We  also included model-specific adjustment variables. For example, we  included a salary variable in the merit pay increase model because merit  pay increases are proportional to salary. Additionally, because we were  analyzing 3-1/2 years of data, we included variables to adjust for  nonconstant demographic data in the salary and merit pay increase models.  The variables included in the salary models account for 88, 88, 95, 91, 85,  and 96 percent of the variance in salaries at Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho,  Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest, respectively. The  variables included in the merit pay increase models account for 76, 74, 78,  69, 75, and 63 percent of the variance in merit pay increases at Argonne,  Brookhaven, Idaho, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest,  respectively.
Salary and merit pay increases represent an average for the 3-1/2-year  period, adjusting for the length of time employees were on board during  that period. In accordance with economic analysis literature, we used the  natural log of salary and merit pay increases in our models. Separations  from the laboratory include voluntary actions, such as retirements and  resignations, and nonvoluntary actions, such as terminations for cause. If  employees terminated their employment at a laboratory for any reason in  the 3-1/2-year period, they were coded as having separated. Temporary and  term employees were not included in the separation analyses.
We reviewed our final models with the laboratories and performed  additional analyses in response to some of their concerns. In particular, for  the salary analysis of one laboratory, the laboratory considered  performance score an important factor in determining pay and includes  that control in its own analyses of pay. Because we included both  temporary staff—who typically do not receive performance scores—and  permanent staff in our analyses, we did not include performance score. To  address the laboratory’s concerns, we analyzed permanent staff only and  included a control for average performance score. No material changes in  the estimate for women’s salaries resulted from the inclusion of average  performance score. Additionally, the laboratory considered tenure within  grade to be an important control, so we included this control in the salary  analysis for the same laboratory, which also resulted in no material change  to the estimate for women’s salaries. Finally, one laboratory did not have  tenure within grade in their database, but considered it an important factor  in their pay equity studies. Consequently, we included a control indicating  whether someone received a promotion in the 3-1/2-year period in the  salary analysis as a proxy for tenure within grade. Our assumption was that  more recent changes in pay grade should show the greatest effect on salary  within grade, if tenure within grade is an important explanatory factor in  salary differences. There were no material changes in the estimate of  women’s salaries when including this control for promotion. Because there  were no material changes in the results of these additional analyses, we  reported the results of our original analyses.
section_title: Promotions and the 80 Percent Rule
paragraphs: To determine whether promotions of management and professional women  and minorities reflect the diversity of the potential applicant pool (other  managers and professionals), we applied the 80 percent rule set out in the  federal government’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection  Procedures. We did not analyze promotions of nonmanagerial or  nonprofessional staff because the applicant pools were either external to  the laboratories or were from job categories within the laboratories that we  did not examine. The potential applicant pool consists of exempt,  permanent laboratory staff in managerial or professional positions at any  time in the 3-1/2-year period.
Using the 80 percent rule, we first determined the proportion of  promotions for each race/ethnicity and sex group based on the number of  promotions received in the 3-1/2-year period and the total number of  laboratory staff in each group. We then determined whether the  proportions for minority men and women and White women represented at  least 80 percent of the proportion for White men. Since there are a limited  number of promotions every year, we examined promotions for the entire  3-1/2-year period. We did not include postdoctoral and limited-term  employees in our promotion analysis because they do not receive  promotions. If a personnel action denoted either a competitive or career  promotion, the race/ethnicity and sex of the employee receiving the  promotion was recorded. If an individual received more than one  promotion in the 3-1/2-year period, the individual was counted as having  one promotion. The number of individuals needed to reach 80 percent of  the White male promotion rate was rounded down. For example, where a  minority group was short of the 80 percent promotion rate by 2.8 people,  that group would be reported as being 2 people short. Unlike the analyses  of salaries, merit pay increases, and separations, we did not control for any  factors that might influence the likelihood of promotion. Additionally, we  did not have data on either who was eligible to compete for a promotion or  who actually applied for a promotion.
section_title: Women’s and Minorities’ Concerns at the Laboratories
paragraphs: To determine what concerns women and minorities raised at the  laboratories, we primarily analyzed the available information contained in  DOE and laboratory surveys and studies of laboratory staff since 2000 and  the results of structured interviews we conducted with representatives of  women’s and minority groups at each laboratory. These women’s and  minority groups have memberships spanning all position levels at the  laboratories, with the exception of the Argonne’s women’s group, which  consisted solely of scientific and technical positions. Idaho does not have  women’s and minority employee groups, but we did speak to  representatives from a laboratory diversity committee associated with one  of the laboratory’s divisions. In addition, although Lawrence Berkeley does  not have a women’s group, it selected a small group of women for us to  discuss EEO issues at the laboratory. Finally, Pacific Northwest does not  have minority employee groups, although we did speak with a Black  scientist selected for our review by the laboratory. We included only those  EEO staff concerns that we considered most relevant. We did not attempt  to describe all of the EEO concerns raised or analyze the laboratories’  efforts to address these concerns. We also did not attempt to prove or  disprove the validity of these concerns.
