Title IX ind portion - Title IX Compliance at KSU Phase I...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Title IX Compliance at KSU Phase I Group Project Individual Submission CTU Online [Type the author name] [Pick the date]
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Title IX Compliance This document is an analysis of a case study based on KSU’s compliance with title IX. This document demonstrates the three criteria for ensuring compliance, how indirect cost can be reallocated, and a critique of the auditor’s method of allocating direct costs.
Background image of page 2
Kingston State University (KSU) is required along with all colleges that receive federal funding must comply with a law called Title IX. This law specifically deals with gender equality in collegiate sports. This means that any school that receives federal funds must make sure that it offers equal opportunities for both its male and female athletes. This law is to protect males and females alike, but more often than not females are the underrepresented gender in collegiate sports. KSU has hired a new internal audit director by the name of Jane Davis. Jane has conducted and internal audit to determine whether or not that the school is in compliance with this law (Reisch & Seese, 2005). Due to this internal audit I have been asked to read the case study Compliance with Title IX at Kingston State University: A Case Study on Cost Allocation and Ethical Decision Making. I have been asked to analyze this case study to determine the three criteria that could be used to determine compliance, critique the current cost allocation method of direct and indirect costs, and to identify some possible methods for ensuring compliance with Title IX. There are three criteria that KSU could use to determine whether or not that they are in compliance with the law that deals with effective accommodation of athletic interests and abilities of both male and female athletes. One important note to remember on these criteria is that KSU does not have to meet all three criteria, but they do have to meet a least one to be in compliance. The three criteria for this aspect of the law are substantial proportionality of male and female athletes to the number of male and female undergraduates, full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender, and the demonstration of continual progress of expanding programs for the underrepresented gender. The underrepresented gender at KSU as with most universities is female athletes (Reisch & Seese, 2005).
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The first criteria of substantial proportionality means that the percentage of both male and females athletes has to be in the same proximity of the percentage of male and female undergraduates that are enrolled at KSU. During the study it was found that 53% of the undergraduate population was female while 47% is male. To meet this criteria the percentage of each gender’s athletes would have to be close to these same percentages. For example, KSU would be in compliance if 51% of their athletes were female and 49% of their athletes were male. This is not the case at KSU as only 40% of the school’s athletes are female (Reisch &
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

Title IX ind portion - Title IX Compliance at KSU Phase I...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online