DOE Weapons Laboratories: Actions Needed to Strengthen EEO	 
Oversight (22-APR-02, GAO-02-391).				 
                                                                 
Allegations of racial profiling at the Department of Energy's	 
(DOE) weapons laboratories raised questions about the equitable  
treatment of minorities and women in personnel actions at these  
laboratories. The former secretary of energy reiterated the	 
department's position of zero tolerance for discrimination of any
kind and stated that he expected and required full compliance	 
with both the spirit and letter of all civil rights laws,	 
regulations, and policies. The current secretary has reaffirmed  
this commitment for DOE and its contractor employees. The	 
Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance	 
Programs (OFCCP) investigates complaints of employment		 
discrimination, conducts compliance evaluations, and takes	 
administrative and enforcement actions when necessary. Under an  
agreement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	 
(EEOC) and OFCCP, an individual charge of employment		 
discrimination against federal contractors is referred to EEOC	 
for investigation. OFCCP retains and investigates discrimination 
complaints involving groups or patterns of discrimination filed  
against federal contractors. The composition of staff varies by  
laboratory and each laboratory has seen some change in job	 
category groups by race/ethnicity and gender when 1995 is	 
compared with 2000. The percentage of minority employees at each 
of the laboratories ranged from 19 percent at Lawrence Livermore,
to 27 percent at Sandia to 34 percent at Los Alamos in 2000.	 
There was an increase in the minority population at the 	 
laboratories from 1995 to 2000 but not for each minority group at
each laboratory. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, GAO found	 
statistically significant differences in some personnel actions, 
but not in others, when minority men and women and White women in
managerial and professional job categories were compared with	 
White men in these categories. Comparing men and women of same	 
race/ethnicity, GAO found that White, Asian, and Hispanic women  
earned less than their male counterparts. GAO found that	 
management promotions for minority men and women and White women 
generally met 80 percent of the promotion rate for White men.	 
Because of data limitations, GAO could not determine whether	 
minority men and women and White women were as likely as White	 
men to be hired by the laboratories. Minority and female	 
laboratory staff raised concerns in four areas--recruiting, pay, 
promotion, and laboratory work environment. These data are from  
recent laboratory surveys and studies, a DOE 2000 Task Force	 
Against Racial Profiling, and formal complaints investigated by  
OFCCP from 1990 through 2001. DOE and OFCCP must work together to
ensure that the laboratories meet EEOC requirements.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-391 					        
    ACCNO:   A03122						        
  TITLE:     DOE Weapons Laboratories: Actions Needed to Strengthen   
EEO Oversight							 
     DATE:   04/22/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Civil rights					 
	     Employee promotions				 
	     Employment of minorities				 
	     Hiring policies					 
	     Racial discrimination				 
	     Sex discrimination 				 
	     Minorities 					 
	     Women						 


******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-391
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2002 DOE WEAPONS LABORATORIES

Actions Needed to Strengthen EEO Oversight

GAO- 02- 391

Page i GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories Letter 1

Results in Brief 4 Background 7 The Composition of Staff Varies by
Laboratory, and Each

Laboratory Has Seen Some Change in Job Category Groups by Race/ Ethnicity
and Gender in 1995 Compared with 2000 11 Certain Personnel Actions for
Managers and Professionals Show

Statistically Significant Differences for Minority Men and Women and White
Women Compared with White Men, While Others Do Not 23 Staffs? EEO Concerns
Focus Primarily on Four Issues 31 Improved Collaboration between DOE and
OFCCP Could Help to

Ensure Laboratories? EEO Compliance 35 Conclusions 39 Recommendations for
Executive Action 40 Agency Comments 40

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43 First Objective: Describe
the Composition of Weapons Laboratory

Staff by Race/ Ethnicity, Gender, and Job Category in 1995 and 2000 44
Second Objective: Determine Whether There are Statistically

Significant Differences in Selected Personnel Actions for Managers and
Professionals When Comparing Minority Men and Women and White Women with
White Men in Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 45 Third Objective: Describe EEO
Concerns Raised by Laboratory

Staff 51 Fourth Objective: Identify, if Appropriate, Opportunities for

Improving DOE?s and OFCCP?s Oversight of the Laboratories? Compliance with
EEO Requirements 52

Appendix II Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group 53 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories Appendix III Additional
Information on Personnel Actions at the

Three Laboratories 60 Descriptive Statistics for Variables Used in Our
Analysis of Salary,

Merit Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations for Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff 60 Number and Type of Disciplinary Actions Taken, by Race/
Ethnicity

and Gender for Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff 65 Results of
Tests for Men Versus Women and Minority Versus

Nonminority for Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff 68

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Energy 69

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 71

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 73

Tables

Table 1: Percent Difference in Salaries for Managerial and Professional
Minority Men and Women and White Women in Comparison with White Men, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2000 24 Table 2: Percent Differences in Merit Pay
Increases for Managerial

and Professional Minority Men and Women and White Women in Comparison with
White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 25 Table 3: Differences in the
Likelihood of Receiving a Cash Award

for Managerial and Professional Minority Men and Women and White Women in
Comparison with White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 26 Table 4:
Differences in the Likelihood of Separating from the

Laboratory for Managerial and Professional Minority Men and Women and White
Women in Comparison with White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 27 Table
5: Number of Promotions for Each Race/ Ethnicity and

Gender Group, Percentage of the Group Promoted, and Number of Additional
Promotions Needed to Reach 80

Page iii GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Percent of the Promotion Rate of White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000
29 Table 6: DOE?s EEO Ratings for Los Alamos and Lawrence

Livermore, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 36 Table 7: Descriptive Statistics
for Los Alamos Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 60 Table 8:
Descriptive Statistics for Los Alamos Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay, Cash
Award, and Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 61 Table 9:
Descriptive Statistics for Los Alamos Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories
Used in the Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 61 Table 10:
Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 62 Table 11:
Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay, Cash
Award, and Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 62 Table 12:
Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories
Used in the Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 63 Table 13:
Descriptive Statistics for Lawrence Livermore Managerial

and Professional Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 63 Table
14: Descriptive Statistics for Lawrence Livermore Managerial

and Professional Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay,
Cash Award, and Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 64 Table
15: Descriptive Statistics of Lawrence Livermore Managerial

and Professional Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories
Used in the Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 64 Table 16:
Disciplinary Actions at Los Alamos for Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff, 1995 through June 2001 65 Table 17:
Disciplinary Actions at Sandia for Managerial and

Professional Laboratory Staff, 1995 through June 2001 66

Page iv GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 18: Disciplinary Actions at Lawrence Livermore for Managerial and
Professional Laboratory Staff, 1995 through 2000 67 Table 19: Results for
Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff

of Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations Analyses Comparing All
Women with All Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 68 Table 20: Results for
Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff

of Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations Analyses Comparing All
Minorities with Nonminorities, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000 68

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Positions in Each Job Category Group at the Three
Weapons Laboratories, 2000 9 Figure 2: Composition of Laboratory Staff at
Los Alamos, by

Race/ Ethnicity, 1995 and 2000 13 Figure 3: Composition of Laboratory Staff
at Sandia, by

Race/ Ethnicity, 1995 and 2000 14 Figure 4: Composition of Laboratory Staff
at Lawrence Livermore,

by Race/ Ethnicity, 1995 and 2000 15 Figure 5: Composition of Each
Laboratory?s Staff, by Gender, 1995

and 2000 16 Figure 6: Composition of Job Category Group at Los Alamos by

White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000 17 Figure 7:
Composition of Job Category Group at Los Alamos by

Each Minority Group, 1995 and 2000 18 Figure 8: Composition of Job Category
Group at Sandia by White

Men, White Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000 19 Figure 9: Composition of
Job Category Group at Sandia by Each

Minority Group, 1995 and 2000 20 Figure 10: Composition of Job Category
Group at Lawrence

Livermore by White Men, White Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000 21 Figure
11: Composition of Job Category Group at Lawrence

Livermore by Each Minority Group, 1995 and 2000 22 Figure 12: Composition of
Staff at Los Alamos, by Job Category

Group, as a Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and 2000 54

Page v GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 13: Composition of Staff at Sandia, by Job Category Group, as a
Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and 2000 55 Figure 14:
Composition of Staff at Lawrence Livermore, by Job

Category Group, as a Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and
2000 56 Figure 15: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Los Alamos,

1995 and 2000 57 Figure 16: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Sandia,
1995

and 2000 58 Figure 17: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Lawrence

Livermore, 1995 and 2000 59

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy EEO equal employment opportunity EEO- 1 Employer
Information Report EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission GAO General
Accounting Office GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 OFCCP
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs WFIS Work Force Information
System

Page 1 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

April 22, 2002 The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science House of Representatives

The Honorable David Wu House of Representatives

Allegations of racial profiling 1 at the Department of Energy?s (DOE)
weapons laboratories, raised most notably in the 1999 case of Dr. Wen Ho
Lee, an Asian American accused of espionage, have called into question the
equitable treatment of minorities and women in personnel actions at these
laboratories in areas such as hiring, pay, and promotion. Responding to
these concerns, the former secretary of energy reiterated the department?s
position of zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind and stated that he
expected and required full compliance with both the spirit and letter of all
civil rights laws, regulations, and policies. The current secretary has
reaffirmed this commitment for DOE and its contractor employees.

About 22,000 employees work at the nation?s three weapons laboratories- Los
Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore. These employees, who, among other
things, design nuclear weapons and conduct nuclear and nonnuclear research
and development, operate the laboratories under contract with DOE. Most of
these employees- 65 percent- work as managers and professionals.

Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 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, prohibits the same type of discrimination as prohibited by title

1 According to DOE, racial profiling includes practices that scrutinize,
target, or treat employees or applicants for employment differently or
single them out or select them for unjustified additional scrutiny, on the
basis of race or national origin.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

VII and applies to federal contractors, such as those that operate the
weapons laboratories.

The Department of Labor enforces the 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, when a
charge of employment discrimination is filed with OFCCP, it generally refers
individual complaints against federal contractors to EEOC for investigation,
while OFCCP generally retains and investigates discrimination complaints
involving groups of people or patterns of discrimination filed against
federal contractors.

Under the executive order, DOE is responsible for ensuring that its
contracts contain the equal employment opportunity (EEO) provisions required
by OFCCP and for cooperating with OFCCP and providing information and
assistance as required. DOE is also responsible for overseeing the
laboratories? implementation of the EEO provisions in the contracts. The
primary responsibility for complying with EEO requirements rests with the
laboratories.

Concerned about equitable treatment for minorities and women in personnel
actions at the weapons laboratories, you asked us to (1) describe the
composition of weapons laboratory staff by race/ ethnicity, gender, and job
category in 1995 and 2000 to determine how the composition of laboratory
staff has changed in the 5- year period; (2) determine whether there are
statistically significant differences in selected personnel actions for
managers and professionals when comparing minority men and women and White
women with White men in fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the most current
reliable data available at the time of our data request; (3) describe EEO
concerns raised by laboratory staff; and (4) identify, if appropriate,
opportunities for improving DOE?s and OFCCP?s oversight of the laboratories?
compliance with EEO requirements. In responding to these issues, as agreed
with your offices, we did not draw conclusions on the appropriateness of the
race/ ethnicity and gender composition of laboratory staff nor on whether
the weapons laboratories have discriminated against any employee or group of
employees. Also at your request, we agreed to perform our analysis for each
minority and gender group if the data were sufficient for such analysis.
Minorities include Asian or Pacific Islander (Asian); Black, not of Hispanic
origin (Black); Hispanic; and American Indian or Alaskan Native (American
Indian), as specified jointly by EEOC and OFCCP.

Page 3 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

For our analysis of the composition of laboratory staff, we used the data on
race/ ethnicity, gender, and the eight job categories 2 that the
laboratories are required to provide to EEOC, 3 for 1995 and 2000, and
combined those data into three job category groups: managers and
professionals; technicians, clerks, and craft workers; and operatives,
laborers, and service workers. 4 We compared data from 1995 and 2000 to
determine how the composition of laboratory staff had changed in the 5- year
period.

For our analysis of whether statistically significant differences by race/
ethnicity and gender in selected personnel actions affecting managers and
professionals occurred, 5 we used data from the laboratories? personnel and
other databases primarily for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the most
current reliable data available at the time of our data request. The
personnel actions we examined were salary levels, merit pay increases, cash
awards, separations, promotions, disciplinary actions, and hires. In
conducting the statistical tests for salary, merit pay, cash awards, and
separations, we ensured that we were comparing similar staff by holding
constant age; tenure at the laboratory; education level; job subcategory as
defined by the laboratory; citizenship status; security clearance level; and
for Sandia?s staff, whether they were located in California or New Mexico.
Although the laboratories have somewhat different personnel systems and
practices, our analyses of personnel actions included only those variables
common to all three. Consequently, our analyses of personnel actions are

2 The eight job categories are officials and mangers, professionals,
technicians, office and clerical, craft workers, operatives, laborers, and
service workers. The ninth job category is sales workers. The laboratories
do not have any sales workers, so they report zero in this category.

