This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-190 
entitled 'Equal Employment Opportunity: Information on Personnel 
Actions, Employee Concerns, and Oversight at Six DOE Laboratories' 
which was released on March 24, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chair, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, 
House of Representatives: 

February 2005: 

Equal Employment Opportunity: 

Information on Personnel Actions, Employee Concerns, and Oversight at 
Six DOE Laboratories: 

GAO-05-190: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-190, a report to the Chair, Subcommittee on 
Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that OFCCP review the statistical differences identified 
at the laboratories for practical significance and that the Secretaries 
of Labor and of Energy work together to define the scope of DOE's 
oversight responsibility for diversity. DOE and DOL agreed to continue 
working together to resolve EEO oversight issues. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-190. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro, (202) 512-
3841, nazzaror@gao.gov. 

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

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: 

Laboratory Staff Raised a Number of EEO Concerns: 

OFCCP and DOE Have Distinct Roles and Responsibilities for EEO: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Determining Statistical Differences in Salaries, Merit Pay Increases, 
and Separations: 

Promotions and the 80 Percent Rule: 

Women's and Minorities' Concerns at the Laboratories: 

Internal and External Complaints: 

DOE and OFCCP's Actions to Implement Our 2002 Recommendation: 

Method for Developing Background Information in Appendix II: 

Appendix II: Information on the Six Multiprogram Laboratories: 

Argonne National Laboratory: 

Brookhaven National Laboratory: 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Percent Differences in Salaries for Women and Minorities, 
Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

Table 2: Percent Differences in Merit Pay Increases for Women and 
Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

Table 3: Differences in the Likelihood of Separating from the 
Laboratories for Women and Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid- 
2004: 

Table 4: Number of Promotions for Groupings by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 
and Number of Additional Promotions Needed to Reach 80 Percent of the 
Promotion Rate of White Men, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

Table 5: Most Often Cited Issues Identified from Internal Complaints on 
File, Fiscal Year 2001 through June 25, 2004: 

Table 6: Issues Presented in External Complaints, Fiscal Year 2001 
through June 25, 2004: 

Table 7: External Complaints by Sex and Race/Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 
2001 through June 25, 2004: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Location of the Six Multiprogram Laboratories Reviewed: 

Figure 2: Composition of Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 3: Percentage of Laboratory Population by Race (Whites and 
minorities), 2003: 


Figure 4: Percentage of Laboratory Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 5: Profile Information on the Six Laboratories Reviewed: 

Figure 6: Argonne Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 7: Argonne Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 8: Argonne Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

Figure 9: Argonne Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 10: Composition of Job Category Group at Argonne by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 11: Brookhaven Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 12: Brookhaven Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 13: Brookhaven Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

Figure 14: Brookhaven Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 15: Composition of Job Category Group at Brookhaven by White 
Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 16: Idaho Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 17: Idaho Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 18: Idaho Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 19: Idaho Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 20: Composition of Job Category Group at Idaho by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 21: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 22: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 23: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by White Men, White Women, and 
Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 24: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 25: Composition of Job Category Group at Lawrence Berkeley by 
White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 26: Oak Ridge Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 27: Oak Ridge Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 28: Oak Ridge Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

Figure 29: Oak Ridge Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 30: Composition of Job Category Group at Oak Ridge by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 31: Pacific Northwest Staff by Sex, 2003: 

Figure 32: Pacific Northwest Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

Figure 33: Pacific Northwest Staff by White Men, White Women, and 
Minorities, 2003: 

Figure 34: Pacific Northwest Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

Figure 35: Composition of Job Category Group at Pacific Northwest by 
White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 
 
Abbreviations: 

DEAR: Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

EEO: equal employment opportunity: 

EEO-1: Employer Information Report: 

EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 

FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

GAO: Government Accountability Office: 

OFCCP: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs: 

Letter February 18, 2005: 

The Honorable Judy Biggert: 
Chair, Subcommittee on Energy: 
Committee on Science: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Madam Chair: 

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.[Footnote 1] Since fiscal year 1998, DOE has 
approved nearly $57 million for reimbursement to its contractors for 
equal employment opportunity (EEO) litigation costs.[Footnote 2] About 
$10 million of the $57 million is attributable to six of DOE's 
multiprogram laboratories, and pending lawsuits could increase this 
amount substantially.[Footnote 3],[Footnote 4],[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 
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.[Footnote 7]

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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 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,[Footnote 10] 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.[Footnote 11]

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;[Footnote 12] (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.[Footnote 13] 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. 

