Independent Investigations Help Schools Move Forward on Title IX
It was summer break in Green Bay, Wisconsin, before the beginning of the 2018 fall semester when Jane was sexually assaulted at her home by Jake—a fellow student at her high school.
Jane’s parents reported the assault to the police, who shared the information with the school resource officer (SRO), who then shared the information with the school’s principal and Title IX coordinator.
The principal took immediate steps to ensure that Jane and Jake (whose names have been changed for this article and were withheld in initial reports) would not be in class together when school started. The principal also made sure Jane was directly supervised inside and outside of the classroom.
The school’s associate principal and the police interviewed Jane about the incident. The police also interviewed Jake, who admitted to the sexual assault.
In response, Jane’s parents asked the Title IX coordinator that Jake be removed from school. Instead, the Title IX coordinator said Jake would remain a student and the district would continue to ensure that the students remained separated while on campus. The Title IX coordinator also told Jane’s parents that the coordinator would send them a letter about the decision not to remove Jake from school, which would allow Jane’s parents to appeal. It’s unclear if that happened. But Jake was never removed from school. Instead, he enrolled in another nondistrict school for the next academic year.
Despite the Title IX coordinator being aware of the incident, the school district never conducted its own investigation into the assault. The principal claimed in a checklist submission for the coordinator that a detective had investigated the incident instead.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) later determined that the school district violated Title IX by “consistently failing” to make independent determinations about what happened when it received a report of sex discrimination, including when law enforcement was involved.
In a compliance review of the school district in December 2024, the OCR wrote:
“Because criminal investigations evaluate the existence of criminal conduct and not the Title IX question of existence of sex discrimination—including, for example, the operation of a hostile environment based on sex that limits or denies access to education—police investigations and reports are not determinative of whether sexual harassment occurred under Title IX and do not relieve the district of its Title IX duty to respond promptly and equitably to conduct that creates a hostile environment.”
To resolve the compliance review that assessed this incident and six others, the district agreed to submit several documents to OCR for review—and revision as necessary—including its Title IX grievance procedures; documentation of implementation of a centralized-record keeping system and procedures to document and preserve all complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault; and information about how the district processed all formal complaints of sexual harassment and assault filed with it during the 2024‒2025 academic year.
The Green Bay Area Public School District is not alone. In a review of OCR’s work between 2021 and 2024, it cited multiple other cases of school districts violating Title IX by abdicating their responsibility to conduct independent investigations into alleged sex discrimination.
Kim Pacelli, partner at TNG Consulting and a member of the advisory board for the Association of Title IX Administrators, regularly trains and advises on Title IX policy and procedure. She says that it’s important to recognize that incidents of sex discrimination in school settings can also be crimes.
“We may need to make a report to law enforcement, or child protective services, for that matter,” she says. “Yet, we also have a policy violation within our school’s community standards, and we have obligations, as a matter of civil rights law, to make sure that we’re stopping any sexual harassment, preventing it from occurring, and remedying the effects of it.”
Title IX Basics
Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive U.S. federal financial assistance. Prohibited conduct includes: sex-based harassment; sexual assault; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school’s science, technology, engineering, and math courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and enforcement; retaliation; domestic violence; and dating violence.
Any primary, secondary, and higher education institution or activity that accepts grants and other funding from the U.S. Department of Education is typically required to comply with Title IX. Part of compliance is having a designated Title IX coordinator—sometimes an individual staff member at the institution or a district representative—and having a grievance process for responding to formal complaints of sexual harassment.
The grievance process needs to have an investigation component, which allows the institution to determine whether sex-based discrimination occurred, how to promptly end it, how to prevent its recurrence, and how to remedy any effects to maintain a safe and equitable educational environment for students and staff.
The grievance process must be designed using a “pretty prescriptive set of due process requirements,” Pacelli says. Many of these due process requirements were mandated by the Education Department in 2020 to make the investigation process fairer for both alleged victims and alleged perpetrators.
For instance, the grievance process must have “reasonably prompt time frames” for addressing complainants (alleged victims) and respondents (alleged perpetrators) equitably. Schools must also wait to issue disciplinary sanctions until its completed a fair process to determine if a respondent is responsible for the alleged behavior in the complaint.
Both parties—the respondent and the complainant—must be notified in writing of the allegations in the complaint and informed that they have the right to select an adviser, such as an attorney or a parent, of their choice to provide support during the grievance process.
This notice needs to include the range of remedies and disciplinary sanctions that might be imposed after an investigation concludes. The documentation must also include the evidence standard the institution will follow in the grievance process—either the preponderance of the evidence standard (known as “more likely than not”) or the clear and convincing evidence standard (known as “highly and substantially more probable to be true than not”). All future updates about the grievance process, such as notices about investigative interviews, meetings, or hearings, must continue to be sent to both parties in writing.