3 Technically, federal contractors submit EEO- 1 forms, otherwise known as
Standard Form 100, to the Joint Reporting Committee, which consists of EEOC
and OFFCP. 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.

4 For ease of analysis and presentation, we grouped the EEO- 1 job
categories of officials and managers and professionals into one job category
group called ?managers and professionals.? We grouped the EEO- 1 job
categories of technicians, office and clerical, and craft workers into one
job category group called ?technicians, clerks, and craft workers.? We
grouped the EEO- 1 job categories of operatives, laborers, and service
workers into one job category group called ?operatives, laborers, and
service workers.?

5 Our statistical analysis of personnel actions is for laboratory staff in
the EEO- 1 categories of officials and managers, and professionals. We also
included limited- term staff, such as postdoctoral students in professional
positions on a temporary basis.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

neither exhaustive nor specifically tailored for each laboratory. Our
analyses are not designed to prove or disprove discrimination; rather they
are designed to provide information at a common and aggregate level about
race/ ethnicity and gender differences in personnel actions at the
laboratories. The presence of a statistically significant difference does
not prove discrimination, nor does the absence of a statistically
significant difference prove that staff have not been discriminated against.
The presence of statistically significant differences means that we are 95
percent confident that differences could happen by chance in less than 5
percent of the cases. To determine whether promotions of minority men and
women and White women into management positions reflected the diversity of
the potential applicant pools, we used the 80 percent rule set out in the
federal government?s Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures.
6 Our detailed scope and methodology are discussed in appendix I.

Weapons laboratories? data for 1995 and 2000 show that the composition of
staff varies by laboratory and that each laboratory has seen some change in
job category groups by race/ ethnicity and gender. In terms of staff
composition, in 2000, the percentage of minority employees at each of the
laboratories ranged from 19 percent at Lawrence Livermore, to 27 percent at
Sandia, to 34 percent at Los Alamos. The three laboratories experienced some
increase in their overall minority population from 1995 to 2000 but not for
each minority group at each laboratory. Each of the laboratories has similar
proportions of men and women, about 70 percent and 30 percent, respectively,
for both years. In terms of job category group composition by race/
ethnicity and gender, for the 2 years, White men held a greater percentage
of the managerial and professional jobs than their representation in the
laboratory workforce overall- averaging 64 percent compared with 54 percent.
Conversely, White women held a lower proportion of managerial and
professional positions than their representation in the laboratory
workforce- averaging 18 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Minorities
held a lower proportion of managerial

6 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. Results in Brief

Page 5 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

and professional positions than their representation in the laboratory
workforce- averaging 18 and 26 percent, respectively. From 1995 to 2000, the
laboratories experienced some increase in minority representation in the
managers and professionals job category group but not for each minority
group at each laboratory. White women increased their representation in this
job category group at Los Alamos and Sandia but experienced a decrease at
Lawrence Livermore.

For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, we found statistically significant
differences in certain personnel actions and not in others for minority men
and women and White women in managerial and professional job categories
compared with White men in these categories at the three laboratories. Most
notably, with the exception of Asian men at Los Alamos and Sandia, and
Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore, the salaries for minority men and women
and White women were lower than for White men. Comparing men and women of
the same race/ ethnicity, we found that White, Asian, and Hispanic women
earned less than their male counterparts. Conversely, merit pay increases
for minority men and women and White women tended to be equal to or greater
than merit pay increases for White men, except for Hispanic men at Lawrence
Livermore. For cash awards, only at Sandia were some minority men and women
more likely to receive cash awards than White men. Only Los Alamos had
statistically significant differences in the likelihood of minority men and
women and White women leaving their jobs compared with White men.
Specifically, Hispanic men and women, White women, and Black and American
Indian men and women were less likely than White men to leave in the 3- year
period. We found that management promotions for minority men and women and
White women generally met 80 percent of the promotion rate for White men,
with a few exceptions. We did not find statistically significant
differences, with some exceptions, for disciplinary actions. Because of data
limitations, we could not determine whether minority men and women and White
women were as likely as White men to be hired by the laboratories. To
understand the implications of these statistical differences and to evaluate
their practical significance, we are recommending that the secretary of
energy, in consultation with the director of OFCCP, determine their causes
and take appropriate actions.

We identified minority and female laboratory staff?s EEO concerns in four
areas- recruiting, pay, promotion, and laboratory work environment-
primarily from recent laboratory surveys and studies, a DOE 2000 Task Force
Against Racial Profiling, and formal complaints investigated by OFCCP from
1990 through 2001. These same EEO concerns also surfaced during some of our
interviews with representatives of racial/ ethnic groups

Page 6 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

and women at the laboratories. In particular, some minority staff attribute
their low representation in certain job categories to recruiting strategies
that do not extensively target colleges and universities with large minority
populations. In terms of pay, some minorities and women believe that they
are paid less than their White male peers. They also have concerns about
promotion opportunities into top management positions. Finally, some
minorities and women expressed concerns about the laboratories? lack of
sensitivity to cultural and gender differences.

Opportunities exist for DOE and OFCCP to work together toward their common
goal of ensuring that the laboratories meet EEO requirements. Currently, DOE
and OFCCP take different approaches to evaluating the laboratories? EEO
performance. In its contract oversight role, DOE focuses on the
laboratories? EEO performance in meeting their EEO objectives by working
with laboratory managers throughout the year on EEO issues and then formally
rating the laboratories? own assessment of their EEO performance, annually.
In contrast, OFCCP focuses on enforcing EEO compliance with applicable laws
and regulations by evaluating virtually all aspects of a contractor?s
employment practices; however, OFCCP conducts its evaluations
intermittently. These two different approaches produce different assessments
that at times appear to yield contradictory results. For example, in 1999,
DOE rated Sandia as ?outstanding? in human resources, which includes EEO
performance; while a 1999 OFCCP compliance evaluation at Sandia resulted in
two affirmative action program violations for not addressing ways to
increase the hiring and representation of Blacks and Hispanics at the
laboratory; Sandia agreed to correct these problems. While both DOE?s and
OFCCP?s approaches yield different information about the laboratories? EEO
performance, the agencies work independently and do not routinely coordinate
their efforts. Both agencies have EEO information and expertise that would
be beneficial to share. Effective coordination among agencies with common
goals has been a long- standing problem in the federal government and
difficult to resolve. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
establishes a framework for coordination among federal agencies- agencies
sharing common goals are to work together to develop program strategies that
support each other?s efforts. Closer collaboration between DOE and OFCCP
could help ensure that the laboratories comply with EEO requirements. We are
therefore recommending that the secretaries of energy and of labor explore
the costs and benefits of establishing a formal, ongoing collaborative
relationship in order to work more effectively toward their common goal.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE stated that it would work with
the Department of Labor?s OFCCP to achieve the desired effect of the
recommendations as well as to establish better communication between the two
agencies. DOE further states that it has initiated its own statistical
review, which is consistent with our recommendation. The Department of Labor
also agreed with our recommendations. Specifically, the Department of
Labor?s OFCCP offers its services and expertise to DOE so it may perform the
necessary and appropriate analysis of the statistical differences we
reported, and if problems exist, OFCCP can work in partnership with DOE to
assist in the design and implementation of corrective action, as
appropriate. Furthermore, the Department of Labor states that it looks
forward to working more closely with DOE in order to effect stronger EEO
workplaces at the nation?s weapons laboratories. EEOC did not have any
comments on the report?s findings, conclusions, or recommendations but did
provide minor technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

Contractors operate DOE?s three major weapons laboratories. 7 The
laboratories have a total workforce of about 22,000- Los Alamos, with about
8,000 employees in New Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore, with about 6,500
employees in California, are both operated by the University of California,
which has had the contracts, with periodic revisions, since 1943 and 1952,
respectively. The Los Alamos contract amounted to $1.6 billion in fiscal
year 2001. The Lawrence Livermore contract amounted to $1.4 billion for the
same period. Sandia, employing about 7,500 and located in New Mexico and
California, is operated by the Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Lockheed Martin, which has had the contract since 1993. 8 The total
Sandia contract amount for fiscal year 2001 was $1.6 billion. In terms of
contract amounts, the University of California and Lockheed Martin are among
DOE?s top three largest contractors and the top six federal contractors in
the United States.

Executive Order 11246, as amended, provides, generally, the same
prohibitions against discrimination for federal government contractors as

7 The National Nuclear Security Administration, a separately organized
agency within DOE, is responsible for the nation?s nuclear weapons
laboratories. 8 Prior to the Sandia Corporation contract, which began in
1993, Sandia was operated under contract, with periodic revisions, by AT& T
since 1949. Background

Page 8 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 9 The order states
that federal contractors will not discriminate against any 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. 10 The
contractors must spell out in their written affirmative action programs the
steps they will take to ensure equal employment opportunity.

OFCCP?s regulations implementing the executive order require contractors,
including the laboratories, to submit data annually to EEOC 11 on specified
job categories, by race/ ethnicity and gender. 12 These data are submitted
on the Employer Information Report (EEO- 1) 13 to EEOC. EEOC uses these data
to help determine whether employers have potentially engaged in, or are
engaging in, discriminatory employment practices. For this report, private-
sector employers provide annual employment statistics by gender for each of
the nine major job categories and for each of five population groups:
Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Pacific Islanders, and American Indians
or Alaskan Natives. The nine major job categories are officials and
managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, office and clerical,
craft workers, operatives, laborers, and service workers.

Figure 1 displays the percentage of all positions across the three weapons
laboratories falling into each of the three job category groups, according

9 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.

10 According to OFCCP regulations, each government contractor with 50 or
more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to
develop a written affirmative action program for each of its establishments.
OFCCP is responsible for reviewing the contractor?s affirmative action
program. OFCCP generally does this as part of a compliance evaluation.

11 See footnote 3. 12 This applies to all federal contractors with 50 or
more employees and a contract value of $50, 000 or more. 13 Also known as
Standard Form 100.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

to the EEO- 1 information for 2000 provided by the laboratories. As the
figure shows, managers and professionals account for the majority of
laboratory staff.

Figure 1: Percentage of Positions in Each Job Category Group at the Three
Weapons Laboratories, 2000

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos, Sandia, and
Lawrence Livermore.

EEOC forwards the EEO- 1 data to OFCCP. With these data, OFCCP identifies
facilities that may warrant further examination- known as compliance
evaluations- because their employment of minorities and women appears to
differ from industry averages. According to OFCCP officials, OFCCP annually
conducts compliance evaluations for a limited number of those identified
facilities. While the EEO- 1 information is the primary selection source for
the majority of the compliance evaluations conducted by OFCCP, OFCCP can
schedule a compliance evaluation, when warranted by special circumstances,
such as three or more complaints with a common issue filed with EEOC.
According to OFCCP officials, in selecting facilities, OFCCP does not
consider the value of the contract or the facilities? history of compliance.

As part of a compliance evaluation, OFCCP analyzes the contractor?s
personnel actions and compensation systems to determine if the contractor
complied with the obligation not to discriminate. For evaluations where
OFCCP identifies major EEO violations, it tries to resolve them through
conciliation agreements with the contractors.

Managers and professionals

32% 65%

3%

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers

Page 10 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Conciliation agreements generally require the contractor to make the victim
of discrimination ?whole.? Thus a contractor may be required to award a
victim of discrimination monetary relief. OFCCP monitors the contractor?s
progress to ensure that corrective actions have been taken as detailed in
the conciliation agreement.

While OFCCP emphasizes bringing contractors into compliance with the
employment laws, rather than penalizing them for not complying, OFCCP may
recommend legal actions if a contractor fails to resolve discrimination or
affirmative action violations. As a last resort, the secretary of labor may
order that a contract be suspended or canceled and the contractor may be
debarred from doing business with the federal government.

OFCCP also investigates specific complaints of employment discrimination
involving groups of people or patterns of discrimination filed against
federal contractors. OFCCP usually refers any individual complaints of
discrimination involving race, color, religion, sex, or national origin to
EEOC for investigation, as agreed under a memorandum of understanding
between the two agencies. EEOC will also investigate any complaints filed
directly by contractor staff with it, according to EEOC officials.

DOE?s workforce consists of more than 100,000 employees: about 13 percent of
these are federal employees, and about 87 percent are contractors in its 15
national laboratories. While DOE?s civil rights office in headquarters is
responsible for ensuring that the department?s federal employees are treated
fairly, DOE primarily relies on its operations offices, which are located
near the laboratories, for overseeing the laboratories? implementation of
EEO contract provisions, according to DOE officials. Albuquerque and
Oakland- the two operations offices responsible for overseeing the three
weapons laboratories- are responsible for (1) ensuring that the laboratory
contracts include the required EEO contract clauses; (2) negotiating
additional EEO clauses where needed; (3) assessing the laboratories? EEO
performance; and (4) working with the contractors at the laboratories to
review their EEO systems, evaluate their performance against EEO performance
measures, and develop solutions for identified problems.