Results in Brief: 

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, and one instance where 
the promotion rates for selected minority groups were substantially 
lower than those of White men. 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. Specifically, we found the following: 

* Salaries. Women were paid between 2 and 4 percent less than men at 
five of the six laboratories we examined. Furthermore, at one of the 
laboratories, minorities were paid about 2 percent less than Whites. 

* Merit pay. Increases were comparable for all groups at three of the 
six laboratories. At one laboratory, increases were higher for women 
and minorities. At the remaining two laboratories, increases for women 
were higher at one, while increases for minorities were lower at the 
other. 

* Separations. Women tended to leave their jobs at the same rate as men 
at five of the six laboratories. At one laboratory, women were more 
likely to leave. Similarly, minorities tended to leave their jobs at 
the same rate as Whites at five of the laboratories. At one of the 
laboratories, minorities were more likely to leave. 

* Promotions. Promotions for groupings of laboratory staff by 
race/ethnicity and sex met or exceeded 80 percent of the promotion rate 
of White men at five of the six laboratories but did not for Blacks and 
Asian men at one laboratory. In using the 80 percent rule, we are not 
assessing statistical differences, but rather we are using a recognized 
guideline for identifying whether substantial differences exist for 
promotion rates. 

Women and minority staff expressed a number of concerns about their 
fair and equitable treatment at the laboratories. According to DOE and 
laboratory studies and our interviews, concerns focused primarily 
around underrepresentation, the lack of career development 
opportunities, and the need to improve the laboratory work environment. 
For example, some women and minorities explained that the laboratories 
could further career development opportunities by offering mentoring 
programs. According to our analysis of complaints filed and 
investigated within the laboratories, the primary issues varied by 
laboratory and cannot be readily compared across laboratories because 
each laboratory records and categorizes these complaints differently. 
For external complaints filed under Title VII, the most often cited 
issues we identified were pay--an area where we have already identified 
statistically significant differences in the preceding section--and 
terminations. The highest number of external cases filed dealt with sex 
or race matters. 

As a result of our 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. As a 
result, OFCCP has not sent the draft memorandum to DOE for 
coordination. OFCCP maintains that Executive Order 11246, as amended, 
made OFCCP solely responsible for enforcing federal contractors' 
compliance with EEO obligations. DOE officials agree. However, DOE and 
OFCCP appear to disagree about the scope of DOE's authority to 
implement DOE's diversity policies. DOE maintains that its activities 
in pursuit of diversity under the DEAR provision and its contracting 
guidance are independent of OFCCP's enforcement authority. OFCCP 
officials, however, have raised concerns about whether DOE's 
implementation of its diversity policies under the DEAR and its 
guidance might encroach upon OFCCP's enforcement authority. 

To understand the implications of the statistical differences we found 
and evaluate their practical significance, we are recommending 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 are also 
recommending that the Secretaries of Labor and of Energy work together 
to define the scope of DOE's contract administration oversight 
responsibility for diversity. 

In commenting on a draft of this report both DOE and the Department of 
Labor agreed to work together to resolve EEO oversight issues, although 
neither specifically commented on our recommendations. However, DOE 
stated that our analytical method differs from the method their 
laboratories would use in their analyses. We disagree. 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 other factors that the laboratories 
specifically identified. 

In addition, both DOE and the Department of Labor commented that our 
analytical methods differ from those OFCCP uses. We acknowledge these 
differences, but note that our analyses and OFCCP's analyses have a 
different purpose. As we state in our report, our analyses were not 
designed to prove or disprove discrimination, but are a first step in 
identifying whether differences exist that may require further 
investigation. In contrast, OFCCP uses its analyses to determine 
whether discrimination has occurred. 

Background: 

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. 

Figure 1: Location of the Six Multiprogram Laboratories Reviewed: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 14] 
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.[Footnote 
15] 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.[Footnote 
16]

Figure 2 shows the six laboratories' staff by job category. 

Figure 2: Composition of Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Laboratory Population by Race (Whites and 
minorities), 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Figure 4: Percentage of Laboratory Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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 and DOE;

* 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 
complaints; and: 

* developing annual self-assessments on their EEO performance for DOE's 
review. 

Appendix II provides more detailed data for each of the six 
laboratories. 

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: 

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. 

