Historically, IPP projects were placed in one of three categories—Thrust 1, Thrust 2, and Thrust 3. DOE now only supports Thrust 2 projects. Specifically: Thrust 1 projects were geared toward technology identification and verification and focused on “laboratory-to-laboratory” collaboration, or direct contact between DOE’s national laboratories and weapons institutes and scientists in the former Soviet Union. These projects had no industry partner and, according to DOE, were entered into to quickly engage former Soviet weapons scientists and their institutes. DOE funded 447 Thrust 1 projects, 378 of which were completed. DOE no longer supports Thrust 1 projects. Thrust 2 projects involve a U.S. industry partner that agrees to share in the costs of the project with DOE to further develop potential technologies. The U.S. industry partner is expected to match the funds DOE provides, either by providing in-kind support, such as employee time and equipment, or by providing cash. Through October 2007, there were 479 IPP projects in the Thrust 2 category. Thrust 3 projects, with the exception of 1 project, did not receive any financial support from DOE and were intended to be self-sustaining business ventures. DOE no longer supports Thrust 3 projects. There were only three Thrust 3 projects and the last project was completed in 2001. All proposed IPP projects are reviewed by DOE’s national laboratories; the IPP program office; and other agencies, including Defense and State, before they are approved for funding. Initially, a national laboratory proposes a project for consideration. As the national laboratory prepares the proposal, the laboratory project manager, generally referred to as the “principal investigator,” is responsible for including, among other things, a list of intended participants and for designating the WMD experience for each participant. The proposed participants are assigned to one of the following three categories: Category I—direct experience in WMD research, development, design, production, or testing; Category II—indirect WMD experience in the underlying technologies of potential use in WMD; or Category III—no WMD-relevant experience. If the IPP project is approved, DOE transfers funding to the project participants using payment mechanisms at CRDF, ISTC, or STCU. To be paid by any of these entities, the project participants must self-declare whether they possess weapons experience and indicate a more specific category of WMD expertise, such as basic knowledge of nuclear weapons design, construction, and characteristics. The weapons category classifications these scientists declare are certified first by the foreign institute’s director and then by the foreign government ministry overseeing the institute. See appendix III for a more detailed list of the WMD categories used by DOE, CRDF, ISTC, and STCU. After the project passes an initial review within the proposing national laboratory, it is further analyzed by the ILAB and its technical committees, which then forward the project proposal to DOE headquarters for review. DOE, in turn, consults with State and other U.S. government agencies on policy, nonproliferation, and coordination considerations. The IPP program office at DOE headquarters is ultimately responsible for making final decisions, including funding, on all projects. DOE has not accurately portrayed the IPP program’s progress, according to our analysis of two key measures used to assess the program’s performance—the number of WMD scientists receiving DOE support and the number of long-term, private sector jobs created. Many of the scientists in Russia and other countries that DOE has paid through its IPP program did not claim to have WMD experience. Furthermore, DOE’s process for substantiating the weapons backgrounds of IPP project participants has several weaknesses, including limited information about the backgrounds of scientists proposed for an IPP project. In addition, DOE has overstated the rate at which weapons scientists have been employed in long-term, private sector jobs because it does not independently verify the data it receives on the number of jobs created, relies on estimates of job creation, and includes in its count a large number of part-time jobs that were created. Finally, DOE has not revised the IPP program’s performance metrics, which are currently based on a 1991 assessment of the threat posed by former Soviet weapons scientists. A major goal of the IPP program is to engage former Soviet weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians, and DOE claims to have supplemented the incomes of over 16,770 of these individuals since the program’s inception. However, this number is misleading because DOE officials told us that this figure includes both personnel with WMD experience and those without any WMD experience. We reviewed the payment records of 97 IPP projects, for which information was available and complete, and found that 54 percent, or 3,472, of the 6,453 participants in these projects did not claim to possess any WMD experience in the declarations they made concerning their backgrounds. Moreover, project participants who did