Women's Pay
Converging Characteristics of Men and Women in the Federal Workforce Help Explain the Narrowing Pay Gap Gao ID: GAO-09-621T April 28, 2009Previous research has found that, despite improvements over time, women generally earned less than men in both the general and federal workforces, even after controlling for factors that might explain differences in pay. To determine the extent to which the pay gap exists in the federal workforce, GAO addressed the following question: To what extent has the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce changed over the past 20 years and what factors account for the gap? This testimony is based on a report that GAO is releasing today (GAO-09-279). To answer this question, GAO used data from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)--a database that contains salary and employment data for the majority of employees in the executive branch. GAO used these data to analyze (1) "snapshots" of the workforce as a whole at three points in time (1988, 1998, and 2007) to show changes over a 20-year period, and (2) the group, or cohort, of employees who began their federal careers in 1988 to track their pay over a 20-year period and examine the effects of breaks in service and use of unpaid leave. GAO is not making any recommendations. OPM and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reviewed the report on which this statement is based. They generally agreed with our methods and findings and provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
The gender pay gap--the difference between men's and women's average salaries--declined significantly in the federal workforce between 1988 and 2007. Specifically, the gap declined from 28 cents on the dollar in 1988 to 19 cents in 1998 and further to 11 cents in 2007. For the 3 years we examined, all but about 7 cents of the gap can be explained by differences in measurable factors such as the occupations of men and women and, to a lesser extent, other factors such as education levels and years of federal experience. The pay gap narrowed as men and women in the federal workforce increasingly shared similar characteristics in terms of the jobs they held, their educational attainment, and their levels of experience. For example, the professional, administrative, and clerical occupations--which accounted for 68 percent of all federal jobs in 2007--have become more integrated by gender since 1988. Some or all of the remaining 7 cent gap might be explained by factors for which we lacked data or are difficult to measure, such as work experience outside the federal government. Finally, it is important to note that this analysis neither confirms nor refutes the presence of discriminatory practices. GAO's case study analysis of workers who entered the workforce in 1988 found that the pay gap between men and women in this group grew overall from 22 to 25 cents on the dollar between 1988 and 2007. As with the overall federal workforce, differences between men and women that can affect pay explained a significant portion of the pay gap over the 20-year period. In particular, differences in occupations explained from 11 to 19 cents of the gap over this period. In contrast, differences in breaks in federal service and use of unpaid leave explained little of the pay gap. However, the results of this analysis are not necessarily representative of other cohorts.
GAO-09-621T, Women's Pay: Converging Characteristics of Men and Women in the Federal Workforce Help Explain the Narrowing Pay Gap
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-621T
entitled 'Women's Pay: Converging Characteristics of Men and Women in
the Federal Workforce Help Explain the Narrowing Pay Gap' which was
released on April 28, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 28, 2009:
Women's Pay:
Converging Characteristics of Men and Women in the Federal Workforce
Help Explain the Narrowing Pay Gap:
Statement of Andrew Sherrill, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-09-621T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-621T, a testimony before the Joint Economic
Committee, U.S. Congress.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Previous research has found that, despite improvements over time, women
generally earned less than men in both the general and federal
workforces, even after controlling for factors that might explain
differences in pay. To determine the extent to which the pay gap exists
in the federal workforce, GAO addressed the following question: To what
extent has the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce
changed over the past 20 years and what factors account for the gap?
This testimony is based on a report that GAO is releasing today (GAO-09-
279).
To answer this question, GAO used data from the Office of Personnel
Management‘s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)”a database that
contains salary and employment data for the majority of employees in
the executive branch. GAO used these data to analyze (1) ’snapshots“ of
the workforce as a whole at three points in time (1988, 1998, and 2007)
to show changes over a 20-year period, and (2) the group, or cohort, of
employees who began their federal careers in 1988 to track their pay
over a 20-year period and examine the effects of breaks in service and
use of unpaid leave. GAO is not making any recommendations.
OPM and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reviewed the report
on which this statement is based. They generally agreed with our
methods and findings and provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
The gender pay gap”the difference between men‘s and women‘s average
salaries”declined significantly in the federal workforce between 1988
and 2007. Specifically, the gap declined from 28 cents on the dollar in
1988 to 19 cents in 1998 and further to 11 cents in 2007. For the 3
years we examined, all but about 7 cents of the gap can be explained by
differences in measurable factors such as the occupations of men and
women and, to a lesser extent, other factors such as education levels
and years of federal experience. The pay gap narrowed as men and women
in the federal workforce increasingly shared similar characteristics in
terms of the jobs they held, their educational attainment, and their
levels of experience. For example, the professional, administrative,
and clerical occupations”which accounted for 68 percent of all federal
jobs in 2007”have become more integrated by gender since 1988. Some or
all of the remaining 7 cent gap might be explained by factors for which
we lacked data or are difficult to measure, such as work experience
outside the federal government. Finally, it is important to note that
this analysis neither confirms nor refutes the presence of
discriminatory practices.
Figure: Pay gap between men and women (in cents):
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 1988;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.124;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels:
0.046;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.022;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.067.
Year: 1998;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.064;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.013;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.073.
Year: 2007;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.027;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.008;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels: 0;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.008;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.071.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
GAO‘s case study analysis of workers who entered the workforce in 1988
found that the pay gap between men and women in this group grew overall
from 22 to 25 cents on the dollar between 1988 and 2007. As with the
overall federal workforce, differences between men and women that can
affect pay explained a significant portion of the pay gap over the 20-
year period. In particular, differences in occupations explained from
11 to 19 cents of the gap over this period. In contrast, differences in
breaks in federal service and use of unpaid leave explained little of
the pay gap. However, the results of this analysis are not necessarily
representative of other cohorts.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-621T] or key
components. For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-
7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Chair Maloney and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the gender pay gap in the
federal workforce. Previous research shows that despite improvements
over time, a pay gap remains between men and women in both the U.S.
workforce as a whole and within the federal government. For example, in
2003, GAO found that women in the general workforce earned, on average,
80 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2000 when differences in
work patterns, industry, occupation, marital status, and other factors
were taken into account.[Footnote 1] Our prior work has also made
recommendations to strengthen federal agencies' enforcement of laws
addressing gender pay disparities in the private sector and among
federal contractors.[Footnote 2] My statement is based on our report
that is being released today, titled Women's Pay: Gender Pay Gap in the
Federal Workforce Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and
Experience Diminish.[Footnote 3] To prepare the report, we used data
from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data
File (CPDF)--a database that contains salary and employment-related
information for the majority of civilian employees in the executive
branch.[Footnote 4] We used CPDF data to analyze (1) "snapshots" of the
federal workforce in 1988, 1998, and 2007 to show changes in the
workforce as a whole over a 20-year period; and (2) the cohort (or
group) of employees who entered the federal workforce in 1988 to track
differences in pay between men and women and the effects of breaks in
service and unpaid leave over a 20-year period. The report includes a
detailed description of our scope and methodology. We conducted our
work in accordance with GAO's Quality Assurance Framework.
My statement today focuses on the following question: To what extent
has the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce changed
over the past 20 years and what factors account for the gap?
In summary, we found that the pay gap--the difference between men's and
women's average pay--in the federal workforce declined from 28 cents on
the dollar in 1988 to 19 cents in 1998 and further to 11 cents in 2007.
For each of the 3 years we examined, all but about 7 cents of the gap
could be explained by differences in measurable factors between men and
women, including their occupations, and, to a lesser extent, their
educational levels and years of federal experience.[Footnote 5] The gap
diminished over time largely because men and women in the federal
workforce are more alike in these characteristics than they were in
past years. For the cohort of employees who entered in 1988, we found
that their pay gap grew from 22 to 25 cents on the dollar by the end of
the 20-year period. Again, differences between men's and women's
characteristics that can affect pay, especially occupation, explained a
significant portion of the pay gap. Specifically, differences in the
occupations held by men and women in this group explained between 11
and 19 cents of the pay gap over the 20-year period. On the other hand,
differences in breaks in federal service and use of unpaid leave
explained little of the pay gap. For both analyses, factors for which
we lacked data or are difficult to measure, such as experience outside
the federal government, may account for some or all of the remaining
pay gap that we could not explain, and this analysis neither confirms
nor refutes the presence of discriminatory practices.
Background:
The federal government has experienced significant changes over the
past 20 years, particularly in the people it employs and the type of
work its employees perform. Since 1988, the federal workforce has
become increasingly concentrated in the professional and administrative
fields, which typically require a college education. Conversely, the
past 20 years have seen significant decreases in clerical and blue-
collar occupations. While we are not certain what accounts for the
decline in these occupations, possible reasons include the phasing out
of many defense-related jobs after the end of the Cold War, increased
use of automation, and contracting out to the private sector. Overall,
the federal workforce has more education and experience than it did 20
years ago. The proportion of federal employees with a bachelor's degree
or higher increased from 33 percent in 1988 to 44 percent in 2007.
Similarly, the average years of federal service increased from 13 to 15
years over this period, and the proportion of employees with over 20
years of experience increased from 21 to 34 percent.
Converging Characteristics Explain Substantial Decline in the Federal
Pay Gap between 1988 and 2007:
Before accounting for differences in measurable factors, we found that
the pay gap between men and women in the federal workforce declined
significantly between 1988 and 2007. Specifically, for every dollar
earned by men in 1988, women earned 28 cents less. This gap closed to
19 cents by 1998 and closed further to 11 cents by 2007. Using a
statistical model we developed, we were able to estimate the extent to
which different measurable factors contributed to the pay gap. Besides
gender, these measurable factors included work characteristics, such as
occupational category, agency, and state; worker characteristics, such
as education level, years of federal experience, bargaining unit
status, part-time work status, and veteran status; and demographic
characteristics such as age, race and ethnicity, and disability status.
Our statistical results show that differences in measurable factors
account for much of the gap in the years we examined. As shown in
figure 1, the individual factors that contributed most to the pay gap
were differences between men and women in the occupations they held,
their educational levels, and their years of federal experience.
Figure 1: Federal Workers: Proportion of the Pay Gap Explained by
Differences in Measurable Factors between Men and Women and Remaining
Unexplained Gap:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 1988;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.124;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels:
0.046;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.022;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.067.
Year: 1998;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.064;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.013;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.073.
Year: 2007;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.027;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.008;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Experience Levels: 0;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other
Characteristics: 0.008;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.071.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
While occupation, education, and federal experience accounted for much
of the pay gap, the convergence between men and women with respect to
these factors largely explains why the gap diminished over time.
* Occupation: We found that the pay gap decreased in part because
clerical, professional, and administrative occupational categories--
which together accounted for 68 percent of federal jobs in 2007--became
more integrated by gender between 1988 and 2007. In particular, changes
in the government's clerical workforce explain a large reduction in the
pay gap. In 1988, the clerical workforce--which accounted for 38
percent of all female federal workers--was among the lowest paid. From
1988 to 2007, the clerical workforce shrank in size by about 61
percent, and also became more integrated--i.e., the proportion of women
decreased from 85 percent to 69 percent. In addition, the proportion of
women in professional positions rose from 30 percent to 43 percent, and
those in administrative positions rose from 38 percent to 45 percent.
* Education: The pay gap also decreased as men and women in the federal
workforce became increasingly similar in their levels of education. In
1988, only 23 percent of women held a bachelor's degree or higher
compared with 40 percent of men. By 2007, 41 percent of women held a
bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 47 percent of men.
* Federal experience: Finally, men and women in the federal government
became increasingly similar in their levels of experience. On average,
men in 1988 had 14.4 years of federal experience, compared with 10.8
for women--nearly a 4-year difference. By 2007, women had slightly more
experience on average with 15.5 years of federal experience compared
with 15.2 for men.
In each of the 3 years we examined, our model could not account for
about 7 cents of the pay gap. While we cannot be sure what accounts for
this portion of the gap, it is possible that other factors for which we
lacked data or are difficult to measure, such as work experience
outside the federal government, could account for some of the
unexplained gap. In addition, it is important to note that this
analysis neither confirms nor refutes the presence of discriminatory
practices.
The Pay Gap for Employees Who Joined the Federal Workforce in 1988 Grew
Overall, but Breaks in Service and Unpaid Leave Contributed Little to
the Gap:
The gender pay gap for workers who entered the federal workforce in
1988 grew between 1988 and 2007. Specifically, it grew from 22 cents in
1988 to a maximum of 28 cents in 1993 through 1996 and then declined to
25 cents in 2007. As with our analysis of the workforce, differences in
measurable factors--especially in occupation--explained much of the pay
gap in each year. For example, occupational differences explained
between 11 and 19 cents of the gap over this period, due in part to
more women than men holding clerical jobs, which were among the lowest
paid in the federal workforce. The unexplained portion of the pay gap
also grew over time, increasing from 2 cents in 1988 to 9 cents in
2007, as shown in figure 2. However, other factors not captured by our
data could account for some of the unexplained pay gap.
Figure 2: 1988 Entering Cohort: Proportion of the Pay Gap Explained by
Differences in Measurable Factors between Men and Women and Remaining
Unexplained Gap (in cents):
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Year: 1988;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.16;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.02;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.023.
Year: 1989;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.174;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.019;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.017;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.029.
Year: 1990;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.191;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.019;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.026;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.019.
Year: 1991;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.193;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.028;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.022.
Year: 1992;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.193;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.028;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.03.
Year: 1993;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.192;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.023;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.026;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.035.
Year: 1994;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.192;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.025;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.024;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.037.
Year: 1995;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.184;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.023;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.023;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.048.
Year: 1996;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.18;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.024;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.02;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.05.
Year: 1997;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.176;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.023;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.021;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.053.
Year: 1998;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.169;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.023;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.021;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.056.
Year: 1999;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.159;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.022;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.023;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.066.
Year: 2000;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.154;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.016;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.023;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.073.
Year: 2001;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.142;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.024;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.077.
Year: 2002;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.136;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.024;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.08.
Year: 2003;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.129;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.022;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.022;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.086.
Year: 2004;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.123;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.021;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.023;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.087.
Year: 2005;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.116;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.026;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.09.
Year: 2006;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.113;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.018;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.026;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.088.
Year: 2007;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Occupations: 0.108;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Education Levels:
0.02;
Part of the Pay Gap Resulting from Differences in Other Characteristics
Including Leave: 0.025;
Unexplained Pay Gap: 0.093.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
We also found that differences in the use of unpaid leave or breaks in
service did not contribute significantly to the pay gap. As shown in
table 1, women in this cohort were more likely to take unpaid leave or
have a break in service than men. Nonetheless, differences in the use
of unpaid leave and breaks in service consistently explained less than
1 cent of the pay gap for this cohort over our study period. However,
our analysis of unpaid leave was limited by the fact that we could not
accurately measure the duration of the unpaid leave or determine why it
was taken.
Table 1: Use of unpaid leave and breaks in service by employees in the
1988 cohort:
Took unpaid leave at least once between 1988 and 2007;
Women: 18%;
Men: 11%.
Had a break in service at least once between 1988 and 2007;
Women: 17%;
Men: 15%.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of table]
Finally, it is important to note that this group is different from
those in our analysis of the entire federal workforce in two important
ways. First, this cohort includes only employees who started working
for the government in 1988, so by definition, new workers did not enter
this group. Therefore, any changes in the relative characteristics of
men and women in the overall federal workforce resulting from an influx
of new workers would not have occurred in the cohort. Additionally,
because we examined only this cohort, we cannot say with any certainty
whether this group is representative of other cohorts, so the findings
pertaining to the cohort are not generalizable.
OPM and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reviewed our
work and generally agreed with our methods and findings. OPM reviewed
our methodology and found our use of the CPDF data to be appropriate.
EEOC stated that our study has a solid research design and modeling
analysis and will serve as an important source of information to the
federal sector. They provided suggestions for clarification of our
analyses and technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Madam Chair, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions you or other members of the committee may have.
GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-
7215 or Sherrilla@gao.gov. Contacts for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this
statement. Also contributing to this statement were Michele Grgich,
Assistant Director; Erin Godtland; and Daniel R. Concepcion, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security; Benjamin Bolitzer, Douglas Sloane,
Shana Wallace, and Gregory H. Wilmoth, Applied Research and Methods;
Ronald Fecso, Chief Statistician; Belva Martin, George Stalcup, and
Tamara Stenzel, Strategic Issues; and Jim Rebbe, General Counsel.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Women's Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference
between Men's and Women's Earnings, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-35] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31,
2003).
[2] GAO, Women's Earnings: Federal Agencies Should Better Monitor Their
Performance in Enforcing Anti-Discrimination Laws, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-799] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11,
2008).
[3] GAO, Women's Earnings: Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce
Narrows as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience
Diminish, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-279]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2009).
[4] The CPDF does not include information for certain executive branch
agencies, such as the intelligence services, agencies in the judicial
branch, and most agencies in the legislative branch. The CPDF also does
not include the U.S. Postal Service or members of the armed forces.
[5] In this report, measurable factors are those factors for which we
have CPDF data.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