The laboratories take a number of actions to fulfill their EEO
responsibilities. These include, among other things,

Page 11 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

 submitting EEO- 1s to EEOC 14 and similar information to DOE to be
included in its Work Force Information System (WFIS);  developing
affirmative action programs that are designed not only to

improve the number of minorities and women 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 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. According to their data for 1995 and 2000, the three laboratories
vary somewhat in the composition of their staff and have experienced some
changes by race/ ethnicity and gender over the period. In 1995 and 2000,
minorities accounted for 18 and 19 percent of the staff at Lawrence
Livermore, 26 and 27 percent at Sandia, and 32 and 34 percent at Los Alamos,
respectively. From 1995 through 2000, each of the three laboratories
experienced some increase in its overall percentage of minority population
but not for every minority group at each laboratory. All the laboratories
have similar proportions of men and women- approximately 70 and 30 percent,
respectively. The percentage of women increased slightly at two laboratories
while slightly decreasing at the third. In terms of each job category
group?s composition by race/ ethnicity and gender, White men generally held
a greater percentage of the managerial and professional jobs than their
representation in the laboratories, averaged for 1995 and 2000. However,
from 1995 through 2000, the representation of White men in the managerial
and professional job category group decreased at each of the three
laboratories. White women and minorities had a lower percentage of managers
and professionals than their representation in the total laboratory staff,
averaged for 1995 and 2000. The laboratories experienced some increase in
minority representation in the managers and professionals job category group
but not for each minority group at each laboratory. White women increased
their representation in this job category group at two laboratories but
experienced a decrease at the third. Data on the composition of laboratory

14 See footnote 3. The Composition of

Staff Varies by Laboratory, and Each Laboratory Has Seen Some Change in Job
Category Groups by Race/ Ethnicity and Gender in 1995 Compared with 2000

Page 12 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

staff may be presented in two ways, according to EEOC: (1) as presented in
figures 6 to 11, by the number of a racial/ ethnic or gender group in a
specific job category group at the laboratory divided by the total number of
staff in that job category group at the laboratory and (2) by the number of
a racial/ ethnic or gender group in a specific job category group at the
laboratory divided by the total number of that racial/ ethnic or gender
group at the laboratory. (For this latter presentation, see app. II.)

For 1995 and 2000, figures 2 through 4 show the composition of each
laboratory?s staff by race/ ethnicity. Figure 5 shows the composition of the
three laboratories? staff by gender. Composition of Laboratory

Staff by Race/ Ethnicity and Gender

Page 13 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 2: Composition of Laboratory Staff at Los Alamos, by Race/ Ethnicity,
1995 and 2000

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos.

0 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 20

30 40

50 60

70 80

90 100

White Race/ ethnicity

1995 2000

Hispanic Asian Black American Indian Percent

Page 14 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 3: Composition of Laboratory Staff at Sandia, by Race/ Ethnicity,
1995 and 2000

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Sandia.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20

30 40

50 60

70 80

90 100

White Race/ ethnicity

Hispanic Asian Black American Indian Percent

1995 2000

Page 15 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 4: Composition of Laboratory Staff at Lawrence Livermore, by Race/
Ethnicity, 1995 and 2000

Source: GAO?s analysis of WFIS?s data (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from Lawrence
Livermore (2000).

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

White Race/ ethnicity

Hispanic Asian Black American Indian Percent

1995 2000

10 40

20 30 60

50 80

70 100

90

Page 16 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 5: Composition of Each Laboratory?s Staff, by Gender, 1995 and 2000

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos and Sandia (1995
and 2000); WFIS data for Lawrence Livermore (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from
Lawrence Livermore (2000).

In 1995 and 2000, for all laboratories, White men held an average of 54
percent of all laboratory jobs and an average of 64 percent of the
managerial and professional jobs. For the same years, White women, who
constitute an average of 20 percent of all laboratory staff, held about 18
percent of the managerial and professional jobs. In contrast, minorities,
who held an average of 26 percent of all laboratory jobs, held 18 percent of
the managerial and professional jobs. For each of the laboratories, we
examined the composition of the staff by job category group and within each
job category group, the composition by White men, White women, and
minorities. From 1995 through 2000, the laboratories experienced some
increase in minority representation in the managers and professionals job
category group but not for each minority group at each laboratory. White
women increased their representation in this job category group at Los
Alamos and Sandia but experienced a decrease at Composition of Each Job

Category Group by Race/ Ethnicity and Gender

Los Alamos National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory Percent

1995 2000

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 Men Men Women Men Women Women

Page 17 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Lawrence Livermore. Figures 6 through 11 show the composition of each job
category group by race/ ethnicity and gender.

Figure 6: Composition of Job Category Group at Los Alamos by White Men,
White Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000 and does not add to
100 percent because of rounding.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos.

Los Alamos

Managers and professionals

(67% of staff) 1995 2000

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 White men

White women Minorities

White men White women

Minorities White men

White women Minorities

Technicians, clerks, & craft workers

(33% of staff)

Operatives, laborers, & service workers

(0.5% of staff)

Page 18 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 7: Composition of Job Category Group at Los Alamos by Each Minority
Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000 and does not add to
100 percent because of rounding.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos.

30 40

50 60

70 80

90 100

0 2

4 6

8 10

12 14

16 18

20 Percent

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian

1995 2000

Managers and professionals

(67% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

(33% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Operatives, laborers, and service workers (0.5% of
staff)

Page 19 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 8: Composition of Job Category Group at Sandia by White Men, White
Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Sandia.

Sandia

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 White men

White women Minorities

1995 2000

Managers and professionals

(63% of staff)

White men White women

Minorities Technicians, clerks, & craft workers

(33% of staff)

White men White women

Minorities Operatives, laborers, & service workers

(4% of staff)

Percent

Page 20 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 9: Composition of Job Category Group at Sandia by Each Minority
Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Sandia.

0 2

4 6

8 10

12 14

16 18

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 Hispanic

Asian Black

American Indian

1995 2000

Managers and professionals

(63% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

(33% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Operatives, laborers, and service workers (4% of
staff)

Percent

Page 21 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 10: Composition of Job Category Group at Lawrence Livermore by White
Men, White Women, and Minorities, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of WFIS?s data (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from Lawrence
Livermore (2000).

Lawrence Livermore

0 10

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100

1995 2000

Managers and professionals

(57% of staff)

White men White women

Minorities Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

(38% of staff)

White men White women

Minorities White men

White women Minorities

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

(5% of staff)

Percent

Page 22 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 11: Composition of Job Category Group at Lawrence Livermore by Each
Minority Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each job category group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of WFIS?s data (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from Lawrence
Livermore (2000).

Percent 0 2

4 6

8 10

12 14

16 18

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 Hispanic

Asian Black

American Indian

1995 2000

Managers and professionals

(57% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Technicians, clerks, and craft workers (38% of staff)

Hispanic Asian

Black American Indian Operatives, laborers, and service workers (5% of
staff)

Page 23 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, we found statistically significant
differences in certain personnel actions but not in others for minority men
and women and White women in managerial and professional job categories
compared with White men in these categories at the three laboratories. Most
notably, with the exception of Asian men at Los Alamos and Sandia, and
Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore, salaries for minority men and women and
White women were lower than for White men. Comparing men and women of the
same race/ ethnicity, we found that White, Asian, and Hispanic women earned
less than their male counterparts in comparison with White men. For example,
Hispanic men at Los Alamos earned 2 percent less than White men, while
Hispanic women earned 10 percent less. Conversely, merit pay increases for
minority men and women and White women tended to be equal to or greater than
merit pay increases for White men, except for Hispanic men at Lawrence
Livermore. For cash awards, some minority men and women at Sandia were more
likely to receive an award than White men, while at Lawrence Livermore and
Los Alamos, some were less likely to receive an award. Only Los Alamos had
statistically significant differences in the likelihood of minority men and
women and White women leaving the laboratories compared with White men.
These differences existed after factoring in the following variables- age;
tenure at the laboratory; education level; job subcategory (including
postdoctoral and temporary status); citizenship status; security clearance
level; and for Sandia?s staff, whether they were located in California or
New Mexico. (See app. III for information on these variables for each
laboratory.) Although the laboratories have somewhat different personnel
systems and practices, our analyses of personnel actions included only those
variables common to all three. For example, we did not include individual
performance ratings and rankings, laboratories? organizational structure,
and marketbased salary analysis and adjustments. We found that management
promotions for minority men and women and White women generally met 80
percent of the promotion rate for White men, with a few exceptions. We did
not find statistically significant differences, with some exceptions, for
disciplinary actions. Because of data limitations, we could not determine
whether minority men and women and White women were as likely as White men
to be hired by the laboratories. (See app. I for details on our
methodology.)

We found statistically significant differences in the salaries for minority
men and women and White women in managerial and professional job categories
compared with White men in these categories, holding constant age; tenure at
the laboratory; education level; job subcategory; citizenship Certain
Personnel

Actions for Managers and Professionals Show Statistically Significant
Differences for Minority Men and Women and White Women Compared with White
Men, While Others Do Not

Salaries for Managerial and Professional Staff

Page 24 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

status; security clearance level; and for Sandia?s staff, whether they were
located in California or New Mexico. Minority men and women and White women
earned from 2 to 10 percent less than White men, except for Asian men at Los
Alamos and Sandia, and Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore, for whom there
were no statistical differences from White men. Table 1 presents the results
of our analysis. In this table, negative numbers indicate that the group
earned a lower salary than White men, and blank spaces indicate that there
were no significant differences for that group.

Table 1: Percent Difference in Salaries for Managerial and Professional
Minority Men and Women and White Women in Comparison with White Men, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2000

Percent less than White men Race/ ethnicity and gender Los Alamos Sandia
Lawrence Livermore

Asian men -5 Hispanic men -2 -4 Black and American Indian men and women a -5
-4 -7 Asian women -3 -3 -8 Hispanic women -10 -7 -10 White women -5 -4 -8

Note: Blank spaces indicate that results for these groups compared with
White men were not statistically significant. Our analysis explains 88, 85,
and 77 percent of the variance in salary differences in the 3- year period
at Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore, respectively. a The
laboratories did not have sufficient numbers of Blacks and American Indians
for us to separately

analyze their salaries by race/ ethnicity and gender. Source: GAO?s analysis
of laboratories? data.

As the table shows, overall, the greatest salary differences were found for
Hispanic women, who earned from 7 to 10 percent less than White men.
Conversely, with earnings ranging from zero to 5 percent less than those of
White men, Asian men?s salaries show the least difference with White men?s
salaries. In comparing men and women of the same race/ ethnicity, we also
found that White, Asian, and Hispanic women earned statistically
significantly less than their male counterparts in comparison to White men.
For example, Hispanic men at Los Alamos earned 2 percent less than White
men, while Hispanic women earned 10 percent less.

The amount of merit pay increases for minority men and women and White women
in managerial and professional job categories tended to be equal to or
greater than the merit pay increases for White men in these categories,
holding constant age; tenure at the laboratory; education level; job
subcategory; citizenship status; security clearance level; and for Sandia?s
staff, whether they were located in California or New Mexico. Merit Pay
Increases for

Managerial and Professional Staff

Page 25 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Where there are statistically significant differences in merit pay
increases, they favor minority men and women and White women, except for
Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore. Table 2 presents the results of our
analysis. In this table, the negative number indicates that the group earned
a lower merit pay increase than White men, positive numbers indicate that
they earned more, and blank spaces indicate that there were no statistically
significant differences for that group. For example, we found that White
women and Asian men at Los Alamos, and White and Hispanic women at Sandia
earned higher merit pay increases than White men.

Table 2: Percent Differences in Merit Pay Increases for Managerial and
Professional Minority Men and Women and White Women in Comparison with White
Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Percent difference compared with White men Race/ ethnicity and gender Los
Alamos Sandia Lawrence Livermore

Asian men 33 Hispanic men -51 Black and American Indian men and women a
Asian women Hispanic women 31 White women 15 36

Note: Blank spaces indicate that results for these groups compared with
White men were not statistically significant. Our analysis explains 78, 58,
and 67 percent of the variance in merit pay increases for the 3- year period
at Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore, respectively. a The
laboratories did not have sufficient numbers of Blacks and American Indians
for us to separately

analyze their merit pay by race/ ethnicity and gender. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratories? data.