Women Tended to Receive Lower Salaries than Men, While Salaries for 
Minorities Were Generally Equal to Those of Whites: 

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.[Footnote 
17] Table 1 presents the results of our analysis. 

Table 1: Percent Differences in Salaries for Women and Minorities, 
Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

Laboratory: Argonne; 
Women compared with men: -3.6%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Brookhaven; 
Women compared with men: -3.0%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Idaho; 
Women compared with men: -2.0%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Lawrence Berkeley; 
Women compared with men: -3.1%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: -1.5%. 

Laboratory: Oak Ridge; 
Women compared with men: -3.6%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Pacific Northwest; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Note: Negative numbers indicate that the group earned a lower salary 
than its counterpart and blank spaces indicate that there were no 
significant differences for that group compared with men and Whites. 

[End of table]

Half of the Laboratories Showed Differences in Merit Pay Increases for 
Either Women or Minorities or Both Compared with Men and Whites: 

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.[Footnote 
18] 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. 

Table 2: Percent Differences in Merit Pay Increases for Women and 
Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

Laboratory: Argonne; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: -3.7%. 

Laboratory: Brookhaven; 
Women compared with men: 7.0%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: 3.2%. 

Laboratory: Idaho; 
Women compared with men: 5.3%; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Lawrence Berkeley; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Oak Ridge; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Pacific Northwest; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Note: Positive numbers indicate that the group earned a higher merit 
pay increase than its counterpart, negative numbers indicate that the 
group earned a lower merit pay increase, and blank spaces indicate that 
there were no statistically significant differences for that group 
compared with men and Whites. 

[End of table]

Separation Patterns for Women and Minorities Were Generally Comparable 
to Men and Whites: 

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. 

Table 3: Differences in the Likelihood of Separating from the 
Laboratories for Women and Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid- 
2004: 

Laboratory: Argonne; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Brookhaven; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Idaho; 
Women compared with men: 1.4; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Lawrence Berkeley; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Oak Ridge; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: [Empty]. 

Laboratory: Pacific Northwest; 
Women compared with men: [Empty]; 
Minorities compared with Whites: 1.7. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Note: Numbers greater than 1 indicate that the group has a greater 
likelihood to leave than their respective counterpart and blank spaces 
indicate that there were no significant differences for that group. 

[End of table]

Promotions for Women and Minorities Were Generally Comparable to Those 
of White Men: 

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.[Footnote 19] 
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). 

Table 4: Number of Promotions for Groupings by Race/Ethnicity and Sex 
and Number of Additional Promotions Needed to Reach 80 Percent of the 
Promotion Rate of White Men, Fiscal Years 2001 through mid-2004: 

White men; 
Argonne: Promoted: 419; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 287; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 932; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 236; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 366; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 673; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Black men; 
Argonne: Promoted: 5; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 10; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 4; 
Idaho: Needed: 1; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 11; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 11; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 7; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty].

Hispanic men; 
Argonne: Promoted: 9; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 8; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 20; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 16; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 7; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 31; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Asian men; 
Argonne: Promoted: 56; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 27; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 9; 
Idaho: Needed: 4; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 45; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 24; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 57; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

American Indian men; 
Argonne: Promoted: 1; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 0; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 12; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 1; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 0; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 6; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

White women; 
Argonne: Promoted: 116; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 119; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 305; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 136; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 135; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 319; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Black women; 
Argonne: Promoted: 8; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 12; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 0; 
Idaho: Needed: 1; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 12; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 7; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 2; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Hispanic women; 
Argonne: Promoted: 4; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 5; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 20; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 9; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 1; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 17; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Asian women; 
Argonne: Promoted: 15; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 7; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 9; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 43; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 6; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 22; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

American Indian women; 
Argonne: Promoted: 0; 
Argonne: Needed: [Empty]; 
Brookhaven: Promoted: 0; 
Brookhaven: Needed: [Empty]; 
Idaho: Promoted: 5; 
Idaho: Needed: [Empty]; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Promoted: 1; 
Lawrence Berkeley: Needed: [Empty]; 
Oak Ridge: Promoted: 0; 
Oak Ridge: Needed: [Empty]; 
Pacific Northwest: Promoted: 4; 
Pacific Northwest: Needed: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Notes: Numbers are rounded down. 

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). 

[End of table]

Laboratory Staff Raised a Number of EEO Concerns: 

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. 