While the grievance process plays out, schools are required to provide supportive measures that are not punitive to both complainants and respondents. These measures are meant to restore or preserve their access to education and deter prohibited conduct under Title IX. They could include referrals for counseling; alterations of school-provided housing assignments; provision of a school safety escort; class schedule modifications; increased security and monitoring of certain areas of the school; implementation of contact restrictions between the parties; and trespass, persona non grata, or be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) orders.
To facilitate the grievance process, education institutions must assign a trained investigator—either an in-house staff member or a contractor—to gather evidence, conduct interviews, and write a final report summarizing his or her findings.
During the investigation, all parties must be given equal opportunity to present facts, expert witnesses, and evidence related to the allegations in the complaint. The investigator also must provide all parties equal opportunity of at least 10 days to review and respond to the evidence gathered during the investigation. This review period is a unique characteristic that sets Title IX investigations apart from many other investigations.
Once the initial investigation is done, the investigator must write a written report summarizing the relevant evidence and then share it with all parties before reaching a determination regarding responsibility. The complainant and respondent both then have at least 10 days to respond to the investigator’s report, potentially introducing new evidence for the investigator to consider.
Colleges and universities are required to take an additional step after the investigatory is complete: conducting a live hearing with cross-examination by the parties’ advisers. This step is optional for elementary, middle, and high schools as long as the parties have equal opportunity to submit written questions for the other parties and any witnesses to answer before a determination about responsibility is reached.
It can be very convoluted, but it’s very necessary to make sure that we’re keeping students in our school safe.
Then, a decision maker who is not the Title IX investigator or coordinator is required to determine the responsibility of the respondent using the standard of evidence the institution laid out in its initial notice to all parties. The decision maker must document the determination in writing, explaining the reasons for the outcome, disciplinary measures for the respondent if necessary, and remedies for the complainant. That documentation must be shared with both parties. Disciplinary measures could include requiring the offending student to move off campus, withdraw from extracurricular activities, and undergo suspension or even expulsion.
The parties then have the option to appeal the decision under claims of procedural deficiencies, newly discovered evidence, or bias or conflict of interest affecting the outcome.
If a school decides to dismiss a formal complaint at any time during the grievance process, it is required to provide all parties written notice about that dismissal and the reason for it. Except for instances of an employee sexually harassing a student, the institution can also allow parties to complete an informal resolution process instead of completing the formal grievance process.
Lastly, if a school fails to meet its requirements under Title IX, the parties involved have the right to file a complaint with the OCR to review the situation and potentially conduct an enforcement action. The OCR was affected by the U.S. federal government shutdown in October 2025 and did not return Security Management’s request for comment on this article.
Title IX in Practice
As outlined above, the Title IX investigation process can be complicated. To make it easier for staff to follow, Ottawa High School in Ottawa, Kansas, invested in annual Title IX training for administrators and staff and also created a process guide in 2020 with clear instructions and cross-links to appropriate forms.
“It’s hard, but it’s a necessary process,” says Ottawa High School principal Kelly Whitaker. “That’s what we always have to remind ourselves. It’s challenging. It’s very difficult. It can be very convoluted, but it’s very necessary to make sure that we’re keeping students in our school safe.”
The process guide, which Whitaker shared with Security Management for review, breaks the Title IX grievance process into six steps, with additional action items underneath each main step.
For instance, step 3 is conducting the investigation, with listed action items that instruct the investigator to contact the complainant’s family and schedule an interview with the complainant; contact the respondent’s family and schedule an interview after the complainant’s interview; and contact any named witnesses’ parents to obtain permission for an interview. The step concludes with a reminder to inform parents of witnesses that they are welcome to be present during the interview or can request that their child not participate.
Whitaker, who as a principal may act as a Title IX investigator, has found the guide her school created in 2020 to be helpful to ensure she has not missed a step in the process.
For example, one step might have five forms that the investigator needs to fill out to make sure that “you’ve covered all your bases through your investigation,” Whitaker says. “Have I gotten all the witnesses down here? Have I passed all the correct information back and forth? A lot of times, it’s just double-checking with that person to make sure that you haven’t missed anything in the process along the way.”
While most Title IX investigators are internal personnel—either at an individual school or at the district level—there are some instances where institutions may decide to hire an outside investigator. Whitaker says that she took this approach when handling a Title IX investigation into a report involving a staff member and a student. Whitaker reached out to the Kansas Association of School Boards and hired one of its lawyers to conduct the investigation.
“We wanted to make sure that we weren’t missing anything,” she says, “and we wanted to make sure that we weren’t bringing any bias to the table.”
Whitaker recommends working with an outside investigator for investigating conduct between a student and a staffer, as well as for investigating complaints that appear to be complicated.
“I would recommend trying to work with a third party, if possible, to make sure that you’re following the process appropriately and you’re not missing any of the steps along the way,” she adds.
When working with an outside investigator, Pacelli recommends looking for an investigator who is “trauma informed” and experienced in conducting investigations into challenging interpersonal situations. Investigators who meet these criteria can recognize the trauma that an interviewee may have experienced while also asking necessary questions.
