The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Responding To Sexual Assault on Campus: 

A National Assessment and Systematic 

Classification of the Scope and Challenges 

for Investigation and Adjudication 

Author(s): Linda M. Williams, Ph.D., April Pattavina, 

Ph.D., Alison C. Cares, Ph.D., Nan D. Stein, 

Ed.D. 

Document Number: 254671 

Date Received: April 2020 

Award Number: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

Responding to sexual assault on campus: A national assessment and systematic 

classification of the scope and challenges for investigation and adjudication 

Final Summary Overview 

Linda M. Williams, Ph.D., 

Wellesley Centers for Women 

Wellesley College 

106 Central Street 

Wellesley, MA 02481 

linda.williams@wellesley.edu 

April Pattavina, Ph.D., 

University of Massachusetts Lowell 

Alison C. Cares, Ph.D., 

University of Central Florida 

Nan D. Stein, Ed.D., 

Wellesley Centers for Women 

Wellesley College 

March 23 , 2020 

This project was supported by Award No. # 2015-IJ-CX-0009: Responding to sexual 

assault on campus: A national assessment and systematic classification of the scope and 

challenges for investigation and adjudication awarded by the National Institute of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice to the Wellesley Centers for 

Women, Wellesley College. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 

expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of 

the Department of Justice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Executive Summary 

Given the considerable changes in federal legislation and the pressing requirements that 

colleges and universities develop policies and practices that meet the needs of victims and of 

those accused of sexual assault, there is a critical need to document and understand how colleges 

are handling these demands and coordinating campus approaches to investigation and 

adjudication of sexual assaults. In 2015, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded a project to 

commence January 2016, designed to examine the variations in policies and practices and 

understand more about challenges and emerging best practices. The research reported here was 

designed to identify the range and scope of policies and practices related to the investigation and 

adjudication of sexual assault on college campuses in the U.S. The Wellesley Centers for 

Women (WCW) with the assistance of an expert panel of advisory board members has 

documented and classified the current landscape (the breadth and differences) of campus 

approaches to investigations and adjudication of sexual assault. Our first step, informed by a 

victim-centered focus, was a web-based search of a randomly selected sample of four year 

colleges and universities (Institutions of Higher Education, IHEs) on policies and practices for 

investigation and adjudication of sexual assault reports. This web search was a systematic broadbased environmental scan designed to examine the policies and practices promulgated to the 

public and, most importantly, made available to students by IHEs. This environmental scan was 

followed by interviews with Title IX coordinators to develop a clearer understanding of the 

challenges and successes of these policies. 

Environmental Web-scan: 

Institutions of higher education are required to make detailed information regarding sexual 

assault and the related institutional policy public, particularly via an institution’s website 

(Campus SaVE Act, 2013). We conducted an environmental scan to provide a panoramic 

snapshot of how colleges publicly present their investigation and adjudication approaches to 

reports of sexual assault. The scan was a content analysis conducted in 2016 of each IHE’s 

website information related to reporting, investigation, and adjudication of sexual assault and 

was informed by a victim-centered focus. Trained undergraduate student researchers conducted a 

web-based search of a randomly selected representative sample of 969 four year colleges and 

universities. Data on 151 items related to response to sexual assault were collected. Of the 969 

IHE websites scanned, 33 (3% of the websites) were excluded from analyses because the website 

had no information about sexual assault and lacked details on the definition of sexual assault, the 

reporting of a sexual assault, a Title IX office, or investigation or adjudication policies. Beyond 

the 33 IHEs with no discernable information on Title IX and sexual assault, the lack of 

information on many sites and the missing information on investigation and adjudication 

generally raises concerns about the extent to which IHEs are effectively serving as a resource for 

students concerned about sexual assault. In general, the further along in the process in response 

to a complaint of sexual assault (reporting → investigation → adjudication → sanctioning), the 

less likely our student researchers were able to find information on the IHE websites. 