Employee Groups, Surveys, and Studies Indicated Three Primary Concerns: 

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. 

Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities: 

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.[Footnote 20] 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. 

Lack of Career Development Opportunities: 

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,[Footnote 21] 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. 

Laboratory Work Environment: 

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,[Footnote 
22] 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. 

Internal Complaints Covered a Variety of Issues: 

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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24]

Table 5: Most Often Cited Issues Identified from Internal Complaints on 
File, Fiscal Year 2001 through June 25, 2004: 

Laboratory: Argonne; 
Issue: Harassment. 

Laboratory: Idaho; 
Issue: Offensive comments, materials, and actions. 

Laboratory: Lawrence Berkeley; 
Issue: Hostile work environment. 

Laboratory: Oak Ridge; 
Issue: Failure to hire. 

Laboratory: Pacific Northwest; 
Issue: Sexual harassment. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Notes: Brookhaven did not submit data on internal complaints. 

A single complaint may have more than one issue associated with it. As 
a result, if a complaint has multiple issues, some of the issues may 
not be for race, color, religion, sex, or national origin bases. We 
included any complaints that had at least one such basis. 

[End of table]

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. 

External Complaints Most Often Cited Pay and Terminations as Areas of 
Concern: 

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.[Footnote 25] 
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. 

Table 6: Issues Presented in External Complaints, Fiscal Year 2001 
through June 25, 2004: 

Issue: Pay; 
Total: 10. 

Issue: Termination and dismissal; 
Total: 6. 

Issue: Harassment; 
Total: 4. 

Issue: Promotion; 
Total: 4. 

Issue: Layoff/reduction-in-force; 
Total: 3. 

Issue: Americans with Disabilities Act; 
Total: 2. 

Issue: Demotion; 
Total: 2. 

Issue: Job Assignment; 
Total: 2. 

Issue: Performance evaluations or ratings; 
Total: 2. 

Issue: Other[A]; 
Total: 7. 

Issue: Total; 
Total: 42. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

Notes: The 42 issues cited in table 6 correspond to 34 external 
complaints. Brookhaven did not submit information on issues associated 
with its 14 external complaints. 

Because a single complaint may have more than one issue associated with 
it, the total number of issues does not match the total number of 
external complaints filed. In addition, if a complaint has multiple 
issues, some of the issues may not be for Title VII matters. We 
included any complaints that had at least one Title VII basis. 

[A] "Other" includes seven different issues that were each identified 
once. 

[End of table]

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). 

Table 7: External Complaints by Sex and Race/Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 
2001 through June 25, 2004: 

Race/ethnicity: White; 
Sex: Women: 11; 
Sex: Men: 3. 

Race/ethnicity: Black; 
Sex: Women: 11; 
Sex: Men: 10. 

Race/ethnicity: Hispanic; 
Sex: Women: 4; 
Sex: Men: 2. 

Race/ethnicity: Asian; 
Sex: Women: 3; 
Sex: Men: 4. 

Race/ethnicity: American Indian; 
Sex: Women: 0; 
Sex: Men: 0. 

Race/ethnicity: Total; 
Sex: Women: 29; 
Sex: Men: 19. 

Source: GAO analysis of laboratory data. 

[End of table]

OFCCP and DOE Have Distinct Roles and Responsibilities for EEO: 

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[Footnote 26] 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[Footnote 27] and provisions of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).[Footnote 28]

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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30]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[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 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.[Footnote 33] 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.[Footnote 34]

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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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.[Footnote 35] 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 [Hyperlink, 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. 

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

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.[Footnote 36] 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.[Footnote 37] 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. 

Determining Statistical Differences in Salaries, Merit Pay Increases, 
and Separations: 

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.[Footnote 38] 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. 

Promotions and the 80 Percent Rule: 

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. 

Women's and Minorities' Concerns at the Laboratories: 

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. 

Internal and External Complaints: 

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.[Footnote 39] 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.[Footnote 40] 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. 

DOE and OFCCP's Actions to Implement Our 2002 Recommendation: 

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. 