For cash awards, some minority men and women in managerial and professional
job categories at Sandia were significantly more likely to receive an award
than White men in these categories, while at Lawrence Livermore and Los
Alamos, some minority men and women were less likely to receive an award,
holding constant age; tenure at the laboratory; education level; job
subcategory; citizenship status; security clearance level; and for Sandia?s
staff, whether they were located in California or New Mexico. Table 3
presents the results of our analysis. In this table, numbers less than 1
indicate that the group has a lower likelihood of receiving a cash award
than White men, numbers greater than 1 indicate that the group is more
likely than White men to receive a cash award, and blank spaces indicate
that there were no significant differences for that group. For example, at
Sandia, Asian women were a little more than three and a half times as likely
as White men to receive a cash award. Cash Awards for

Managerial and Professional Staff

Page 26 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 3: Differences in the Likelihood of Receiving a Cash Award for
Managerial and Professional Minority Men and Women and White Women in
Comparison with White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Likelihood of receiving a cash award compared with White men Race/ ethnicity
and gender Los Alamos Sandia Lawrence Livermore

Asian men 2.69 0.68 Hispanic men 1.82 0.56 Black and American Indian men and
women a 0.53 Asian women 3.66 Hispanic women 0.36 White women

Note: Numbers less than 1 indicate that the group has a lower likelihood of
receiving a cash award than White men, numbers greater than 1 indicate that
the group is more likely than White men to receive a cash award, and blank
spaces indicate that results for these groups compared with White men were
not statistically significant. Our analysis explains 36, 80, and 25 percent
of the differences in the likelihood of receiving a cash award in the 3-
year period at Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore, respectively. a
The laboratories did not have sufficient numbers of Blacks and American
Indians for us to analyze

their cash awards by race/ ethnicity and gender separately. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratories? data.

At Sandia and Lawrence Livermore, minority men and women and White women in
managerial and professional job categories were no more likely to leave the
laboratory than White men in these categories, holding constant age; tenure
at the laboratory; education level; job subcategory; citizenship status;
security clearance level; and for Sandia?s staff, whether they were located
in California or New Mexico. However, at Los Alamos, minority men and women
and White women, except for Asian men and women, were less likely to leave
the laboratory than White men. Table 4 presents the results of our analysis.
In this table, numbers less than 1 indicate that the group has a lower
likelihood of separation from the laboratories than White men, numbers
greater than 1 indicate that the group is more likely than White men to
separate, and blank spaces indicate that there were no significant
differences for that group. For example, White women at Los Alamos were
about two- thirds as likely as White men to separate in the 3- year period.
Separations include both voluntary actions, such as retirement, and
involuntary actions, such as terminations for cause. Separations for
Managerial

and Professional Staff

Page 27 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 4: Differences in the Likelihood of Separating from the Laboratory for
Managerial and Professional Minority Men and Women and White Women in
Comparison with White Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Likelihood of separation compared with White men Race/ ethnicity and gender
Los Alamos Sandia Lawrence Livermore

Asian men Hispanic men 0. 63 Black and American Indian men and women a 0.40
Asian women Hispanic women 0. 56 White women 0. 69

Note: Numbers less than 1 indicate that the group has a lower likelihood of
separating than White men, numbers greater than 1 indicate that the group is
more likely than White men to separate, and blank spaces indicate that
results for these groups compared with White men were not statistically
significant. Our analysis explains 66, 79, and 81 percent of the variation
in the likelihood of separating in the 3- year period at Los Alamos, Sandia,
and Lawrence Livermore, respectively. a The laboratories did not have
sufficient numbers of Blacks and American Indians for us to separately

analyze their separations by race/ ethnicity and gender. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratories? data.

We used the 80 percent rule 15 set out in the federal government?s Uniform
Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures as a criterion for determining
whether the promotions of minority men and women and

15 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 the rates of hiring, promotion, and other selection decisions, and on the
selection procedures they use. We used White men as the comparison group,
rather than the group with the highest selection rate because this method
allowed us to compare them with the same group across the laboratories.
Using the 80 percent rule, we first determined the proportion of promotions
for each race/ ethnicity and gender group on the basis of their proportions
in the officials and managers and professionals groups (the potential
applicant pool). We then determined whether the proportions for minorities
and women represented at least 80 percent of the proportion for White men.
Unlike the analyses of salary, merit pay, awards, 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- year period. Promotions for Managerial

and Professional Staff

Page 28 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

White women into management positions reflect the diversity of the potential
applicant pools. 16

We found that management promotions for minority men and women and White
women in managerial and professional job categories over fiscal years 1998
through 2000 generally met 80 percent of the promotion rate of White men in
these categories at the three laboratories, with a few exceptions:

 At Los Alamos, while four Asian women were promoted, three additional
promotions would have been needed to reach the 80 percent criterion.
Similarly, two more Black men, two more American Indian men, and two more
Hispanic women would need to have been promoted to reach 80 percent of the
promotion rate for White men.  At Sandia, while nine Hispanic women were
promoted, three more would

have been needed to reach the 80 percent criterion.  At Lawrence Livermore,
no Asian men and one Asian woman were

promoted, but five promotions and one additional one, respectively, would
have been needed to reach 80 percent of the promotion rate for White men.

In some cases, the promotion rate for some minority men and women was
greater than the promotion rate for White men. For example, at Lawrence
Livermore, 10.8 percent of Black men received promotions compared with 2.2
percent of White men.

Table 5 shows, for each laboratory, the number of promotions by race/
ethnicity and gender, the percentage promoted by race/ ethnicity and gender,
and the additional number of promotions needed to reach 80 percent of the
White male promotion rate.

16 We conducted this analysis for promotions into management positions- the
?officials and managers? category on the EEO- 1- from a pool consisting of
any staff on board at the laboratory within the period categorized on EEO-
1s as either officials and managers or professionals. We did not analyze
nonmanagerial professional promotions because the applicant pools were
either external to the laboratories or from job categories within the
laboratories that we did not examine.

Page 29 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 5: Number of Promotions for Each Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group,
Percentage of the Group Promoted, and Number of Additional Promotions Needed
to Reach 80 Percent of the Promotion Rate of White Men, Fiscal Years 1998
through 2000

Los Alamos Sandia Lawrence Livermore Race/ ethnicity and gender Number
Percent Needed Number Percent Needed Number Percent Needed

White men 662 19.6 243 6.5 66 2. 2 Asian men 24 16.3 8 5.2 0 0.0 5 Hispanic
men 118 21.3 30 7. 0 2 1. 7 Black men 1 4. 5 2 4 4.9 8 10.8 American Indian
men 5 10.4 2 2 3. 8 2 6. 5 White women 187 17.7 52 5. 2 23 2.1 Asian women 4
8. 2 3 4 5.4 1 0.7 1 Hispanic women 62 15.0 2 9 3. 8 3 1 1.1 Black women 4
80.0 2 5.4 0 0.0 American Indian women 3 12.5 1 3.8 0 0.0

Note: Numbers are rounded down. Blank spaces indicate that the 80 percent
rule was met (no additional staff needed to meet 80 percent of the White
male promotion rate).

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratories? data.

From 1995 through June 2001, Los Alamos took 127 disciplinary actions
against managers and professionals and Sandia took 112; for fiscal years
1995 through 2000, Lawrence Livermore took 139. The small number of actions
limited the types of statistical tests we could use. 17 For those analyses
we conducted, we did not find statistically significant differences in the
rate at which minority men and women and White women were disciplined
compared with White men, with the following exceptions:

 At Los Alamos, the rate at which men were disciplined was higher than for
women.  At Sandia, the rate at which Hispanics were disciplined was higher
than

for Whites.  At Lawrence Livermore, Blacks were disciplined at a higher
rate than

Whites, and men at a higher rate than women. In examining the severity of
the disciplinary action (such as reprimand, suspension, and termination) for
all offenses combined, we found that

17 A more comprehensive statistical analysis would have considered the year
of the disciplinary action, the type of offense, and the severity of
punishment when testing for statistically significant differences by race/
ethnicity and gender. Disciplinary Actions for

Managerial and Professional Staff

Page 30 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

minorities and women were not disciplined significantly more severely than
White men. 18 Tables 16 to18 in appendix III show the number and type of
disciplinary actions against managers and professionals by race/ ethnicity
and gender.

Although we tested for statistical differences, we did not attempt to
determine the cause of the differences we found. However, we did observe
that disciplinary actions for certain offenses occurred only for specific
groups. For example, only males were disciplined for Internet misuse. We
also observed that certain offenses usually resulted in more or less severe
punishments than others. For example, conducting commercial business on
laboratory property typically resulted in harsher penalties than attendance
behavior.

We were unable to determine whether minorities and women were significantly
less likely to be hired than White men at the three laboratories during the
3- year period we reviewed. The laboratories provided data from their
applicant tracking systems that were missing a large percentage of
information on race/ ethnicity, gender, education, and hiring decisions.

Problems with applicant data are not new. For example, in a 1989
conciliation agreement between OFCCP and Lawrence Livermore laboratory, the
laboratory agreed to, among other things, upgrade its applicant tracking
system to ensure that the system could be used for the complete and accurate
analysis of hiring in the future. Nonetheless, in 2001, when OFCCP surveyed
contractors on EEO information, Lawrence Livermore continued to report
missing race/ ethnicity and gender data on applicants. All three
laboratories attribute the missing data to nonreporting by applicants, which
is voluntary.

Although OFCCP requires the laboratories to collect data on the race/
ethnicity and gender of applicants, if possible, the submission of this
information by the applicant is voluntary. Officials at the three

18 There were too few disciplinary actions to statistically compare the
severity of punishment for the type of offense and to analyze any
differences by gender within each minority group. For example, we could not
analyze whether Hispanic men and White men committing the same offense
received significantly different punishments for those offenses, nor could
we determine whether men and women within a minority group, such as
Hispanics, received significantly more severe or less punishment for the
same offense. Hires for Managerial and

Professional Staff

Page 31 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

laboratories told us that they have difficulty obtaining these data because
applicants are not required to provide information on race/ ethnicity and
gender on their applications and often do not. Officials at Sandia told us
they identify applicants? race/ ethnicity and gender at the time of an
interview, if that information was not provided previously. Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore officials told us they are prohibited by the University
of California?s policy from making visual identifications. OFCCP and EEOC
officials reiterated the importance of collecting race/ ethnicity and gender
information on applicants, including the use of visual inspections, which is
not prohibited by law. Furthermore, Lawrence Livermore officials told us
that more than 90 percent of the applicants submit a resume using the Web
form, which since mid- 2001 has asked applicants to voluntarily identify
their race/ ethnicity and gender. However, the laboratory has not yet
assessed if this method is an effective tool to collect information on race/
ethnicity and gender for applicants.

Minority and female laboratory staffs? EEO concerns focus primarily on
recruiting, pay, promotion, and the laboratories? work environment. We
identified these concerns through laboratory surveys and studies; a DOE Task
Force Against Racial Profiling; EEOC commissioners? charges obtained from
the laboratories; and formal complaints filed by laboratory staff with
OFCCP, which are described in the next section of this report. These
concerns also surfaced during some of our interviews with representatives of
racial/ ethnic groups and women at the laboratories. Our analysis did not
include individual complaints filed by laboratory staff with EEOC because
this is confidential information. 19 In addition, we did not attempt to
prove or disprove the validity of these concerns, nor did we assess the
laboratories? efforts to address these concerns.

Some minority staff attribute their low representation in certain job
categories to recruiting strategies that do not extensively target colleges
and universities with large minority populations. For example:

19 The commission is prohibited from making public any information obtained
under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, unless that
information has been made part of a legal proceeding under the act (title
VII, sec. 706( b) and 709( e); 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 5( b) and 2000e- 8( e)).
Under EEOC?s implementing regulations, this prohibition is applicable to
charges filed by employees and information the agency obtains during an
investigation of these charges. (29 C. F. R. 1601. 22) We could not use in
our report EEOC information on complaints filed with it by laboratory staff
because we are required to maintain the same level of confidentiality for
this information as does EEOC (31 U. S. C. 716( e)( 1)). Staffs? EEO
Concerns

Focus Primarily on Four Issues

Recruiting

Page 32 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

 According to the December 2000 Los Alamos Asian and Pacific Islander
Career Enhancement Task Force report, the task force found that Asian and
Pacific Islanders are underrepresented in management and supervisory
positions and the laboratory needs to increase its efforts to aggressively
recruit Asians. 20 They believe the laboratory has not participated in
professional meetings of Asian- specific organizations or targeted
universities with significant Asian populations as much as it could. 
Similarly, representatives of minority groups at the three laboratories

expressed concerns about recruitment efforts. For example, representatives
at each laboratory told us that some minorities are not well represented at
the laboratory because the laboratory does not recruit extensively at
colleges and universities with high proportions of minority students.

Some minorities and women perceive that they are not paid equitably and that
performance appraisals and ranking systems do not treat minorities and women
fairly and therefore contribute to pay inequities at the three laboratories.
For example:

 According to results of the March 2000 Los Alamos Work Environment Survey,
some minority groups and female employees were significantly more likely to
disagree with the belief that they are fairly compensated in relation to
their contribution. 21  At Sandia, salaries for some women technical staff
(Principal Member of

Technical Staff and Distinguished Member of Technical Staff) are slightly
below their male counterparts? according to the Women in Technical
Management Project Team?s presentation in February 2000. Also, at Sandia,
fewer women than men agree or strongly agree that Sandia is doing an
excellent job of matching pay with performance according to the 1999 Sandia
Employee Attitude Survey. 22

20 The survey was distributed to 289 Asian and Pacific Islanders at the
laboratory of which 65 (22.5 percent) responded. 21 The survey was
distributed to all 7,001 full- and part- time laboratory employees of which
2,904 (41 percent) were completed and returned. 22 The survey was
distributed to 1, 781 employees, which represented a stratified random
sample of approximately 23 percent of employees in all divisions at Sandia.
Of the 1,781 surveys distributed, 1,092 were returned for a response rate of
61. 3 percent. Pay

Page 33 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

 While 45 percent of Lawrence Livermore staff responded favorably regarding
their pay, benefits, and recognition, Asians responded significantly less
favorably, according to the laboratory?s 2001 Assessing the Workplace
Survey. 23 Also, only 44 percent of Lawrence Livermore?s staff believe that
the performance and evaluation system is fair and consistently applied,
according to the laboratory?s 2001 survey.

Some minority and female staff at the three laboratories have concerns about
promotion opportunities into top management positions. For example:

 Generally, some Asians at Los Alamos believed that they were
underrepresented in laboratory management and felt that they had a minimal
chance to be promoted into these management positions, according to the
December 2000 Asian and Pacific Islander Career Enhancement Task Force. 24 
At Sandia, women were less likely to receive special appointments, such

as deputy director or senior manager, according to a 2000 study on women in
technical management.  While 55 percent of Lawrence Livermore?s staff were
satisfied with career

development opportunities, Asians were significantly less likely to be
satisfied, according to the laboratory?s 2001 survey.

Some minority and female staff raised concerns about the laboratories? lack
of sensitivity to cultural and gender differences: For example:

 According to DOE?s 2000 Task Force Against Racial Profiling, an atmosphere
of distrust and suspicion existed at the laboratories and other DOE
facilities the task force visited; 25 some employees felt that their

23 The survey was distributed to 7, 709 laboratory employees, and had a 70
percent return rate. 24 The survey was distributed to 289 Asian and Pacific
Islanders at the laboratory of which 65 (22.5 percent) responded. Of the
respondents, 77 percent were aware of underrepresentation of Asian and
Pacific Islanders in management.

25 The DOE Task Force conducted site visits during the summer and fall of
1999 at Los Alamos National Laboratory; Sandia National Laboratory, New
Mexico and California; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Oak Ridge
National Laboratory; Savannah River Site Facility; Argonne National
Laboratory; Brookhaven National Laboratory; and Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center. The task force issued its report in January 2000. Promotion

Laboratory Work Environment

Page 34 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

loyalty and patriotism was questioned because of racial factors. In
particular, Asians cited a hostile work environment and speculated that
their opportunities for promotions, choice job assignments, and
developmental training had been greatly reduced as a result of this
atmosphere of distrust and suspicion.  At Los Alamos, according to its 2000
survey, 13 percent of women,

25 percent of Asians, 14 percent of Hispanics, and 11 percent of American
Indian staff did not feel accepted because of their race/ ethnicity.  At
Lawrence Livermore, 59 percent of the staff believed that differences in

the unique qualities of individuals and groups are recognized and respected
within the laboratory, but Blacks and women were significantly less likely
to share this view, according to the laboratory?s 2001 survey. Furthermore,
while 57 percent of the staff generally agreed that the laboratory?s work
environment and culture supports staff in speaking freely and in challenging
traditional ways, Asians were significantly less likely to hold this view.

EEOC has brought commissioner charges against two of the laboratories- Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore- charging unlawful employment practices
against Asians because of their race and national origin, according to
documents we obtained from the laboratories. 26 The charges cited, among
other things, harassment, a hostile work environment, and limited
opportunities for promotion. Pursuant to the commissioner charges received
from the laboratories, the charges are based on information received from
current and former laboratory staff, information in the media, and
government reports. The charge against Los Alamos was brought in February
2000, and the charge against Lawrence Livermore was brought in October 1999.
According to laboratory officials, these cases were ongoing as of February
2002.

26 A commissioner can file a charge against an employer or other respondent
on the basis of information obtained by EEOC that indicates discrimination
may have occurred. While charges are in the investigative stage, the
confidentiality provisions of title VII prohibit EEOC from acknowledging
publicly that charges have been filed against a specific employer.
Accordingly, the information regarding the two commissioner charges was
obtained from the laboratories, not EEOC. Commissioner Charges

Page 35 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Although DOE and OFCCP share the common goal of ensuring that the
laboratories meet EEO requirements, they have different roles and take
different approaches to evaluating the laboratories? EEO efforts. DOE?s
primary role is contract oversight, which focuses on the laboratories? EEO
performance in meeting their EEO contractual performance objectives, such as
the laboratories? efforts to improve the representation of minorities and
women at the laboratories. OFCCP?s role is EEO enforcement, which focuses on
EEO compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Although each agency?s
assessment yields different information, the agencies do not routinely
coordinate their efforts. Both agencies have EEO information and expertise
that would be beneficial to share. Closer collaboration could leverage
resources to more comprehensively assess the laboratories? EEO compliance.

As part of its approach to fulfilling its contract oversight role, DOE
operations staff conduct performance- based assessments of the laboratories?
efforts to fulfill contract obligations, including those for EEO. In doing
so, DOE works with the laboratories throughout the year to set annual
performance objectives and measures. According to DOE officials in the
operations offices, they work with laboratory managers during the year on
EEO issues and review the EEO systems the laboratories have in place. At the
end of the year, the laboratories assess their performance, including their
performance on EEO activities, and report their assessments to DOE. DOE
reviews these self- assessments and rates the laboratories? performance on a
five- point scale-? unsatisfactory,? ?marginal,? ?good,? ?excellent,? and
?outstanding.? For example, Los Alamos has EEO performance objectives in its
contract to promote workforce diversity and to improve the representation of
minorities and women in the workforce through the planning and
implementation of good faith efforts designed to improve the recruitment,
selection, and retention of women and minorities in high- priority
underutilized job groups. 27 The laboratory can receive a ?good? rating if
it develops and implements a plan to achieve these objectives. The higher
ratings of ?excellent? and ?outstanding? are achieved if, among other
things, the laboratory?s highpriority underutilized job groups show
improvement toward full utilization

27 Underutilized job groups have fewer minorities and women than would
reasonably be expected by their availability. ?Availability? is defined as
an estimate for each job group by race/ ethnicity and gender of the
population of potential employees for each job group. Los Alamos has
identified specific job groups with long- standing underutilization as
highpriority. Improved

Collaboration between DOE and OFCCP Could Help to Ensure Laboratories? EEO
Compliance

Page 36 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

(? excellent?) or if full utilization is achieved for each designated
highpriority job group (? outstanding?).

Table 6 shows DOE?s ratings for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 for Los
Alamos and Lawrence Livermore?s EEO performance. Unlike these laboratories,
at Sandia, EEO performance is included under its human resources performance
measure. For the 3 fiscal years, DOE rated Sandia as ?outstanding? in human
resources.

Table 6: DOE?s EEO Ratings for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2000

Year Los Alamos Lawrence Livermore

1998 Excellent Excellent 1999 Excellent Good 2000 Excellent Good

Source: DOE?s assessments of Los Alamos? and Lawrence Livermore?s
performance for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000.

In addition, the fiscal year 2000 contracts for Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore each included a new EEO- related performance measure for diversity
activities. Diversity activities include, for instance, actions to improve
the effectiveness and performance of all groups and individual members of
the workforce. Such efforts are designed to be respectful of employee and
group differences, such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability status,
sexual orientation, job classification, thinking styles, and other factors
of difference. DOE rated Los Alamos? diversity performance as ?good? and
Lawrence Livermore?s as ?marginal,? primarily because Lawrence Livermore did
not meet the requirement to document a plan of initiatives by the end of the
assessment year.

OFCCP- the agency responsible for EEO enforcement at the laboratories-
conducts compliance evaluations that investigate virtually all aspects of
the contractor?s employment practices to determine whether the laboratories
have complied with applicable laws and regulations. During these
evaluations, OFCCP examines personnel, payroll, and other employment records
and affirmative action programs; conducts statistical analyses; and
interviews employees and company officials. While OFCCP conducts
comprehensive evaluations, these evaluations are intermittent. Under OFCCP?s
selection system, contractors are randomly selected for evaluation from a
pool of contractors who have not been evaluated in the previous 2 years and
whose labor force composition shows underutilization and/ or concentration
of women or specific minority

Page 37 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

groups. According to OFCCP officials, the agency has limited resources and
capacity for conducting compliance evaluations; only 800 staff oversee
100,000 facilities, government- wide. In 2000, it evaluated 4.2 percent of
the facilities, or 4,162 facilities.

From 1989 through 2001, OFCCP completed eight compliance evaluations at the
three laboratories and reported the following:

 Los Alamos had four compliance evaluations. In 1993, OFCCP reported three
EEO violations regarding technical problems with the laboratory?s record
keeping and supporting data for its affirmative action program. For example,
Los Alamos? workforce analysis did not include all the required elements. In
addition, OFCCP reported that Los Alamos failed to properly monitor and keep
data to determine if minorities and women were given full and equal
opportunity to participate in the informal succession plan that could
enhance their promotional opportunities. OFCCP closed its other three
evaluations in 1994, 1998, and 1999 with no findings of violations.  Sandia
had three compliance evaluations. In a 1992 conciliation agreement

with OFCCP, Sandia agreed to correct 15 identified violations of, among
other things, EEO policies, promotions, and record keeping. In addition, in
a 1995 conciliation agreement, the laboratory agreed to correct five EEO
violations, and DOE reimbursed the laboratory for the settlement amount of
about $38,000 paid to 12 minority and women staff for salary and promotion
violations. A 1999 compliance evaluation resulted in two affirmative action
program violations for not addressing ways to increase the hiring and
representation of Blacks and Hispanics at the laboratory, which Sandia
agreed to correct.  Lawrence Livermore last had a compliance evaluation
that began in 1987.

In the resulting 1989 conciliation agreement, the laboratory agreed to
correct 16 EEO problems that OFCCP had identified, including disparate
treatment of some minority groups in hiring, inadequate recruiting efforts
at historically Black colleges and universities and those with high Hispanic
enrollment, and the failure to properly implement commitments made in its
affirmative action program.

In addition to its compliance evaluations, OFCCP investigates complaints of
employment discrimination involving groups of people or patterns of
discrimination filed with OFCCP by federal contractor employees. OFCCP
conducted six EEO complaint investigations at the laboratories from 1990
through 2001- one at Los Alamos, five at Sandia, and none at Lawrence
Livermore. These complaints alleged unfair practices in promotion, hiring,
and termination, as well as sexual harassment, and retaliation for filing

Page 38 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

complaints. OFCCP found no violation in one case at Sandia and no
determination for two complaints at Sandia 28 For the other three
complaints, OFCCP found serious problems- two at Sandia and one at Los
Alamos- and closed them with conciliation agreements. For example, in May
1998 Los Alamos settled a complaint of discrimination filed by Hispanic
employees who lost their job during a reduction- in- force in November 1995.
Under the settlement, the laboratory reinstated the employees, and Los
Alamos paid $625,000 in settlement costs, which was reimbursed by DOE under
the contract. 29

While DOE and OFCCP?s evaluations yield different information on the
laboratories? EEO performance, the agencies work independently and do not
routinely coordinate their efforts. Further, at times, the agencies?
differing approaches yield what appear to be contradictory results. For
example, in 1999, DOE rated Sandia as ?outstanding? in human resources,
which includes EEO performance; while a 1999 OFCCP compliance evaluation at
Sandia resulted in two affirmative action program violations for not
addressing ways to increase hiring and representation of Blacks and
Hispanics at the laboratory; Sandia agreed to correct these problems.
Although the agencies agree that they are working toward the common goal of
ensuring the laboratories? compliance with EEO requirements, they have not
established an ongoing formal working relationship. Both agencies have EEO
information and expertise that would be beneficial to share. For example,
DOE could provide OFFCP with information on the current EEO issues at the
laboratories as they arise, status of the laboratories? progress in hiring
minorities and women, and trends in EEO complaints raised by laboratory
staff. Conversely, OFCCP could provide DOE with technical assistance and
guidance on EEO compliance.

Effective coordination among agencies with common goals has been a long-
standing problem in the federal government and has proven to be difficult to
resolve. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)
establishes a framework to address these long- standing coordination
challenges. The intent of GPRA is to shift the focus of the

28 According to an OFCCP official, OFCCP?s system defines ?no determination?
as one of four resolutions: (1) resolved by the contractor prior to
investigation, (2) resolved by the contractor during the experimental
Expedited Resolution Procedures, (3) resolved by the contractor during the
investigation, or (4) resolved by another agency in favor of the
complainant.

29 The laboratories? litigation costs related to EEO lawsuits brought
against it by its employees are generally reimbursed by DOE as an allowable
cost under its contract.