“You still need to investigate,” she adds. “It’s just how you do the investigation in a way that’s sensitive to the underlying circumstances.”
Lastly, the Title IX process depends on a decision maker. This person cannot also be the investigator. Instead, this individual is designated to review the investigator’s work and decide on what response actions to take, if any, upon the completion of the investigation.
At Ottawa High School, for instance, a decision maker might be an assistant vice principal who reviews the principal’s investigation report.
Working with Law Enforcement
Part of a Title IX coordinator’s responsibility is to ensure that when sex discrimination is reported at the school, an investigator then investigates that report to learn what happened. Pacelli says she recommends against using an SRO to conduct a Title IX investigation.
School connectedness is directly tied to success at school, whether that’s academic or artistic success.
“If I were building a system, I would say don’t rely on law enforcement to be your investigator,” she adds. “I think that model can really present some challenges…it can potentially chill some participation into the Title IX investigation.”
Instead, Pacelli says that SROs can be partners in Title IX compliance—especially if a report requires both a Title IX investigation and a criminal investigation. Pacelli adds that schools have an obligation under Title IX to make sure the alleged student victim and his or her family know that they can report the incident to law enforcement. The school also needs to meet its obligation to follow through on any mandatory reporting requirements to law enforcement that it might be subject to.
“It’s great if the [SRO] is just down the hall and can help facilitate that handoff if its required or something that somebody wants to do,” Pacelli says. “In K-12 settings, we tend to see it’s much more common that it’s a required report to law enforcement; whereas, in higher ed settings, we tend to allow a complainant to decide for themselves whether or not they want to report to law enforcement.”
Ottawa High School has an SRO from the Ottawa Police Department on campus, who Whitaker says is a partner for safety and security. When the officer began working at the high school, Whitaker says administrators sat down with the officer to make sure she understood what Title IX is, what it looks like in practice, and how it might enter her world. These conversations were all part of creating open lines of communication and a culture of information-sharing between the SRO and the high school staff.
“Our SRO’s office is located in the same part of the building as [the administrator’s],” Whitaker says. “Typically, anytime a student comes down and talks with her about anything, she processes that with myself or one of my assistant principals—just so that we know whatever was reported, we know what’s going on.”
The school also has a policy that whenever the SRO or the police department wants to meet with a student, his or her parent needs to be notified and given the right to be either on the phone during that interaction or present in the room where the meeting is being held.
“That helps a lot too, because it gives [the SRO] some boundaries and allows us to collaborate with families a little bit smoother,” Whitaker adds.
In situations where law enforcement and the school are both conducting investigations into alleged conduct, Pacelli says the two parties can coordinate so they are not tripping over each other when sequencing interviews.
“It’s totally appropriate for a school to pause its process for a week or two in order to allow the criminal investigation to get going,” she adds. “You can’t just defer entirely or just put the whole thing on ice, meaning to say the Title IX investigation is on ice until the criminal process has run its course.”
Additionally, school administrators need to respect students’ privacy rights during a law enforcement investigation. By and large, schools cannot turn over their investigative materials—such as Title IX investigation findings—to law enforcement without a subpoena. Alternatively, the student or his or her parent has the right to turn over the materials willingly to law enforcement.
“You could have a situation where a student is a participant in the Title IX process and is working with an attorney who may have a motivation to share something [with law enforcement],” Pacelli says. “They may share information into an investigation.”
Alternatives to SROs
Minnesota public schools discontinued working with SROs after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The district now uses emergency management specialists (EMS), says Mary Pat Cummings, principal at the Fine Arts Interdisciplinary Resource (FAIR) School for Arts in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals board of directors.
EMS personnel assist schools with emergency drills and provide support during a crisis. Traditionally, EMS would not be involved in a Title IX grievance process unless there was an immediate safety concern during the time of the investigation, Cummings says.
After an investigation concludes and a decision is made about responsibility, Cummings says that it’s part of the school’s responsibility to create a safety and success plans for the victim and potentially also the perpetrator.
“It’s an education and support piece—the plan works to look at what happened, to keep students emotionally and physically safe in the learning environment,” Cummings says.
An administrator, a school counselor, any teachers involved, and the EMS representative all work together to create these plans and then share them with the students involved, as well as the students’ support communities throughout the school. The plans might include information about students who should be separated in class, safeguards for students that are agreed upon during the decision-making process, and contact information for the students’ parents.
Taking this approach helps ensure that students feel they have a trusted adult at school that they can interact with, Cummings says.
That connection is critical, she concludes. “School connectedness is directly tied to success at school, whether that’s academic or artistic success. We know that creating a safe and welcoming environment where [students] are known by an adult and seen by an adult will feel comfortable and confident.”
Megan Gates is senior editor at Security Management. Connect with her at [email protected] or on LinkedIn.