not claim any WMD experience received 40 percent, or approximately $10.1 million, of the $25.1 million paid to personnel on these projects. For example, in 1 project to develop a high-power accelerator that was funded for $1 million, 88 percent, or 66, of the 75 participants who have received payments did not claim any previous weapons-related experience. On a project-by-project basis, we also found that DOE is not complying with a requirement of its own guidance for the IPP program—that is, each IPP project must have a minimum of 60 percent of the project’s participants possessing WMD-relevant experience prior to 1991 (i.e., Soviet-era WMD experience). According to our analysis of the payment records of 97 projects for which information was available and complete, we found that 60 percent, or 58, of the 97 projects did not meet this requirement. A factor contributing to this outcome may be a poor understanding of the IPP program guidance among the ILAB representatives of the 12 national laboratories participating in the program. During our interviews with national laboratory officials, we heard a range of opinions on the appropriate minimum percentage of WMD scientists on individual IPP projects. For example, ILAB representatives from 5 national laboratories indicated that they strive for a minimum of 50 percent of WMD scientists on each IPP project; the ILAB representative from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory indicated a goal of 55 percent. The ILAB representative from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicated that he was not aware of any DOE policy establishing a minimum percentage of participants with WMD backgrounds on an IPP project. Finally, many IPP project participants that DOE supports are too young to have supported the Soviet Union’s WMD programs. Officials at 10 of the 22 Russian and Ukrainian institutes we interviewed said that IPP program funds have allowed their institutes to recruit, hire, and retain younger scientists. We found that 15 percent, or 972, of the 6,453 participants in the payment records of the 97 projects we reviewed were born in 1970 or later and, therefore, were unlikely to have contributed to Soviet-era WMD efforts. This group of younger participants received approximately 14 percent, or about $3.6 million, of $25.1 million paid to project participants in the 97 projects we reviewed. While DOE guidance for the IPP program does not specifically prohibit participation of younger scientists in IPP projects, DOE has not clearly stated the proliferation risk posed by younger scientists and the extent to which they should be a focus of the IPP program. The absence of a clear policy on this matter has contributed to confusion and lack of consensus among national laboratory officials involved in the program about the extent to which younger scientists, rather than older, more experienced WMD experts, should be involved in IPP projects. For example, the ILAB representative at the Argonne National Laboratory told us that it would be appropriate to question the participation of personnel born in the mid-1960s or later since they most likely lacked weapons-related experience. A representative at the Los Alamos National Laboratory who has been involved with the IPP program for over a decade said that the program should engage “second-generation” scientists born in 1980 or later because doing so can help create opportunities for “third- and fourth- generation” scientists at facilities in Russia and other countries in the future. Senior officials at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory told us that scientists in Russia and other countries, regardless of their age or actual experience in weapons-related programs, should be included in IPP projects because weapons expertise can be passed from one generation to the next. In 1999, we recommended that, to the extent possible, DOE should obtain more accurate data on the number and background of scientists participating in IPP program projects. DOE told us that it has made improvements in this area, including development of a classification system for WMD experts, hiring a full-time employee responsible for reviewing the WMD experience and backgrounds of IPP project participants, and conducting annual project reviews. DOE relies heavily on the statements of WMD experience that IPP project participants declare when they submit paperwork to receive payment for work on IPP projects. However, we found that DOE lacks an adequate and well-documented process for evaluating, verifying, and monitoring the number and WMD experience level of individuals participating in IPP projects. According to DOE officials, all IPP projects are scrutinized carefully and subjected to at least 8, and in some cases 10, stages of review to assess and validate the WMD experience of the project participants. Responsibility for verifying the WMD experience and backgrounds of IPP project participants rests not only with DOE, but with the national laboratories, other federal agencies, and the entities responsible for transmitting funding to the scientists in Russia and other countries (CRDF, ISTC, or STCU).