Method for Developing Background Information in Appendix II: 

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. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Information on the Six Multiprogram Laboratories: 

Contractors operate the six multiprogram laboratories we reviewed. 
These laboratories have a total workforce of about 21,000 and vary in 
size from fewer than 2,500 employees at Lawrence Berkeley to more than 
5,000 at Idaho. Each laboratory works in several research areas, which 
may include basic science, medical research, information technology, 
environmental restoration, national security, weapons nonproliferation, 
and nuclear safety. In addition, they provide advanced scientific 
facilities that are available for use by guest scientists from 
industry, academia, other laboratories, and other countries. Figure 5 
identifies the six laboratories and provides some profile information 
on them. 

Figure 5: Profile Information on the Six Laboratories Reviewed: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] On February 1, 2005, Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, assumed 
management of operations at Idaho. 

[End of figure] 

This appendix also provides a brief description of each of the six 
laboratories and describes the staff composition by (1) sex; (2) 
race/ethnicity; (3) White men, White women, and minorities; (4) job 
category; and (5) job category by White men, White women, and 
minorities. We obtained this information from the EEO-1s the 
laboratories submitted in 2003. 

Argonne National Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 6: Argonne Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 7: Argonne Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: American Indians comprise less than 0.5 percent of Argonne's 
staff. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: Argonne Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 9: Argonne Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 10: Composition of Job Category Group at Argonne by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Brookhaven National Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 11: Brookhaven Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 12: Brookhaven Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: American Indians comprise less than 0.5 percent of Brookhaven's 
staff. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 13: Brookhaven Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 14: Brookhaven Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 15: Composition of Job Category Group at Brookhaven by White 
Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 16: Idaho Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 17: Idaho Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 18: Idaho Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 19: Idaho Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 20: Composition of Job Category Group at Idaho by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 21: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 22: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 23: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by White Men, White Women, and 
Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 24: Lawrence Berkeley Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 25: Composition of Job Category Group at Lawrence Berkeley by 
White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 26: Oak Ridge Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 27: Oak Ridge Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. American 
Indians comprise less than 0.5 percent of Oak Ridge's staff. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 28: Oak Ridge Staff by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 
2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 29: Oak Ridge Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 30: Composition of Job Category Group at Oak Ridge by White Men, 
White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

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. 

Figure 31: Pacific Northwest Staff by Sex, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 32: Pacific Northwest Staff by Race/Ethnicity, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 33: Pacific Northwest Staff by White Men, White Women, and 
Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 34: Pacific Northwest Staff by Job Category, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Sections do not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 35: Composition of Job Category Group at Pacific Northwest by 
White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 2003: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Office of Science: 
Washington, DC 20585:

Office of the Director:

January 26, 2005:

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on General 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report GAO-05-190, entitled, "Equal 
Employment Opportunity: Information on Personnel Actions, Employee 
Concerns, and Oversight at Six DOE Laboratories." The Department of 
Energy (DOE) and its contractors take very seriously our obligation to 
assure that all opportunities for and conditions of employment are not 
predicated upon consideration of race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin.

Prior to this draft report, we had the opportunity to comment on the 
proposed statement of facts that underlay the report. We note and 
appreciate that the draft report is responsive to many of those 
comments, both as to the statistical presentation and as to the 
Department's activities in valuing diversity in our workforce and those 
of our management and operating contractors. In our comments to the 
first draft report, we expressed a concern and recommended that the 
statistical analysis be qualified in the body of the report.

Despite this clarification, we remain concerned about the analytical 
method used by GAO in deriving its statistics. We note that the 
statistical analysis criteria used by GAO differ from the criteria used 
by the laboratories to both analyze and portray their diversity data. 
Perhaps more significantly, the criteria used differ from those 
employed by the Department of Labor Office of Contract Compliance 
Programs (OFCCP). This leads us to question the accuracy of the GAO 
analysis, and any conclusions drawn therefrom.

Specifically, our Idaho Operations Office employed a statistician to 
confirm GAO's findings. The statistician was unable to replicate the 
statistics shown in Table 1 and 2 in the report attributed to its 
management and operating contractor. This prompted an exchange between 
Idaho and GAO in an effort to resolve the matter. As a result, an 
agreement was reached to revise the figures found in these tables and 
also to modify the associated narrative. Thus, in Table 1: Percent 
Differences in Salaries for Women and Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 
though mid-2004 page 13, for Idaho and under the column, "Women 
compared with men," the figure of -4.8% is to be replaced by the figure 
of -2.0%. In addition, in Table 2: Percent Differences in Merit Pay 
Increases for Women and Minorities, Fiscal Years 2001 though mid- 2004, 
page 14, again for Idaho found under the column, "Women compared with 
men," the figure of 3.7% is to be revised to show 5.3% with appropriate 
changes to the relevant narrative.

