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.