Where information on reporting, investigation and adjudication was available, our web-scan 

did not find a dominant model for who investigates complaints, determines responsibility or 

imposes sanctions. Investigators included sole investigators, teams or panels. Adjudicatory and 

sanctioning responsibilities were spread across general panels, sexual misconduct specific 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

panels, administrative panels, and sole campus administrators, with some determinations of 

responsibility made by a sole investigator. Following a finding of responsibility, possible 

sanctions described on the websites ranged from low level and infrequently mentioned sanctions, 

such as community service or a no contact order, to serious sanctions more typically described 

on the websites, such as expulsion and suspension. 

An important caveat is that these data represent what an IHE promulgated in writing on their 

publicly accessible website, but may (or may not) differ from what they do in actual practice. 

Also, just because information could not be located on a website does not mean that information, 

service, or policy does not exist. Finally, the data were collected in 2016 and, therefore do not 

reflect any more recent changes in the website content. 

While there were no readily discernable models for investigation or adjudication found in the 

review of the IHE public websites, we explored the extent to which more sophisticated statistical 

methodologies could be useful in identifying models of approaches to investigation and 

adjudication from the data collected. While recognizing that these data are based only on what 

was gleaned from the websites and that much information was missing, we conducted an 

exploratory cluster analysis to determine if any, clear investigation and adjudication policy 

models emerged from the web-scan data. These analyses identified some themes and preliminary 

typologies of investigatory and adjudicatory responses to sexual assault on college campuses 

including: A Single Investigator Model (42% of IHEs), a Quasi-Criminal Justice Investigative 

Model (40% of IHEs) and a Collaborative Investigative Model (18% of IHEs) and, for 

adjudication, a Basic Due Process Model (57% of IHEs) and a Criminal Justice Based Due 

Process Model (24 % of schools). In the analyses conducted, we did not identify distinct or 

mutually exclusive models nor did we find models that were specifically associated with IHE 

characteristics. Further analyses we conduct will be reported in scholarly papers and reports. 

Interviews of Title IX Coordinators 

Our interviews with 47 Title IX coordinators focused on the approaches used in investigation 

and adjudication of sexual assault and the challenges and benefits of the approaches they took. In 

regard to models for investigation and adjudication, our initial meetings with the advisory board 

and some preliminary interviews led us to the plan to collect specific answers to mutually 

exclusive categories such as: the approach to investigation that involves a solo investigator OR a 

team of investigators (either comprised on internal or external staff or contractors), OR the 

investigation includes fact finding hearings, etc. Interestingly, and paralleling our web-scan 

findings, we found that the protocols within many IHEs involved more of a “smorgasbord” 

approach and included “all of the above” as possibilities. Interviews also uncovered new changes 

in protocols in response to new guidance, laws or regulations. The pathways to different 

approaches in some cases depended on characteristics of the complaint and the wishes of the 

parties involved. We found that some IHEs included administrative review panels not only for 

adjudication, but also for investigations. In addition, we found that sanctioning protocol varied 

and was administered by individuals (including the Title IX coordinator) or by boards of various 

compositions, and often (especially in cases which resulted in suspension or expulsion) with final 

affirmation by the president of the institution. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Regardless of the format of the investigation and adjudication, which we found varied 

considerably across institutions, Title IX coordinators described efforts to assure the protection 

of the victims along with a focus on assuring fairness in response to both the complainants and 

the respondents (alleged perpetrators). Efforts were also made to handle sexual assault cases, 

particularly sanctioning, as partly an educational process, in keeping with the main mission of 

IHEs to educate. 

Many challenges were mentioned by the Title IX coordinators including: 

1.) Lacking capacity to respond to what have been increased numbers of complaints and 

reports of sexual assault. Especially acute is a need for more well-trained investigators, whether 

these are from within the IHE community, public safety, or external sources. 

2.) Garnering support from institutional leadership (the chief officers, including the President) 

is critical to the success of the office of the Title IX coordinator. Such support includes 

resources; visibility of the office, and an approach that supports and legitimates the importance 

of the Title IX activities (reporting, investigation, and adjudication, as well as, prevention) as a 

part of an institutional commitment to prevent and respond to campus sexual assault. 