We are concerned that if similar vigor was applied to all the draft 
report's statistics, other changes may result. Other DOE laboratory 
contractors associated with the survey have raised similar concerns on 
the statistical methodology employed in preparing this report, and also 
the statistics presented therein. As a result, this letter conveys the 
Department of Energy's serious concerns regarding the statistics that 
appear in this report, even as qualified.

Your draft report reflects the Department's deference to OFCCP in 
enforcing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) in the contractor 
workforce, pursuant to amended Executive Order 11246 and its 
implementation of regulations found in 41 CFR 60-1.

The draft report also reflects the Department of Energy's position that 
its pursuit of diversity in its management and operating contractor 
workforce does not conflict with nor impinges upon OFCCP's enforcement 
authority. We expect DOE contractors to comply with their equal 
employment obligations, as enforced by OFCCP; however, this Department 
has concluded that achieving this mission is enhanced by fostering 
workforce diversity. Thus, our position is that efforts made 
accordingly are within DOE's purview, and do not present a conflict 
with or impinge upon the legally-sanctioned role of OFCCP.

Finally, as you may note, in pursuit of the recommendation in the 
previous report, DOE Weapons Laboratories: Actions Needed to Strengthen 
EEO Oversight, GAO-02-391 (Apr. 22, 2002), the Department's Office of 
Civil Rights has taken the initiative to work with the OFCCP over the 
last two years, in an effort to define the working relationship of our 
two Departments. In this regard, the Department of Energy stands ready 
to continue such efforts.

If you have any questions, please contact me or Dr. Joseph V. Martinez, 
Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science, at (202) 586-5552.

Sincerely,

Signed for: 

Milton D. Johnson:
Chief Operating Officer: 
Office of Science: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards: 
Washington, D.C. 20210:

JAN 21 2005:

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources And Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

This responds to your December 22, 2004 letter to the Secretary of 
Labor requesting comments on your proposed report entitled Equal 
Employment Opportunity: Information on Personnel Actions, Employee 
Concerns, and Oversight at Six DOE Laboratories (GAO-05-190).

We have reviewed the draft report and our comments are as follows:

The Department of Labor (DOL) agrees with GAO's important conclusion 
that the statistical analysis used in this report is inadequate to 
prove unlawful employment discrimination.

OFCCP investigations focus on whether the contractor has engaged in 
unlawful employment discrimination. If OFCCP deternlines that the 
contractor has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination, it issues 
a formal "Notice of Violations" which contains OFCCP's allegation of 
unlawful discrimination. If the contractor refuses to enter a formal 
settlement agreement with OFCCP to resolve the unlawful discrimination, 
OFCCP refers the case to DOL's Office of the Solicitor for enforcement 
litigation against the contractor.

Based on the formality of OFCCP allegations and the legal consequences 
that follow from such allegations, OFCCP uses a significantly more 
refined statistical analysis than the analysis used by GAO in this 
report. For example, when OFCCP assesses whether a contractor has 
engaged in systemic compensation discrimination, OFCCP compares the 
compensation only of employees that are deemed to be "similarly 
situated" under the legal standard developed by the federal courts in 
Title VII cases. To make such determinations, OFCCP investigators must 
look at the facts about employees' job duties, responsibility levels, 
skills, and qualifications. By contrast, GAO compared the compensation 
of employees through a much greater aggregation of occupations than:

OFCCP would use in its analysis. There are also a number of other 
significant technical differences in the way OFCCP conducts a 
statistical analysis for determining unlawful discrimination that were 
discussed by OFCCP's Director of Statistical Analysis and GAO officials 
during the GAO study.

Finally, the Employment Standards Administration/OFCCP recognizes the 
Department of Energy's (DOE) position regarding oversight of contracts 
between DOE and the weapons labs, and we will continue to work to 
resolve this issue.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this 
report.

Sincerely,

Signed for: 

Victoria A. Lipnic:

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

(360426): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] GAO, Department of Energy: Reimbursement of Contractor Litigation 
Costs, GAO-04-148R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2003). 

[2] This figure includes the costs of outside counsel and resulting 
judgments and settlements, including $31 million related to one class 
action case at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory settled in fiscal 
year 2004. It does not include costs for confidential settlements. We 
determined that the financial data provided by DOE were sufficiently 
reliable for our purposes. 