section_title: Internal and External Complaints
paragraphs: For our analysis of complaints filed at the laboratories, we developed a  template to capture detailed complaint data on internal and external  complaints from fiscal year 2001 through June 25, 2004. Internal complaint  data include complaints filed and investigated within the laboratory. The  laboratories do not have a uniform policy for recording or managing  complaints. Instead, each laboratory maintains different processes and  thresholds for determining which complaints it will investigate and record.  (Brookhaven did not provide data for internal complaints filed during the  time period we examined.) Consequently, the numbers of internal  complaints are not comparable across the laboratories. Nevertheless,  internal complaint data do provide an indication of the types of Title VII  concerns raised at each laboratory and the general characteristics of complainants. These data are reliable insofar as they  provide an indication of the types of Title VII concerns the laboratories  have experienced. However, because of the inconsistencies across and  within some laboratories in the processes for managing and recording  internal complaints, the data are neither comparable across the  laboratories nor exhaustive of all possible complaints made by laboratory  employees during the period we reviewed.
External complaint data include complaints filed with and investigated by  EEOC, OFCCP, or a state and local fair employment practices agency. We  determined that data on external complaints were reliable for our  purposes. However, due to the small number of cases, we did not discuss  specific details of complaints by laboratory in order to prevent the  identification of individual complainants. Because EEOC, OFCCP, and state  and local fair employment practices agencies notify a laboratory’s legal  department, human resources, or EEO office when a complaint is filed  against the laboratory, we are assured that the data we received from the  laboratories contain the full universe of external complaints against them  and that the data are reliable for comparison across the laboratories.
section_title: DOE and OFCCP’s Actions to Implement Our 2002 Recommendation
paragraphs: To determine the actions DOE and OFCCP have taken to implement our  2002 recommendation, we met with responsible DOE and OFCCP officials.  We also examined legislation, Executive Order 11246, as amended, OFCCP  regulations, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and DOE directives on the  roles and responsibilities of DOE headquarters and field offices, OFCCP,  EEOC, and the contractors in ensuring that the laboratories comply with  EEO requirements.
section_title: Method for Developing Background Information in Appendix II
paragraphs: To provide descriptive information about laboratory staff, in terms of  race/ethnicity, sex, and job category, we obtained data from the  laboratories on the number of staff by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category  in 2003, as reported annually by the laboratories to EEOC on the Employer  Information Reports (EEO-1s). For ease of presentation, we grouped the  laboratory jobs into three categories: managers and professionals, which  constitute the majority of staff at each of the laboratories; technicians,  clerks, and craft workers; and operatives, laborers, and service workers.  These categories constitute eight of the nine job categories required for the  EEO-1s: officials and managers, professionals, technicians, office and  clerical, craft workers, operatives, laborers, and service workers. The  laboratories do not have sales workers, which is the ninth category;  therefore, sales workers were not part of our analysis. We determined that  the EEO-1 data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted our review from February 2004 through December 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Argonne National Laboratory
paragraphs: Argonne National Laboratory reports to DOE’s Office of Science through  the Argonne Site Office. Argonne originated from a University of Chicago  laboratory that participated in the World War II effort to develop nuclear  weapons and that was the location of the first controlled nuclear chain  reaction. The laboratory was chartered as a national laboratory in 1946.  Managed and operated by the University of Chicago, it occupied two  sites—Argonne, Illinois, and a location 50 miles west of Idaho Falls, Idaho  until February 1, 2005, when the Idaho location—Argonne West—became  part of the newly established Idaho National Laboratory. Research at  Argonne falls into five broad categories: (1) basic science in the fields of  chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, and computer science; (2)  scientific facilities, including the Advanced Photon Source, for laboratory  and visiting scientists; (3) development of energy sources for the future; (4)  environmental management; and (5) national security in support of  counterterrorism and the detection of weapons proliferation. In 2003,  Argonne had 3,420 contractor employees. Figures 6 through 10 profile  Argonne staff.
section_title: Brookhaven National Laboratory
paragraphs: Brookhaven National Laboratory, located in Upton, New York, reports to  DOE’s Office of Science through DOE’s Brookhaven Site Office.  Brookhaven was established in 1947 to promote basic research in the  physical, chemical, biological, and engineering aspects of the atomic  sciences and to construct and operate large scientific machines that  individual institutions could not afford to develop on their own.  Brookhaven is managed and operated by Brookhaven Science Associates.