Page 39 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

federal government from a preoccupation with activities to results, so that
agencies sharing common goals work together to develop program strategies
that support each other?s efforts. As we have reported, agencies with common
goals that do not effectively coordinate their activities waste scarce
resources and undercut the overall effectiveness of federal efforts. 30
Furthermore, Executive Order 11246 requires DOE to cooperate with OFCCP by
providing information and assistance as requested by OFCCP. According to DOE
officials, they do not regularly coordinate because they believe that OFCCP
has the lead enforcement responsibility and should therefore initiate
coordination activities. While OFCCP generally perceives its role as
conducting independent compliance evaluations, it agreed that developing an
ongoing formal relationship with DOE officials responsible for contractor
oversight might be beneficial.

The secretary of energy has indicated his commitment to ensuring that the
department maintains a respectful and productive work environment for both
federal and laboratory employees- one that is free of racial profiling,
discrimination, and fear. Our findings of statistically significant
differences in some personnel actions for managerial and professional staff
at the three weapons laboratories do not prove or disprove discrimination;
they do, however, raise questions about the reasons for these statistical
differences. It is therefore important that DOE, in consultation with OFCCP,
explore the reasons for these differences with the laboratories to assure
itself that discrimination is not occurring. This effort would also give
OFFCP and DOE an opportunity to work together on any potential EEO issues at
the laboratories.

OFCCP?s in- depth compliance evaluations at the laboratories provide
specific information on the laboratories? EEO compliance. However, these
evaluations- in contrast with DOE?s annual assessments and regular
interactions with laboratory staff- are conducted only intermittently. Taken
together, DOE?s and OFCCP?s evaluations and knowledge about the laboratories
could provide a more comprehensive assessment of the laboratories? EEO
performance. However, the agencies do not regularly work with each other
toward their common objective of EEO compliance at the laboratories. As
result, they are not leveraging their limited

30 See our testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, House Committee on
Government Reform, entitled Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Oversight and Decisionmaking,

GAO- 01- 872T (Washington, D. C.: June 19, 2001). Conclusions

Page 40 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

resources to achieve maximum results, as intended by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.

To understand the implications of the statistical differences we found and
to evaluate their practical significance, we recommend that the secretary of
energy, in consultation with the director of OFCCP, determine their causes
and take the necessary corrective steps, if appropriate, to address any EEO
problems identified.

To help ensure that DOE and OFCCP work more collaboratively toward their
common goal of EEO compliance at the laboratories, we recommend that the
secretary of energy and the secretary of labor explore the costs and
benefits of various options for developing and implementing (1) a more
formal collaborative relationship to facilitate the sharing of information
and expertise and (2) an effective means for monitoring and assessing this
collaborative relationship.

We provided DOE, the Department of Labor, and EEOC with a draft of this
report for their review and comment. DOE and the Department of Labor
provided written comments, which are presented in appendixes IV and V,
respectively. On April 8, 2002, the Director of Communications and
Legislative Affairs, EEOC, provided oral comments on the draft report.

In responding to the draft report, DOE agrees to work with the Department of
Labor?s OFFCP to achieve the desired effect of our recommendations as well
as to establish better communications between the two agencies. Regarding
the methodology we used to analyze the laboratories? personnel actions, DOE
states that the criteria used in our analysis is different than the criteria
used by the laboratories and could produce different statistical
conclusions. Our report acknowledges that our methodology was not designed
to prove or disprove discrimination, be specifically tailored for each
laboratory, or be exhaustive; rather our focus was to identify statistical
differences using analytical techniques widely accepted and used in human
capital studies to evaluate differences in compensation and other
employment- related subjects. Further our methodology allowed for the most
straightforward and parallel analysis of the laboratories? personnel data.
In addition, DOE states that it has initiated its own statistical review,
which is consistent with our recommendation, and that DOE will use our
report in the implementation of its National Nuclear Security
Administration?s diversity program. Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments

Page 41 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

The Department of Labor also agreed with our recommendations. Specifically,
the department?s OFCCP offers its services and expertise to DOE so it may
perform the necessary and appropriate analyses of the statistical
differences we reported, and if problems exist, OFCCP can work in
partnership with DOE to assist in the design and implementation of
corrective action, as appropriate. OFCCP supports entering into a dialogue
with DOE with the aim of establishing a more collaborative effort that will
leverage resources to assist DOE in better achieving compliance with EEO
statues and guidelines. Such a collaborative effort could include the
crosstraining of staff, compliance assistance regarding enhanced
investigative techniques, education regarding self audit tools that would
better serve to identify potential problems early, and where appropriate
sharing with DOE the results of any compliance evaluations and or compliant
investigations of the laboratories prior to formalizing the findings.
Furthermore, the Department of Labor states that it looks forward to working
more closely with DOE in order to effect stronger EEO workplaces at the
nation?s weapons laboratories.

EEOC did not have any comments on the report?s findings, conclusions, or
recommendations. However, EEOC officials did provide minor technical
comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

We conducted our review from February 2001 through February 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I
provides details about the scope and methodology of our review.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to the secretary of
energy; the secretary of labor; the chair, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; the director, Office of Management and Budget; appropriate
congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others on request.

Page 42 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me on
(202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

(Ms.) Gary L. Jones Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 43 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

This appendix details the methods we used to (1) describe the composition of
weapons laboratory staff by race/ ethnicity, gender, and job category in
1995 and 2000 to determine how the composition of laboratory staff has
changed in the 5- year period; (2) determine whether there are statistically
significant differences in selected personnel actions for managers and
professionals when comparing minority men and women and White women with
White men in fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the most current reliable data
available at the time of our data request; (3) describe equal employment
opportunity (EEO) concerns raised by laboratory staff; and (4) identify, if
appropriate, opportunities for improving the Department of Energy?s (DOE)
and Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs? (OFCCP) oversight of the
laboratories? compliance with EEO requirements.

Our review focused on personnel actions and EEO concerns at DOE?s three
major weapons laboratories- Los Alamos National Laboratory located in New
Mexico, Sandia National Laboratory located in New Mexico and California, and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory located in California. We interviewed
and obtained data and documentation from relevant officials at DOE?s,
OFCCP?s, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?s (EEOC)
headquarters offices in Washington, D. C.; DOE officials in the Albuquerque
and Oakland operations offices located in New Mexico and California,
respectively; and laboratory officials in New Mexico and California. We used
the race/ ethnicity groups specified by EEOC and OFCCP: White, not of
Hispanic origin (White); Asian or Pacific Islander (Asian); Black, not of
Hispanic origin (Black); Hispanic; and American Indian or Alaskan Native
(American Indian) for our analysis. At the request of Representatives Eddie
Bernice Johnson and David Wu, to provide the most complete information
possible, we performed our analysis for each minority and gender group, if
the data were sufficient for such analysis. We conducted our work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from
February 2001 through February 2002. In addition, we approached each
objective as discussed below. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 44 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

We obtained data from the laboratories on the number of staff by race/
ethnicity, gender, and job category group in 1995 and 2000, as reported
annually by the laboratories to EEOC on the Employer Information Reports
(EEO- 1s). 1 Because Lawrence Livermore did not file an EEO- 1 with EEOC in
1995, to complete our analysis, we also obtained comparable data that it
reported to DOE for 1995. We compared the data from 1995 to 2000 to
determine how the composition of laboratory staff had changed in a 5- year
period. Our analysis included eight of the nine job category groups required
for the EEO- 1s: officials and mangers, professionals, technicians, office
and clerical, craft workers, operatives, laborers, and service workers. The
laboratories do not have sales workers, which is the ninth job category;
therefore, sales workers were not part of our analysis. For ease of analysis
and presentation, we grouped the laboratory jobs into three categories:
managers and professionals, which comprise the majority of staff at each of
the laboratories; technicians, clerks, and craft workers; and operatives,
laborers, and service workers. We performed this analysis to provide
descriptive information about whom, in terms of race/ ethnicity and gender,
works at the laboratories; we purposely did not comment on the
appropriateness of the racial/ ethnic or gender composition of staff at each
laboratory.

1 Technically, federal contractors submit EEO- 1 forms, otherwise known as
Standard Form 100, to the Joint Reporting Committee, which consists of EEOC
and OFFCP. 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. First Objective:

Describe the Composition of Weapons Laboratory Staff by Race/ Ethnicity,
Gender, and Job Category in 1995 and 2000

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 45 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Our statistical analysis of laboratory staff includes only those categorized
on the EEO- 1 form as officials and managers and professionals, and nonEEO
reporting limited- term staff (such as postdoctoral students who hold
professional occupations on a temporary basis). We elected to review only
these groups because they represent the majority of laboratory staff, and
unlike certain other staff, personnel data for these employees are
maintained by the laboratories and were available to us. We did not include
the following other EEO- 1 job categories used by the laboratories in our
analysis: technicians, office and clerical, craft workers, operatives,
laborers, and service workers. We also did not include sales workers because
the laboratories do not have sales workers.

We applied various statistical tests to the employee data on personnel
actions provided by the laboratories. Our analyses are not designed to prove
or disprove discrimination; rather they are designed to provide information
at an aggregate level about race/ ethnicity and gender differences in
personnel actions at the laboratories. Although the laboratories have
somewhat different personnel systems and practices, our analyses of
personnel actions included only those variables common to all three. For
example, we did not include individual performance ratings and rankings,
laboratories? organizational structure, and marketbased salary analysis and
adjustments. Consequently, our analyses of personnel actions are neither
exhaustive nor specifically tailored for each laboratory. However, we did
consult with the laboratories regarding our analytical approach to make sure
we were receiving the appropriate data for the analysis and that the
laboratories understood how we would be using their data. Additionally, we
consulted with OFFCP about our methodology, and they agreed that our
methodology was appropriate and reasonable. Our analyses are not designed to
prove or disprove discrimination in a court of law; rather they are designed
to provide information at a common and aggregate level about race/ ethnicity
and gender differences in personnel actions at the laboratories. Therefore,
our results do not indicate whether discrimination has or has not occurred.

The federal government?s Uniform Guidelines on Employment 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 by race/ ethnicity and gender separately; for example, to
compare Whites with minorities as a group and to compare men of all races/
ethnicities with women of all races/ ethnicities. At congressional request,
we performed our statistical analyses somewhat differently to show the most
information possible about each minority and gender group at the
laboratories. To do this, we compared each minority Second Objective:

Determine Whether There are Statistically Significant Differences in
Selected Personnel Actions for Managers and Professionals When Comparing
Minority Men and Women and White Women with White Men in Fiscal Years 1998
through 2000

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 46 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

group and gender separately if the data were sufficient to allow this level
of analysis using White men as our benchmark. There were not enough Black
men and women or American Indian men and women to analyze separately for the
salary, merit pay, cash award, and separation analyses, and we therefore
analyzed them as one group. 2 This approach allowed us to determine whether
each race/ ethnicity and gender group, such as Hispanic women or Asian men,
had different personnel outcomes than White men. We have included tables in
appendix III detailing the results of salary, merit pay, cash award, and
separation analyses using the federal guidelines comparing Whites with
minorities as a group and men of all races/ ethnicities with women of all
races/ ethnicities.

To determine whether there are statistically significant race/ ethnicity and
gender differences in salary, merit pay increases, cash awards, and
separations for managerial and professional staff at each laboratory, we
used multivariate regression techniques. We chose this analytic design
because (1) it is widely used in human capital literature to evaluate
differences in compensation and other employment- related subjects, (2) it
allowed for the most straightforward and parallel analysis of the
laboratories? personnel data, and (3) it is an appropriate statistical
method for answering objective 2.

The laboratories provided data from their personnel, payroll, and security
clearance systems for our analyses. 3 We requested data for exempt staff 4
in the top two EEO- 1 job categories (officials and managers and
professionals) and for selected limited- term employees, such as
postdoctoral students. We included these limited- term employees primarily
because they occupy professional positions and because these temporary
positions are often a pathway to permanent managerial and professional
positions. We requested data for the 3- year period, fiscal

2 No tests of equivalence were performed for this grouping. 3 Our data
reliability assessment of the personnel, clearance, and payroll information
indicated that the data and data systems were sufficiently reliable and
complete to perform our analyses.

4 The term ?exempt? employee 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 EEO- 1s. There
are no nonexempt employees classified as ?official and manager? or
?professional.? Although students, limited- terms, and postdocs are not
permanent employees, they are exempt employees and are in positions that
would be classified as professional level positions. Salary, Merit Pay, Cash

Awards, and Separations

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 47 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

years 1998 through 2000, because these were the most current data available
at the time of our data request. The laboratories told us that because of
changes in laboratory structure and record retention, we could obtain
reliable data only for the most recent 3- year period. We analyzed the data
at the individual level using the complete population of officials and
managers, professionals, and postdoctoral laboratory staff for the 3- year
period. We analyzed the data separately for each laboratory.