[3] DOE has nine laboratories that perform research for more than one 
DOE program office. In general, these multiprogram laboratories are 
overseen by the DOE program sponsoring the largest share of the work. 
Five of the laboratories are overseen by DOE's Office of Science-- 
Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratories. The Idaho National Laboratory created 
on February 1, 2005, from the Argonne National Laboratory West site and 
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, is 
overseen by DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. 
Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories are 
overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

[4] Information presented in this report reflects the circumstances of 
Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory at the time of our audit work prior to 
February 1, 2005. 

[5] About a third of the $10 million is attributable to one class 
action case involving more than 6,000 current and former employees at 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The main issues in the case were 
privacy violations related to medical exams and that the exams were 
predicated upon race and sex without reasonable justification. 

[6] The nine major job categories, as defined by EEOC, are officials 
and managers, such as executives; professionals, such as engineers and 
scientists; technicians; sales workers; office and clerical; craft 
workers; operatives, such as workers who operate machines and other 
equipment; laborers; and service workers, such as guards and 
custodians. For reporting purposes, we combined officials and managers 
and professionals into one category--managers and professionals. 

[7] In addition to investigating individual complaints, an EEOC 
commissioner can file a charge, known as a Commissioner Charge, against 
an employer or other respondent on the basis of information obtained by 
EEOC that indicates discrimination may have occurred. From fiscal year 
2001 to mid-2004, EEOC had not filed any Commissioner Charges against 
any of the laboratories. OFCCP did not receive any complaints against 
the laboratories. 

[8] 48 C.F.R.  22.803(c). 

[9] Whereas equal employment opportunity is a legal prohibition against 
discrimination on the basis of certain specified characteristics, 
diversity is a broader concept that promotes the inclusion of a wide 
variety of individuals in a workforce. 

[10] GAO, DOE Weapons Laboratories: Actions Needed to Strengthen EEO 
Oversight, GAO-02-391 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2002). 

[11] Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore are DOE's three major 
weapons laboratories. 

[12] EEOC and OFCCP define minorities as Asian or Pacific Islander 
(Asian); Black, not of Hispanic origin (Black); Hispanic; and American 
Indian or Alaskan Native (American Indian). EEOC defines White as 
White, not of Hispanic origin. 

[13] The 80 percent rule is a "rule of thumb" under which EEOC, OFCCP, 
and other agencies will generally consider a selection rate for any 
race, sex, or ethnic group that is less than 80 percent of the 
selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate as a 
substantially different rate of selection. This rule of thumb is a 
guideline, not a regulation, and is a practical means of keeping the 
agencies' attention on serious discrepancies in rates of hiring, 
promotion, and other selection decisions, and on the selection 
procedures they use. 

[14] Under certain circumstances, the Secretary of Labor may exempt a 
contracting agency from including any or all of the EEO provisions of 
Executive Order 11246 in a specific contract. 

[15] Technically, federal contractors submit these data on the Employer 
Information Report (EEO-1) forms, otherwise known as Standard Form 100, 
to the Joint Reporting Committee, which consists of EEOC and OFCCP. 
While EEOC and OFCCP jointly dictate EEO-1 requirements, the 
responsibility for administering this survey has historically been held 
by EEOC. Thus, we will refer to EEOC in the report rather than the 
Joint Reporting Committee when we discuss EEO-1s. EEOC uses these data 
to help determine whether employers have potentially engaged in, or are 
engaging in, discriminatory employment practices. 

[16] We did not include sales workers in our analysis because the 
laboratories do not have sales workers and report zero in this 
category. 

[17] Our analysis accounts for a large percentage of the annual salary 
variance, including that attributable to race/ethnicity and sex. 
Specifically, our model explains 88, 88, 95, 91, 85, and 96 percent of 
the variance at Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho, Lawrence Berkeley, Oak 
Ridge, and Pacific Northwest, respectively. The remaining differences 
may be attributable to factors that were not captured in the databases 
maintained by the laboratories, such as the effect of prior work 
experience. 

[18] Our analysis accounts for a large percentage of the merit pay 
increase variance, including that attributable to race/ethnicity and 
sex. Specifically, our model explains 76, 74, 78, 69, 75, and 63 
percent of the variance at Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho, Lawrence 
Berkeley, Oak Ridge, and Pacific Northwest, respectively. The remaining 
differences may be attributable to factors that were not captured in 
the databases maintained by the laboratories, such as the effect of 
involvement in special or high-profile projects. 

