The Gender-Equity Q&A is designed to help athletics administrators understand institutional gender-equity and Title IX-related issues.

Answers for the Q&A are provided by Christine Grant, associate professor at the University of Iowa, and Janet Judge, attorney with Verrill & Dana LLP.

Q Is it possible to determine compliance with Title IX through statistics on the men's and women's athletics programs?

A The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) would likely begin an investigation with a review of pertinent statistics before moving into a greater in-depth analysis of all factors. For example, if the male/female athletics participants in an institution's athletics program reflected a
similar percentage to the male/female undergraduate population, there would be a presumption of compliance in the area of participation without the need for further inquiry. If, however, an institution claimed to be in compliance with Prong 2 (a history and continuing practice of program expansion) or Prong 3 (fully meeting the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex), the OCR would conduct additional non-statistical investigations to determine compliance.

Generally speaking, statistics alone are not enough to determine if an institution is in compliance with Title IX, although the availability of annual statistical reports over a period of time can present an overall indication of an institution's commitment to and progress toward equal opportunity.

An analysis of the NCAA statistical data on men's and women's athletics programs also sheds light on national trends.

In the area of participation, playing opportunities for women at the collegiate level have certainly increased over the years. Title IX was passed in 1972 and enacted in 1975. High schools were to be in compliance by June 1976 and universities by 1978.

In 2001-02, 30 years later, college women in NCAA institutions constituted 54.5 percent of the undergraduate population and about 42 percent of the athletics population, a difference of 12.5 percent.

Table 1

Undergraduate -- Female

poplulation -- participation

Source: 2001-02 NCAA Gender-Equity Report

Some of the disparity in participation opportunities may be because of the number of institutions that are legally in compliance with Prong 3 (that is, institutions that are fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex despite an imbalance of participation opportunities for men and women).

On the other hand, an analysis of women's participation over the past 30 years has shown a steady increase in the number of female student-athletes. To date, there has been no indication that a plateau in interest may be developing. Hence, one may anticipate that at some institutions, there will be a need to continue to comply with Prong 2 (that is, to exhibit a history and a continuing practice of program expansion for women).

At these institutions, it should be noted that a university athletics population is replaced about every five years. Thus, at some schools, six generations of women have been affected by a lack of real equal opportunity to compete. As a result, some young women have turned to the courts for relief and in those instances, women have seldom lost. As parents become more educated about the rights of their talented daughters and more aware of the disparities that exist between men's and women's sports at some institutions, the likelihood of legal action will increase.

In the area of financial aid, the law requires the athletics scholarship allocation for women to be not less that 1 percent from the participation percentage unless there is a legal and legitimate reason for the disparity. For example, if there are more out-of-state scholarships awarded to men, and if the coaches of women's teams have been given appropriate scholarship monies and equal opportunity to recruit out-of-state female student-athletes, a difference of more than 1 percent in scholarship expenses for women may well be acceptable. Legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for any differences will be fairly considered by the OCR. In the latest data collection, only in Division I-A is the allocation less than what is required by law.

Although per capita expenditures are not required to be allocated according to the participation proportionality, the differences between male and female resource distributions in recruiting and total expenses in Division I-A have been consistently and significantly well below participation figures. The allocations in the other divisions have been more equitable:

Table 2

Female percentages of expenses

Participation -- Scholarships -- Recruiting -- Total expenses

Source: 2001-02 NCAA Gender-Equity Report

According to NCAA researcher Daniel Fulks' statistics, in 1989 the average expense per male student-athlete in Division I-A was $24,000, compared to $13,000 for the average female student-athlete; a difference of $11,000. By 2001, that difference in per capita spending had increased to $14,000:

Table 3

Per capita expenditures on student-athletes

*Not available

Source: 2001 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I and II Intercollegiate Athletics Programs

One year later, in 2002, the difference in Division I-A had increased to $15,000. Thus, in Division I-A, the disparities in the expenditures on men and women are actually increasing rather than diminishing over the years.

The following data show not only the disparity in spending between men's and women's entire programs, they also demonstrate the priorities of budget allocations:

Table 4

2002 NCAA Gender Equity Report

Division I-A

Men

Average Cost

Women

Average Cost

There are several important points to be made with regard to this table. First of all, the OCR does not conduct a comparison of expenses on a sport-by-sport basis; the comparison is made between the expenses of the total men's program and the total women's program. In this comparison, the expenses of football and men's basketball must be included. Further, any disparities in expenditures on men and women must not be the result of discriminatory practices.

For example, if an institution decides to "tier" sports (that is, to make resource allocations to sports in a disparate fashion), there must be overall equity for women. What is clear in Table 4 is that football, men's basketball and women's basketball are the high-priority sports (that is, they receive significantly higher resource allocations than other sports). What will be of concern to the OCR is the imbalance of men and women enjoying the benefits of being in these high-priority sports.

Since in Division I-A, women constitute 43 percent of the athletics population, according to the law, women should have 43 percent of the slots in the high-priority sports. So, if football and men's basketball on average have 134 male slots (football 118, men's basketball 16), then there should be 101 women (43 percent) in high-priority sports rather than the 16 percent they currently have. This would necessitate elevating 85 additional women into the top-priority classification.

In summary, although statistics cannot determine an institution's compliance with Title IX, both the individual institution and the Association itself can benefit from an analysis of annual reports over the years that provide statistics on the treatment of male and female student-athletes in athletics programs.

For additional gender-equity resources, including newly created video segments featuring Christine Grant and Janet Judge, visit www.ncaa.org/gender_equity.