A state mandated evaluation study was done of certain programs and activities of the Mississippi Commissioner's Office of the Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) including the Commissioner's Fund and operations of university foundations and athletic programs. This report presents findings, recommendations, and documentation, as well as responses of the various agencies and institutions under review. The evaluation found that the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning does not fulfill its duty to assure that funds available to the Commissioner and donated to universities are spent efficiently and according to donor intent. The board also fails to assure efficient use of money donated to and earned by university athletic departments. University officials oppose state oversight of university/foundation fiscal practices. In addition, university officials receive additional compensation from university foundations and the Commissioner receives additional compensation from the Commissioner's fund both without legal authorization from the IHL board of trustees. The report finds that university administrators used public funds to finance football bowl game entertainment and gratuitous travel for officials other than coaches and students. Administrators also use unrestricted foundation donations for gratuitous travel, entertainment, and gifts to IHL board members and the Commissioner. The evaluation also found that university foundations routinely contract with businesses in which foundation board members have economic interests and athletic directors divert revenues into private corporations not subject to state control. Improved oversight is recommended. About half the document is taken up by the response of the Board of Trustees of the IHL to questions posed by the report in three areas: (1) the Commissioner's Fund; (2) Foundations; and (3) Athletics. Following the board's response are more detailed replies by the foundations and universities involved. In general it is the opinion of the Board that the PEER Report has resorted to the use of allegations, insinuations, and innuendos, many of which could have been eliminated with rudimentary good faith efforts. (JB)