Published: July 28, 1998
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972
July 1, 1972, P.L. 92-318
20 USC §1681(a)
Executive SummaryIn recent years, eight major studies have been completed concerning gender equity in college athletics. Each of these studies came to basically the same conclusion that although improvements have been made in recent years, colleges and universities are still a long way from complying with the regulations of Title IX. In fact, only 9% (26 out of 303) of the schools in Division I are currently considered to be in compliance. Meanwhile, 86 schools are currently 20% or more below proportionality standards. The NCAA and Women's Sports Foundation both estimate that at the current rate it will take at least another ten years for the majority of schools to comply with a federal law that wa passed over 25 years ago.
After analyzing the findings from the research studies related to gender equity, we felt the need for an objective measurement tool that could directly measure the thirteen program areas examined during an OCR investigation. Further analysis, however, indicated that a simple mathematical formula to determine whether a school was in or out of compliance with the regulations of Title IX was not possible. As an alternative, we decided to attempt to create a simple mathematical tool for the purpose of flagging potential compliance problems.
We believe that the measure we have designed, the Gender Equity Compliance Quotient (GECQ), can be used by the administration of an educational institution or the OCR as a method of quickly assessing whether the school should undertake a more comprehensive assessment of Title IX compliance in athletics. Additionally, data collected over a number of years could be used as an indicator, or measurement, of improvements made at educational institutions. We envision this type of information being useful during the NCAA Certification Process or following a lawsuit as a method of assessing the implementation of an institution's compliance plan.
Gender Equity Compliance Quotient Formula:The Gender Equity Compliance Quotient (GECQ) attempts to create a broader picture of compliance on a program-wide basis by combining participation ratios, scholarship ratios, and three measures of the treatment of female student-athletes and their coaches; recruiting budgets, operating budgets and head coaches salaries. This research study was inspired by the Gender Equity Report Card which was published by the Women's Sports Foundation in 1997. The Gender Equity Report Card represented a major breakthrough by allowing for a comparison of educational institutions on an institution-by-institution basis. In the study, each institution was given a letter grade in four categories; (1) athletic participation, (2) scholarship allocations, (3) recruiting spending, (4) operating expenditures. Letter grades (with pluses and minuses) corresponded to an equity standard based on how far the institution was from proportionality in that category. The four grades were then averaged to create a composite grade for the school.
In contrast to the grade point average system used by the Gender Equity Report Card, we decided to compute the relative percentage of compliance for each part of the formula by dividing the percentage that female student-athletes represent by the percentage of female students at the institution. We felt that this provided for a more exact calculations. For example, if an institution allocates 40% of its' roster spots to female athletes and has a female student population of 50%, then the institution would receive a score of .8000 (or 80%) in that category. Each category is equally weighted at 20% of the total score. In this example, the institution would receive 16 points towards their total score. The remaining four categories would be calculated in a similar manner in order to calculate the total GECQ for the institution.
The Gender Equity Compliance Quotient formula is as follows:(.2) (% S-A) + (.2) (% Scholarships) + (.2) (% Recruiting) + (.2) (% Operating) + (.2) (% Head Coaches)
Participation Budget Budget Budget Salaries
Components of the GECQ Formula:The following section contains a brief explanation of why each of the five parts of the formula were chosen and what they represent:
1. Athletic Participation; is a measure of the opportunities to compete and gain the benefits and lessons associated with being part of a team. This is also a measure of the job universities are doing getting women involved in their athletic programs. In 1995-96 women represented 37% of all NCAA student-athletes and 52% of all college students at those schools. In the Cohen versus Brown University decision, participation ratios were ruled by the courts to be the most important prong for determining whether a school is in compliance with Title IX because it is the only prong that is measurable of the OCR's three-part test. By itself, however, participation ratios are a very narrow measure of compliance.
2. Scholarship Allocation; Athletic scholarships are often the passport for young athletes to higher education and a better life. During 1995-96, female student-athletes were allocated $142.6 million less than their male counterparts. The National Women's Law Center has voiced concerns that "scholarship disparities cause women to experience mounting debt which affects them long after graduation or prevents them from accessing higher education."
3. Recruiting Spending; Colleges spend money for recruiting in order to attract student-athletes to their campus. These include: letters and phone calls to prospects and their parents, recruiting trips by coaches, as well as, official and unofficial visits to campus made by student-athletes. Universities spend three times as much money recruiting male athletes as they do recruiting female athletes. The amount of money spent recruiting female student-athletes can be viewed as a measure of the institution's commitment to their women's sports programs by providing the resources necessary to allow the team to be successful.
4. Operating Expenditures; Operating expenditures refer to the total institutional spending for lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, equipment, supplies and officials for both home and away contests. In essence, it covers many of the program areas examined by the OCR during an investigation. Thus, this is an important measure of the treatment of women at the university. On average, universities spend three times as much money on men's sports as they do women's sports.