Control variables allowed us to determine whether pay differences between
men and women and minorities existed despite their equality in position and
other human capital characteristics, such as tenure and education level. For
our analyses of salary, merit pay increases, awards, and separations, we
controlled for age; tenure at the laboratory; education level; job
subcategory (including postdoctoral and temporary status); citizenship
status; security clearance level; and for Sandia?s staff, whether they were
located in California or New Mexico. We controlled for these factors because
they are widely used in human capital models and because these items were
available from all three laboratories. Some of our models include
additional, model- specific control variables. Specifically, we included a
variable in the salary model denoting whether a promotion had been received
in the 3- year period, because less time in grade would generally be
associated with lower pay. Given that merit pay increases are proportional
to salary, we included salary as a control in the merit pay analysis.
Similarly, we included award receipt, salary, and merit pay in the
separations analysis, as they may be incentives to separate or remain at the
laboratory. Descriptive information for the laboratories based on the
control variables is provided in tables 7 to15 in appendix III.

As our measure of job subcategory, we used the EEO- 1 subcategories
developed by the laboratories for use in their affirmative action programs.
These job subcategories are a breakdown of roughly 7 to 10 positions within
the officials and managers EEO- 1 category, and from 6 to 10 positions
within the professional EEO- 1 category. These categories are based on such
factors as job content, opportunities, and compensation. 5 While the
categories are not exactly the same across the laboratories, they should be
roughly equivalent in the way personnel are assigned to them, and they
should be highly reflective of the pay one would expect, given the

5 For example, there are two separate tracks for laboratory and technical
staff, each with the job subcategories of director, supervisor, managerial,
distinguished, primary, senior, and general.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 48 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

level and function associated with the job subcategory. Tables 9, 12, and 15
in appendix III detail the titles and average base salaries associated with
these job subcategories. Compensation data reflect employees? most recent
base salary. Merit increases represent an average for the 3- year period,
adjusting for the length of time employees were on board during that period.
We examined only the cash distributions for our awards analysis. Although
the laboratories use a variety of noncash awards, such as gift certificates,
we did not include these in our awards analysis because the laboratories do
not record them in their personnel or payroll systems. If an award of any
amount were received at any point in the 3- year period, the individual was
coded as having received an award. Separations from the laboratory include
voluntary actions, such as retirements and resignations, and nonvoluntary
actions, such as terminations for cause. If an employee terminated his/ her
employment at the laboratory for any reason in the 3- year period, he/ she
was coded as having separated.

In accordance with economic analysis literature, we used the natural log of
salary and merit pay in our models. 6 Salary and merit pay were modeled with
Ordinary Least Squares regression, and award receipt and separations were
modeled with logistic regression. Race/ ethnicity and gender differences in
salary, merit pay, cash awards, and separations were considered
statistically significant if the probability of the t- statistic or
chisquare value associated with the coefficient was 0.05 or lower. In other
words, if observed race/ ethnicity and gender differences in salary, merit
pay, awards, and separations could have occurred by chance less than

5 percent of the time, we assumed with 95- percent confidence that these
differences were statistically significant.

To determine whether promotions of minority men and women and White women
into the ?officials and managers? category on the EEO- 1 reflects the
diversity of the potential applicant pool (other managers and officials and
professionals), we applied the 80 percent rule set out in the federal
government?s Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures. We did
not analyze nonmanagerial professional promotions because the applicant
pools were either external to the laboratories or were from job

6 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
percentage earned as a result of race/ ethnicity and gender as compared with
White men. Promotions

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 49 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

categories within the laboratories that we did not examine. Using the 80
percent rule, we first determined the proportion of promotions into the
officials and managers category for each race/ ethnicity and gender group on
the basis of the number of promotions received in the 3- year period and the
total number of laboratory staff of 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. The rule specifies that
minority promotions should reach at least 80 percent of the promotion rate
of the group with the highest promotion rate. However, since we used White
males as our reference group in all other analyses, we used the White male
promotion rate as the benchmark, regardless of whether it was the highest.

Since there are a limited number of promotions every year, we examined
promotions for the entire 3- year period. Since postdoctoral and limitedterm
employees are not eligible for promotion, they were not included in the
promotion analysis. If a personnel action denoted a promotion 7 into the
officials and mangers category, the race/ ethnicity and gender of the
employee receiving the promotion was recorded. If an individual received
more than one promotion in the 3- year period, the action, and not the
individual, would be counted as a promotion. For example, if one Hispanic
woman at the laboratory were promoted twice in the 3- year period, it would
count as two promotions for Hispanic women. The potential applicant pool
consists of permanent laboratory staff in managerial or professional
positions at any time in the 3- year period. Because of data limitations, we
could not determine the exact number of permanent laboratory staff at the
time of each 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
salary, merit pay, awards, 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. Our approach was similar to looking at
promotions of GS- 14

7 For all laboratories, these were personnel actions labeled ?promotion.?

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 50 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

and GS- 15- level federal employees into the Senior Executive Service, or
SES. 8

To determine whether there were statistically significant differences in
disciplinary actions for managerial and professional staff at each
laboratory, we requested disciplinary data from the laboratories. The
requested data show disciplinary actions by type of offense (e. g.,
falsifying time records, sexual harassment, etc.), the severity of the
penalty (e. g., reprimand, suspension, termination, etc.), and the race/
ethnicity and gender of the employee disciplined. The laboratories did not
have identical types of offenses or levels of penalties. We combined these
data with laboratory population data from the EEO- 1 forms. Because of
differences in record keeping at the different laboratories, the time period
for disciplinary data varied slightly. In general, the data were for fiscal
years 1995 through June of 2001; Los Alamos provided data from January 1,
1995, to June 30, 2001, Sandia provided data from October 1, 1994, to June
8, 2001, and Lawrence Livermore provided data from October 1, 1994, to
September 30, 2000. We analyzed these data for the entire time period
because there were too few disciplinary actions per year for reliable
analyses. The total number of staff at each laboratory was the average
number over the 5 ï¿½- year to 6- year time period, according to the EEO- 1
forms we obtained from the laboratories or data from DOE for Lawrence
Livermore in 1995.

Using appropriate statistical tests for small- group comparisons, we tested
each laboratory separately for statistically significant differences in the
rate of disciplinary actions and the severity of the penalty. Where there
were sufficient numbers of actions for both the rate of disciplinary actions
and the severity of penalties, we compared women with men, Whites with
minorities, and White men with each EEO group (White women, Asian men and
women, Black men and women, and Hispanic men and women). There were too few
disciplinary actions involving American Indians to do any statistical tests.

Although we tested for statistical differences, we did not attempt to
determine the cause of the differences we found. However, we did observe
that disciplinary actions for certain offenses occurred only for specific

8 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Senior Executive Service: Diversity
Increased in the Past Decade, GAO- 01- 377 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 16,
2001). Disciplinary Actions

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 51 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

groups. For example, only men were disciplined for Internet misuse. We also
observed that certain offenses usually resulted in more or less severe
punishments than others. For example, conducting commercial business on
laboratory property typically resulted in harsher penalties than attendance
behavior.

To determine whether there are statistically significant race/ ethnicity and
gender differences in hiring of managerial and professional staff at each
laboratory, we requested that the laboratories provide us with information
from their applicant and hiring databases in order to apply appropriate
statistical tests. To apply these tests, it is necessary to have data files
in which only a very small percentage of cases are missing information for
the variables of interest. However, the databases from all three
laboratories were missing a substantial amount of information. At Los
Alamos, 29 percent of the cases were missing data on race/ ethnicity, and 26
percent were missing information on gender. Of the information provided by
Sandia, 31 percent of the cases were missing gender information, and about
35 percent were missing data on race/ ethnicity. Similarly, race/ ethnicity
data at Lawrence Livermore were missing in 24 percent of the cases and 22
percent of the cases lacked information on gender. Information about the
disposition of applications was available for as little as 40 percent of the
applicants at Sandia. It is not statistically, or otherwise possible, to
determine if race/ ethnicity or gender affect hiring decisions without
information on the disposition of applications. The absence of valid
information for so many cases is likely to bias estimates of whether there
are statistically significant race/ ethnicity and gender differences in
hiring. Since we do not know whether cases with valid data differ from those
with missing data, using the data would be misleading and possibly even
contrary to results we would see if all cases had valid data.

We performed a descriptive analysis primarily on the basis of available
information contained in the laboratories? surveys of their staff since
1995; the report of DOE?s Task Force on Racial Profiling, issued in 2000;
information contained in EEOC commissioner charges at Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore, which we obtained from those laboratories; and the
results of structured interviews we conducted with representatives of
minority and women?s groups at each laboratory. We also reviewed available
information on other types of staff complaints, such as lawsuits, which the
laboratories provided us with; however, because of the lack of consistency
and completeness of the information provided across the Hiring

Third Objective: Describe EEO Concerns Raised by Laboratory Staff

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 52 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

laboratories, we did not include that information in our analysis.
Information contained in individual complaints filed with EEOC is
confidential, and was not included in our analysis. 9 In this report, we
included only those EEO staff concerns that we considered most relevant. We
did not attempt to describe all of the EEO concerns raised or analyze the
laboratories efforts to address these concerns. We also did not attempt to
prove or disprove the validity of these concerns.

For each laboratory, we reviewed the laboratory?s self- assessment of its
EEO and related performance and DOE?s assessments of laboratories?
selfassessment for fiscal years 1998 through 2000. We reviewed several
recent affirmative action program documents from each of the laboratories.
We also reviewed other related documents such as pay equity studies,
diversity plans, and recruitment and outreach plans. We also obtained a
summary of OFCCP compliance evaluations and complaint investigations and the
results of those evaluations at the three laboratories since 1989. Where
possible, we obtained and reviewed copies of the conciliation agreements
resulting from OFCCP?s evaluations from OFCCP or the laboratories. Since
OFCCP requires that these records be kept for only 3 years, we did not have
copies of all the conciliation agreements to include in our review. We also
reviewed related laws, regulations, and DOE and OFCCP policies and
procedures.

9 The commission is prohibited from making public any information obtained
under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, unless that
information has been made part of a legal proceeding under the act (title
VII, sec. 706( b) and 709( e); 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 5( b) and 2000e- 8( e)).
Under EEOC?s implementing regulations, this prohibition is applicable to
charges filed by employees and information the agency obtains during an
investigation of these charges. (29 C. F. R. 1601. 22) We could not use in
our report EEOC information on complaints filed with it by laboratory staff
because we are required to maintain the same level of confidentiality for
this information as does EEOC (31 U. S. C. 716( e)( 1)). Fourth Objective:

Identify, if Appropriate, Opportunities for Improving DOE?s and OFCCP?s
Oversight of the Laboratories? Compliance with EEO Requirements

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 53 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 53 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

According to EEOC, data on race/ ethnicity, gender, and job category group
can be displayed by (1) participation rates or by (2) occupational
distribution. Participation rates, which are displayed in figures 6 to11,
highlight the composition of a job category group by race/ ethnicity or
gender group. For example, at Los Alamos, in 2000, 61 percent of the
managers and professionals were White men. In contrast, the occupational
distribution shows the composition of race/ ethnicity or gender group by job
category group. For the same example, at Los Alamos, in 2000, 86 percent of
White men were managers and professionals.

Figures 12 to 14 show the occupational distribution for White men, White
women, and minorities for each laboratory. Appendix II: Composition of Staff
by Job

Category Group as a Percentage of Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 54 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 12: Composition of Staff at Los Alamos, by Job Category Group, as a
Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic and gender group represents of
the total laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos. 2000

1995

White men

(50% of staff) White women

(17% of staff) Minorities

(33% of staff)

0 2

4 6

8 10

12 14

16 18

20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 Managers andprofessionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Managers andprofessionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers Percent

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 55 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 13: Composition of Staff at Sandia, by Job Category Group, as a
Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic and gender group represents of
the total laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000 and does not
add to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Sandia.

18 20 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100 10

8 6 4 2 0 12

14 16

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Managers andprofessionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

1995 2000

White men

(54% of staff) White women

(20% of staff) Minorities

(27% of staff)

Percent

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 56 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 14: Composition of Staff at Lawrence Livermore, by Job Category
Group, as a Percentage of Their Gender or Minority Group, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic and gender group represents of
the total laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of WFIS data (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from Lawrence
Livermore (2000).

Figures 15 to17 show the occupational distribution for each of the four
minority groups at the three laboratories.

20 18 16 14 12 10

8 6 4 2 0 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100

1995 2000

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers White men

(58% of staff)

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers White women

(24% of staff)

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Minorities

(18% of staff)

Percent

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 57 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 15: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Los Alamos, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Los Alamos.

Percent 12 14

16 18

20 2 0 4

6 8

10 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100

1995 2000

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Asian

(3% of staff)

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Black

(0.4% of staff)

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Hispanic

(28% of staff)

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers American Indian

(2% of staff)

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 58 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 16: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Sandia, 1995 and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of EEO- 1s obtained from Sandia.

Managers and professionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

Managers and professionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

Managers and professionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

Managers and professionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers

1995 2000

Asian

(3% of staff) Black

(3% of staff) Hispanic

(18% of staff) American Indian

(3% of staff)

Percent 12 14

16 18

20 2 0 4

6 8

10 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100

Appendix II: Composition of Staff by Job Category Group as a Percentage of
Their Race/ Ethnicity and Gender Group

Page 59 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Figure 17: Minority Group by Job Category Group at Lawrence Livermore, 1995
and 2000

Note: The percentage that each race/ ethnic group represents of the total
laboratory workforce is the average for 1995 and 2000.