[19] We used the 80 percent rule set out in the federal government's 
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures as a criterion for 
determining whether the promotions of women and minorities reflect the 
diversity of the potential applicant pools. Using the 80 percent rule, 
we first determined the proportion of promotions for each 
race/ethnicity and sex group on the basis of its proportions at the 
laboratories in the 3-1/2-year period (the potential applicant pool). 
We then determined whether the proportions for each race/ethnicity and 
sex group represented the proportions for White men. (We used White men 
as the comparison group, rather than the group with the highest 
selection rate, because this method allowed us to compare 
race/ethnicity and sex groups with the same group across the 
laboratories.) Unlike the analyses of salary, merit pay, and 
separations, we did not control for any factors that might influence 
the likelihood of promotion. Additionally, we did not determine whether 
individuals in the "pool" had applied for a promotion or if they were 
eligible for a promotion in the 3-1/2-year period. 

[20] The survey was distributed to approximately 120 Asian staff at the 
laboratory, with 95 (about 79 percent) responding. 

[21] The survey from the 10-year Anniversary of Women in Science and 
Technology at Argonne: An Evaluation of its Past, Present, and Future 
was distributed to 150 scientific and technical women at the laboratory 
of which 103 (69 percent) responded. 

[22] Brookhaven's Diversity Manager was uncertain how many surveys were 
distributed, but survey results indicate that the laboratory received 
1,783 responses. These results were statistically significant at the 95 
percent confidence level. 

[23] Five of the six laboratories submitted information regarding 
internal complaints filed; Brookhaven did not submit data on internal 
complaints. 

[24] The analysis was conducted on the raw data as provided by the 
laboratories. 

[25] A Title VII complaint can be filed on the basis of race, color, 
religion, sex, or national origin. 

[26] The Executive Order authorizes the Secretary of Labor, when 
special circumstances in the national interest require, to exempt a 
contracting agency from the requirement of including any or all 
provisions of the EEO contract clauses in a specific contract or 
subcontract. 

[27] 41 C.F.R. part 60-1. 

[28] See, e.g., 48 C.F.R.  22.803(c) (responsibilities of agency to 
carry out FAR EEO requirements and cooperate with OFCCP); 48 C.F.R.  
22.810(e) (requirement to insert EEO clause); and 48 C.F.R.  52.222-26 
(EEO clause). 

[29] DOE officials note that a contractor's failure to earn the maximum 
fee available is not a penalty, but a failure to satisfy the measures 
associated with maximum performance. 

[30] 48 C.F.R.  970.2671-1 (policy), 48 C.F.R.  970.2671-2 
(requirement to insert clause), and 48 C.F.R.  970.5226-1 (contract 
clause). 

[31] Department of Energy Reference Book for Contract Administrators, 
Chapter 12, "The Diversity Plan, Equal Employment Opportunity, and 
Small Business" (revised April 4, 2003). 

[32] Id. at 12-4. 

[33] Id. at 12-3. 

[34] Id. at 12-3 to 12-4. 

[35] 69 Fed. Reg. 67252, 67254 (Nov. 16, 2004). 

[36] GAO, DOE Weapons Laboratories: Actions Needed to Strengthen EEO 
Oversight, GAO-02-391 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2002). 

[37] The term "exempt" refers to exemption from the provisions of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. These employees are classified only in the 
officials and managers and professionals categories on the Employer 
Information Report (EEO-1) submitted to EEOC (EEOC uses these data to 
help determine whether employers have potentially engaged in, or are 
engaging in, discriminatory employment practices). There are no 
nonexempt employees classified as "official and manager" or 
"professional." Although students, postdoctoral students, and limited- 
term employees are not permanent employees, they are exempt employees 
and are in positions that would be classified as professional. 

[38] Since we are not reporting any coefficients for the salary and 
merit pay analyses that are greater than 1 (or 100 percent), the values 
reported in the tables and text are appropriately interpreted as a 
greater or lesser percent earned as a result of sex or minority status. 

[39] The presence of filed complaints does not necessarily indicate 
that the laboratories are at fault nor that they participated in any 
illegal activities. 

[40] Brookhaven did not provide information on the issues related to 
its external complaints. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: