September 15, 2003

Mr. Michael W. Moyer

Executive Director

National Wrestling Coaches Association

1976 Auction Road

Manheim, PA 17545

Mr. Eric Pearson

Chairman

College Sports Council

1825 I Street, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Moyer and Mr. Pearson:

This letter is in response to your June 18, 2003 appeal of a May 19,
2003 Departmental decision under the Department's *Information Quality
Guidelines*. In February of 2003, you contacted the Department about a
third-party report submitted to the Department \-- "*Open to All: Title
IX at Thirty: Report of the Secretary's Commission on Opportunity in
Athletics*" \-- that you believe contains "statistical errors." The data
you questioned, taken by the Commission from two General Accounting
Office (GAO) reports, relate to the numerical gains or losses of women's
and men's sports opportunities since 1972. Your February letter
indicated that "the Commission Report does not comply with the
Department's Information Quality Guidelines" and requested that the
Department not disseminate the Commission Report without correcting the
alleged errors. The Department's May 19th response concluded that no
correction was warranted.

In your June 18, 2003 appeal letter you state, "...we stress that our
... challenge does not address the GAO report *per se* or even the
Commission's inclusion of that flawed GAO data in the Commission report.
Instead, we challenge the Department's dissemination of a third-party
report that contains false and misleading information ..." After
carefully reviewing your correction request, the Department\'s response
determining that no correction was warranted, and your appeal letter, I
concur with the initial Department response.

As the Department's *Information Quality Guidelines* reflect, the
Department does not have full control over the quality of data reported
by third parties. In fact, the Commission's Report includes a disclaimer
that the views expressed in the report do not necessarily represent the
positions and policies of the Department. Nonetheless, to facilitate the
public's understanding of these data, the Department's *Information
Quality Guidelines* state that for third-party data the

Page 2 -- Title IX at Thirty: Report of the Secretary's Commission on
Opportunities in Athletics

Department "intends to identify the source of the information and any
shortcomings or limitations of the data if we rely upon it for
decision-making purposes." Guidelines, p. 6.

The Department has not relied on the allegedly flawed GAO report data
for decision-making purposes. While the Department has considered
conclusions and recommendations in the Commission's Report, those
conclusions and recommendations are not based on the details of the GAO
data. The 15-member Commission on Opportunity in Athletics was chartered
in July 2002 "to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad
public input directed at improving the application of current federal
standards ... under Title IX" of the Education Amendments of 1972. The
Commission held four town meetings, and heard from more than 50 expert
witnesses and hundreds of parents, athletes, and school administrators.
It also gathered information, such as the GAO reports, from various
sources. The Commission issued its Report in February 2003. As the
Department explained in its initial decision, the GAO reports are only
one of the several sources of information presented to the Commission
that are recounted in the background sections of the Report.

Even if the Commission had relied to some limited degree on the GAO data
in formulating its conclusions and recommendations, the Commission's
Report comports with the requirements of the Department's *Information
Quality Guidelines* because the Report itself adequately discloses the
"source of the information and any shortcomings and limitations of the
data." The Report describes the Commission's process, identifies the
sources of information contained within it, and acknowledges a "spectrum
of opinions" on Title IX implementation and enforcement. With respect to
the increases and decreases in athletic opportunities, the Report notes
that "it is extremely difficult to obtain a set of data that is accepted
by all parties." Commission Report, p. 24. The Report specifically cites
testimony suggesting that NCAA data reflecting an increase in overall
participation in athletics for men and women "did not take into account
changes in NCAA membership over time." *Id.* The Report cites testimony
by Jerome Kravitz who described findings, which "control for changes in
NCAA membership," that suggest that there was a reduction in athletic
participation opportunities for men during the period between 1982 and
2001. The Report does not attempt to resolve these disputes but notes
that, regardless of the data used, "all agree that there has been a
troubling decrease in athletic opportunities for boys and men." *Id.*

In sum, the information contained in the Report, including the data you
allege is flawed, is presented in a broad framework so that the public
understands the nature of the Commission's work, and its findings and
recommendations. The Report plainly reflects that there are substantial
disputes regarding the data relating to increases and decreases in
athletic opportunities and sets out the reasons for any shortcomings and
limitations in the data.

Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, the
Department's guidelines are to be applied flexibly, in a common sense
and workable manner, and in a manner appropriate to the nature of the
information. (67 Fed. Reg. 8453). In this case, the Department has made
available to the public a report on Title IX that was developed through
an open and

Page 3 -- Title IX at Thirty: Report of the Secretary's Commission on
Opportunity in Athletics

inclusive process, and includes information on the topic from a variety
of perspectives. The Report provides source citations for the
information that was presented to the Commission, so that the public can
understand the context in which the Report was prepared.

Finally, we note your contention that the Department was required to
conduct a pre-dissemination review of the report. Whether or not there
is a requirement for pre-dissemination review in these circumstances,
the Department, through its initial decision and now independently
through this appeal, has reviewed the Commission Report in light of the
*Information Quality Guidelines.* For the reasons explained above, I
find that the Commission Report comports with the purposes, principles,
and standards of the Department's *Information Quality Guidelines*.

Information quality is important to the Department. Thank you for
contacting us about your information quality concerns.

> Sincerely,

/ s /

William J. Leidinger

Chief Information Officer