5. Head Coaching Salaries; We decided to include head coaches salary information after reviewing the data concerning the source of complaints that have been filed against educational institutions. In many cases, the complaints were filed by the coaches of women's teams, most often the women's basketball coach. Although, Title IX and Employment law allow for salary differences based on such factors as experience, training and performance, we felt that head coaches salaries were an important indicator of the institutional commitment to meeting the needs and interests of female athletes.
In Division IA, head coaches of women's teams make only .63 cents for every dollar earned by the coaches of men's teams in nine comparable sports. The salary gap between coaches of men's and women's teams remains fairly consistent across all NCAA divisions even though men coach 45% of the women's teams. Examination of data collected for Division IA during the Gender Equity Report Card indicated that the salaries for coaches of seven of the nine comparable women's sports studied were between 85-102% of the coach of the men's sport (refer to Figure 1). The salary gap appears to be generated primarily in the sports of basketball and softball were women coaches are receiving only 33% and 56% of their male counterparts. Since coaching jobs for men's and women's teams require equal skill, effort and responsibilities, and are performed under similar working conditions they should receive roughly the same compensation packages. The state of Tennessee has taken a different approach by mandating equal pay requirements for coaches and athletic directors contingent on coaches having equal experience in their respective sports.
Figure 1: Division IA Head Coaches Median Salaries For Comparable Sports
Coaching Position Men Women Ratio
Basketball $290,000 $98,400 .3393
Chief Assistant Basketball $66,000 $43,000 .6515
Baseball/Softball $79,570 $44,725 .5621
Golf $41,000 $36,951 .9012
Gymnastics $50,000 $43,351 .8670
Soccer $42,000 $38,592 .9188
Swimming $49,035 $45,500 .9279
Tennis $40,500 $38,721 .9561
Track & Field $52,258 $44,784 .8570
Volleyball $46,566 $47,500 1.0201
Total $756,929 $481,524 .6374
Results (Refer to the Gender Equity Compliance Quotient Charts provided in the packet for complete institution by institution rankings).
Division IA: The three military academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) led the way with scores over 1.0000. The average score for the division was .6173. Scores within the division ranged from Army's 1.1750 to Texas Christian's .3717. Among conferences, the Big Ten Conference led the way with an average GECQ among member institutions of .6658. Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum was Conference USA with an average GECQ among member institutions of .4489. Also of note, many traditional football powers were near the top of the divisional rankings for the Gender Equity Compliance Quotient.
Division IAA: The average score for the division was .6371. Southern Illinois led the division with a GECQ of .8899. Meanwhile, Mississippi Valley State finished last in the division and last overall with a GECQ of .3602. Among conferences, the Ivy League led the way with six schools in the top 20 within Division IAA.
Division IAAA: The average score for the division was .7653. This number is approximately 13% higher than Division IAA and 15% higher than Division IA because the division does not sponsor football. Drexel led the way with a GECQ of 1.0752. Meanwhile, Jacksonville State finished last within the division with a GECQ of .5350. As a whole, Division IAAA dominated the overall Division I rankings by placing 20 schools in the top 25 rankings.
Score Distributions:(Refer to Figure 2 for the score distribution for each division and overall).
Of the 303 institutions in Division I:
· Nine schools (2.97%) attained a level of .9000 or higher
· Thirty schools (9.90%) scored in the .8000's
· Sixty-nine schools (22.77%) scored in the .7000's
· One-hundred and one schools (33.33%) scored in the .6000's
· Seventy-one schools (23.43%) scored in the .5000's
· Twenty-three schools (7.59%) scored below .5000 (including five schools in the .3000 range).
Figure 2:
The following is the score distribution for 1995-96:
Division 1. 000's .9000's .8000's .7000's .6000's .5000's .4000's .3000's Average
IA 3 0 2 14 39 39 8 3 .6173
IAA 0 0 5 29 42 29 10 2 .6371
IAAA 1 5 23 26 20 3 0 0 .7653
Overall 4 5 30 69 101 71 18 5 .6623
% 1.32% 1.65% 9.90% 22.77% 33.33% 23.43% 5.94% 1.65%
Summary
The Gender Equity Compliance Quotient attempts to create a simple mathematical tool for the purpose of flagging potential compliance problems. We believe that this instrument can be used as a method of quickly assessing whether the administration of an educational institution or the OCR should undertake a more comprehensive assessment of Title IX compliance in athletics.
As an added feature of the GECQ it allows educational institutions to be ranked according to these variable within Division I and within their sub-division. Data collected over a number of years could be used as an indicator, or measurement, of improvements made at educational institutions. We envision this type of information being useful during the NCAA Certification Process or following a lawsuit as a method of assessing the implementation of an institution's compliance plan. Finally, we would like to see the development of awards given to those schools that experience the highest percentage improvements without eliminating opportunities for male student-athletes.
Future Studies:
Further research will be necessary in the following areas:
· Comparisons of institutions considered to be in compliance with the regulations of Title IX versus institutions not in compliance;
· Examination on the sport cost level since each institution offers a different menu of sports;
· Examination on the divisional level;
· A comparison of head coaches salaries factoring in coaching experience levels.