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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 (nazzaror@gao.gov) Sherry McDonald, (202) 512-8302 (mcdonaldsl@gao.gov) 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.

Summary: 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. 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.