The laboratory’s major programs include (1) nuclear and high-energy  physics, (2) physics and chemistry of materials, (3) environmental and  energy research, (4) counterterrorism and weapons nonproliferation, (5)  neurosciences and medical imaging, and (6) structural biology. In 2003,  Brookhaven had 2,839 contractor employees. Figures 11 through 15 profile  Brookhaven staff.
section_title: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
paragraphs: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which became  part of the newly established Idaho National Laboratory on February 1,  2005, is an 890-square-mile section of southeast Idaho, with offices in Idaho  Falls. Idaho reports to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and  Technology through DOE’s Idaho Operations Office. Established in 1949 as  the National Reactor Testing Station, the laboratory’s initial mission was to  develop civilian and defense nuclear reactor technologies and to manage  spent fuel. Until February 1, 2005, when Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC  assumed management of operations at the laboratory, Idaho was managed  and operated by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, which consisted of Bechtel  National, Inc., BWX Technologies Company, and the Inland Northwest  Research Alliance, a consortium of eight regional universities. The  laboratory’s primary missions include (1) environmental management— environmental restoration of the site, waste management, disposition of  spent nuclear fuel, and high-level waste management; (2) energy  programs—nuclear and radiological research and nuclear reactor design  and development, fossil energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy;  (3) nonproliferation and national security; and (4) scientific research. In  2003, Idaho had 5,075 contractor employees. Figures 16 through 20 profile  the Idaho staff.
section_title: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
paragraphs: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, located in Berkeley, California,  reports to DOE’s Office of Science through DOE’s Chicago Operations  Office. The laboratory was established at the university in 1931 by Ernest  Orlando Lawrence to advance scientific research through the development  and application of the cyclotron, an instrument that accelerates charged  atoms at high speed, to accomplish nuclear transmutations. It became a  federal facility in 1942. The laboratory is managed and operated by the  University of California and conducts research in the areas of (1)  biological, physical, and chemical sciences; (2) energy resources; (3)  computing sciences; (4) material sciences; and (5) environmental  remediation. In 2003, Lawrence Berkeley had 2,397 contractor employees.  Figures 21 through 25 profile Lawrence Berkeley staff.
section_title: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
paragraphs: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, reports to  DOE’s Office of Science through DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations Office. The  laboratory was established in 1943 to develop a method for producing and  separating plutonium as part of the World War II effort to develop nuclear  weapons. The laboratory is managed and operated by a partnership of the  University of Tennessee and Battelle. Its primary missions include (1)  research and development of advanced materials; (2) biological and  environmental sciences and technology; (3) computational science and  advanced computing; (4) energy production and end-use technologies; (5)  instrumentation and measurement, such as biological and chemical  detection and measurement; and (6) neutron science and technology— using neutrons to study the structure and dynamics of materials. In 2003,  Oak Ridge National Laboratory had 3,762 contractor employees. Figures 26  through 30 profile Oak Ridge staff.
section_title: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
paragraphs: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, located in Richland, Washington,  reports to DOE’s Office of Science through the Pacific Northwest Site  Office. The laboratory was established in 1965 to perform research and  development for DOE’s Hanford site, a World War II and Cold War  plutonium production facility. The laboratory’s early missions included  protecting the environment, fabricating reactor fuel, and designing  reactors. Battelle manages and operates the laboratory. The laboratory’s  primary missions include (1) ensuring efficient and productive uses of  energy; (2) environmental research, such as developing indicators of  human and ecosystem health; (3) physical, chemical, and biological  science; (4) protecting and improving workers’ safety and health; (5)  developing software and hardware for scientific research and business  systems; and (6) supporting the nation’s national security effort. In 2003  Pacific Northwest had 3,380 contractor employees. Figures 31 through 35  profile Pacific Northwest staff.
section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 (nazzaror@gao.gov)  Sherry McDonald, (202) 512-8302 (mcdonaldsl@gao.gov)
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individuals named above, Doreen S. Feldman, Kerry  Hawranek, Dick Kasdan, Carol Kolarik, Grant Mallie, Rebecca Shea, Carol  Herrnstadt Shulman, Lisa Vojta, and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions  to this report.