Source: GAO?s analysis of WFIS data (1995); EEO- 1 obtained from Lawrence
Livermore (2000).

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Managers andprofessionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers

Managers andprofessionals Technicians, clerks, and craft workers

Operatives, laborers, and service workers Managers andprofessionals

Technicians, clerks, and craft workers Operatives, laborers, and service
workers

1995 2000

Asian

(7% of staff) Black

(4% of staff)

Hispanic

(7% of staff) American Indian

(1% of staff)

Percent 12 14

16 18

20 2 0 4

6 8

10 30

40 50

60 70

80 90

100

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 60 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

This appendix presents (1) descriptive statistics for managerial and
professional laboratory staff for the variables we used in our analysis of
salary, merit pay, cash awards, and separations, which is shown in tables 7
to 15; (2) additional information on disciplinary actions for managerial and
professional laboratory staff, which is shown in tables 16 to18; and (3) the
results for managerial and professional laboratory staff of salary, merit
pay, cash awards, and separations analyses comparing all men with all women
and minorities with nonminorities, which are shown in tables 19 and 20.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Los Alamos Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Men Women Number Percent Number Percent

Total a 5,614 73.0 2, 044 27.0 White 4, 289 58.0 1, 353 18.0 Asian 356 5.0
110 1.0 Black 43 0. 6 16 0.2 Hispanic 637 9.0 475 6.0 American Indian 57 0.8
33 0. 5 a Number of staff by race/ ethnicity does not total to the number of
men and women because of missing data for race/ ethnicity. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratory?s data.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Used in Our Analysis of Salary, Merit
Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations for Managerial and Professional Laboratory
Staff

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 61 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Los Alamos Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Award, and
Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Average base salary Average

merit pay a Average award a

Average years of

tenure Average age

Percentage with Ph. D.,

J. D., or M. D.

Percentage with Q clearance

Percentage that were

U. S. citizens

White men $88,849 $5,267 $168 12 46 50 67 93 Asian men 71,905 5, 229 175 6
38 69 27 46 Hispanic men 73,298 4, 192 155 16 45 15 73 97 Black men 64,133
4, 271 137 8 40 36 38 93 American Indian men 83,812 4, 977 132 15 46 37 79
98 White women 69,036 4, 245 169 10 43 22 60 95 Asian women 63,776 4, 292
176 6 38 39 27 58 Hispanic women 55,628 3, 095 164 13 40 6 65 99 Black women
51,247 3, 702 67 4 33 7 19 100 American Indian women 57,901 3, 318 179 10 40
8 56 100

a Award and merit pay averages are based on those who received them. Source:
GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Los Alamos Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories Used in the
Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Job Subcategory Average base salary

Top Management $155,941 Technical Staff Member Group Level Management
122,506 Scientific Staff Member Group Level Management 93,719 Supervisors-
Technical 64,220 Supervisors- Scientific 71,331 Supervisors- OS/ GS 44,801
Supervisors- Technical 104,610 Technical Staff Member 95,413 Personnel/
Health/ Security 55,405 Fiscal Specialists 55,715 Administrative/ Technical
Administrative 61,944 Communications/ Programming 54,294 Senior Designers/
Techs/ Ops 66,211 Postdocs/ Special Projects 43,471 Limited- term
professional staff 80,822

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 62 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Men Women Number Percent Number Percent Total a 5,051 76.0 1, 607 24.0

White 4, 210 63.0 1, 164 17.0 Asian 205 3.0 93 1. 0 Black 100 2.0 52 0. 8
Hispanic 478 7.0 271 4.0 American Indian 56 0.8 27 0. 4 a Number of staff by
race/ ethnicity does not total to the number of men and women because of
missing data for race/ ethnicity. Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s
data

Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Award, and
Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Average base salary Average

merit pay a Average award a

Average years of

tenure Average age

Percentage with Ph. D.,

J. D., or M. D.

Percentage with Q clearance

Percentage that were

U. S. citizens

White men $86,655 $5,182 $5,839 16 45 36 70 99 Asian men 84,670 5, 101 5,524
10 40 56 55 88 Hispanic men 75,031 4, 386 4,804 14 41 11 73 100 Black men
70,274 3, 999 3,887 14 42 11 58 96 American Indian men 71,943 4, 064 4,865
13 41 15 64 100 White women 70,372 4, 278 4,443 11 43 16 60 99 Asian women
73,811 5, 601 4,768 8 37 26 59 95 Hispanic women 57,947 3, 605 3,251 12 40 4
58 100 Black women 64,483 4, 077 3,754 9 36 10 42 100 American Indian women
62,085 3, 479 3,218 13 44 19 48 100

a Award and merit pay averages are based on those who received them. Source:
GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 63 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Sandia Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories Used in the
Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Job subcategory Average base salary a

President/ Exec. Vice Pres./ Vice Pres./ Deputy Vice Pres. Member of
Technical Staff Director Member of Laboratory Staff Director Level II
Technical Manager Level II Administrative Manager MTS Manager MLS Manager
Team Supervisor- Professional/ Operations/ Security Fellow/ Sr. Scientist/
Sr. Administrator Distinguished Member of Technical Staff Principal Member
of Technical Staff Senior Member of Technical Staff Member of Technical
Staff Distinguished Member of Laboratory Staff Principal Member of
Laboratory Staff Senior Member of Laboratory Staff Member of Laboratory
Staff Postdocs Temporary professional staff a Sandia Laboratory asked us not
to publish its salary data because according to Sandia Corporation?s
policies and practices, salary data related to employee and job groups is
for ?Official Use Only?; that is, the information may be privileged or
sensitive because of national security, foreign policy, industrial
competitiveness, or privacy considerations.

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics for Lawrence Livermore Managerial and
Professional Laboratory Staff, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Men Women Number Percent Number Percent

Total a 4,082 70.0 1, 708 30.0 White 3, 366 59.0 1, 284 22.0 Asian 364 6.0
200 4.0 Black 100 2.0 73 1. 0 Hispanic 158 3.0 114 2.0 American Indian 37
0.6 25 0. 4 a Number of staff by race/ ethnicity does not total to number of
men and women because of missing data for race/ ethnicity. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratory?s data

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 64 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 14: Descriptive Statistics for Lawrence Livermore Managerial and
Professional Laboratory Staff- Variables Used in the Salary, Merit Pay, Cash
Award, and Separation Analyses, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Average base salary Average

merit pay a Average award a

Average years of

tenure Average age

Percentage with Ph. D., J. D., or M. D.

Percentage with Q clearance

Percentage that were

U. S. citizens

White men $79,823 $4,672 $254 14 44 40 66 96 Asian men 71,225 3, 844 258 10
41 49 53 88 Hispanic men 64,008 5, 029 231 11 39 16 52 96 Black men 60,661
3, 464 149 11 40 14 52 98 American Indian men 66,268 3, 824 312 14 43 19 68
100 White women 58,213 3, 570 210 11 41 13 51 98 Asian women 55,601 3, 365
180 9 36 17 39 94 Hispanic women 47,394 2, 736 224 11 37 4 40 97 Black women
49,128 2, 696 186 10 38 1 38 99 American Indian women 45,408 2, 370 152 11
42 4 36 100

a Award and merit pay averages are based on those who received them. Source:
GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics of Lawrence Livermore Managerial and
Professional Laboratory Staff- Average Base Salary for Job Subcategories
Used in the Analysis, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Job subcategory Average base salary

Management- Scientific Internal $128,430 Management- Administrative Internal
97,163 Supervisor- Technical Internal 88,872 Supervisor- Clerical Internal
55,397 Supervisor- Non Clerical Internal 63,379 Supervisor- Blue Collar
Internal 59,082 Supervisor- Service Internal 43,210 Administrator National
58,199 Physicist National 82,965 Chemist/ Metallurgist National 78,101 Life
Scientist National 50,938 Computer Scientist National 76,248 Engineer-
Mechanical National 80,988 Engineer- Electronics National 80,540 Engineer-
Miscellaneous National 83,784 Tech. Info Editor/ Specialist National 60,333
Environmental Scientist National 72,748 Postdocs 37,749

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 65 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 16: Disciplinary Actions at Los Alamos for Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff, 1995 through June 2001 Race/ ethnicity Gender Written

reprimand Suspension Termination Males Females Total actions

Average number of managerial and professional staff

by racial/ ethnic group

Asian Men 7 1 1 9 9 175 Women0 0 0 00 53 Black Men 0 0 0 0 0 21

Women0 1 1 22 6 Hispanic Men 7 3 4 14 14 438

Women2 1 0 33 274 American Indian Men 0 0 0 0 0 42

Women 0 0 0 0 0 17

Subtotal 16 6 6 23 5 28 1, 026

White Men 48 21 13 82 82 3,215 Women 12 1 2 15 15 922

Subtotal 60 22 15 82 15 97 4,137

Unknown Men 1 1 0 2 0 2

Total 77 29 21 107 20 127 5,163

Note: Unknown means racial/ ethnic description not given. Source: GAO?s
analysis of laboratory?s disciplinary data and EEO- 1 data provided by Los
Alamos.

Number and Type of Disciplinary Actions Taken, by Race/ Ethnicity and Gender
for Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 66 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 17: Disciplinary Actions at Sandia for Managerial and Professional
Laboratory Staff, 1995 through June 2001 Race/ ethnicity Gender Letter of

reprimand Suspension Termination Demotion Males Females Total actions

Average number of managerial

and professional

staff by racial/ ethnic

group

Asian Men 0 2 1 0 3 3 130 Women 1 0 0 0 1 1 61 Black Men 0 0 0 1 1 1 66

Women 1 1 1 0 3 3 28 Hispanic Men 6 6 2 1 15 15 359

Women 0 0 1 0 1 1 165 American Indian Men 0 1 0 0 1 1 40

Women 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

Subtotal 8 10 5 2 20 5 25 872

White Men 25 26 11 0 62 62 3, 296 Women 8 1 1 0 10 10 808

Subtotal 33 27 12 0 62 10 72 4, 104 Total 41 37 17 2 82 15 97 4,976

Note: Sandia figures include disciplinary actions for Sandia sites in New
Mexico and California. They do not include disciplinary actions for limited-
term staff, such as postdoctoral students because Sandia does not report
these employees on its EEO- 1s.

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s disciplinary data and EEO- 1 data
provided by Sandia.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 67 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 18: Disciplinary Actions at Lawrence Livermore for Managerial and
Professional Laboratory Staff, 1995 through 2000 Race/ ethnicity Gender
Warning

letter Suspension Termination Demotion Males Females Total actions

Average Number of managerial and

professional staff by racial/ ethnic

group

Asian Men 6 0 0 0 6 6 193 Women 2 0 0 0 2 2 91 Black Men 9 2 1 0 12 12 64

Women 1 0 0 0 1 1 45 Hispanic Men 4 1 0 0 5 5 93

Women 2 0 0 0 2 2 64 American Indian Men 1 0 0 0 1 1 25

Women 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

Subtotal 25 3 1 0 24 5 29 589

White Men 61 15 13 2 91 91 2, 362 Women 14 3 1 1 19 19 823

Subtotal 75 18 14 3 91 19 110 3,185 Total 100 21 15 3 115 24 139 3,775

Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s disciplinary data and EEO- 1 provided
by Lawrence Livermore and WFIS data provided by DOE.

Appendix III: Additional Information on Personnel Actions at the Three
Laboratories

Page 68 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Table 19: Results for Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff of
Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations Analyses Comparing All Women
with All Men, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Percent difference Likelihood ratios Laboratory Salary Merit pay Awards
Separations

Los Alamos -6 0.700 Sandia -4 34 Lawrence Livermore -8 19

Note: Blank spaces indicate that results for these groups were not
statistically significant. Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Table 20: Results for Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff of
Salary, Merit Pay, Cash Awards, and Separations Analyses Comparing All
Minorities with Nonminorities, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2000

Percent difference Likelihood ratios Laboratory Salary Merit pay Awards
Separations

Los Alamos -2 0.838 0.812 Sandia -2 1. 724 Lawrence Livermore -3 0. 716

Note: Blank spaces indicate that results for these groups were not
statistically significant. Source: GAO?s analysis of laboratory?s data.

Results of Tests for Men Versus Women and Minority Versus Nonminority for
Managerial and Professional Laboratory Staff

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy

Page 69 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy

Page 70 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor

Page 71 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor

Page 72 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 73 GAO- 02- 391 DOE Weapons Laboratories

Andrea W. Brown (202)- 512- 3319 In addition to those named above, Vondalee
R. Hunt, Susan Irwin, Rebecca Shea, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Karla
Springer, Greg Wilmoth, and Lisa Vojta made key contributions to this
report. Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

(360043)

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents 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 daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.

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. General Accounting 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

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***