3.) Improving the Title IX office network of connections on campus and cultivating trust of 

the Title IX officer in the community among students, faculty, and staff. 

4.) Achieving a high level of institutional support, not only in terms of funding but also in 

supporting an administrative structure that does not “silo” the Title IX office in such a way that it 

diminishes the Title IX coordinator’s authority or isolates them from the larger campus 

community. 

5.) Achieving institutional support designed to lower barriers to reporting by students, faculty 

and staff and thereby providing a culture in which sexual harassment and assault are understood 

and not tolerated. 

Based on data gathered from a national sample of 969 four-year IHEs, in conjunction with 

interviews with key informants from 47 institutions, this project provides a context for 

understanding and elaborating the wide variety of individual IHE approaches and programs and 

thus provided an opportunity to examine how a variety of approaches address the challenges of 

responding to college sexual assault. In part, the diversity of responses may be a reflection of the 

ever-changing landscape of Title IX, driven by changes in federal guidance and policies, state 

laws and policies, and the impact of civil suits and judicial guidance emerging from these cases. 

These responses point to a need for follow-up research designed to examine the impact of 

different approaches so recommendations can be made for best practices. 

The work of this project will be disseminated on our website 

(http://www.wcwonline.org/jgbvr) and through guidelines such as the guidance prepared for 

institutions to conduct a website self-evaluation (see appendix D). In addition, we are developing 

a digest of investigative and adjudicative approaches based on our cluster analysis and the 

interview findings. Scholarly presentations, articles, and white papers are planned for future 

dissemination. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3 
 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Acknowledgements 

This project required the assistance of many individuals without whom this work would not have 

been possible. We appreciate the funding from the National Institute of Justice and in particular 

thank Dr. Linda Truitt, Dr. Bethany Backes, and Mr. Alan C. Spanbauer for their support and 

guidance. We would also like to thank our Advisory Board members, Meg Bossong, Robert C. 

Haas, Howard Kallem, Elizabeth Miller, Sarah Rankin, Holly M. Rider-Milkovich, and Debra 

Robbin for their assistance. In addition, we are grateful to the Wellesley Centers for Women 

(WCW) for supporting this scholarship on many levels. We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to 

the Title IX Coordinators and other administrators who provided their insight and 

recommendations during their interviews for this research. 

A study of this scope required the assistance of many not only in conceptualizing the project but 

also in guiding its many pieces to completion. This research would not have been possible 

without the work of Mary Frederick, Project Manager and Research Administrator, and Research 

Associates, Ineke Cedar and Amanda Richer. In addition, the invaluable support provided by the 

Wellesley Centers for Women and Wellesley College supported student interns, Meredith Clark, 

Alex Shook, and Dhanya Nageswaran who provided critical research and policy assistance. Data 

collection and web-scan work was completed by a team of hard-working Student Research 

Assistants including Sabine Admanson, Abby Animashaun, Denisse Becerra, Val Gardner, Sam 

Goldstein, Ayeona Hopkins, Vipasana Karkee, Callie Kim, Lumi Kinjo, Diana Lobontiu, Katie 

Madsen, Melissa Marcial, Monica Naranjo, Trang Nguyen, Jennifer Nwako, Bridget Peak, Neha 

Rajbhandary, Iris Remillard, Juliette Sander, Soo Jin So, Rhoda Tano-Menka, Kavindya 

Thennkoon, Esa Tilija, Yuhan Wu, Danielle Zarbin, Sitara Zoberi, and Sophia Zupanc. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Responding to sexual assault on campus: A national assessment and systematic 

classification of the scope and challenges for investigation and adjudication 

Introduction 

Sexual assault on college campuses is a critical concern for students, policy makers, college 

administrators, and parents of current and prospective students. The best estimates from national 

studies reveal that between one in four to one in five women will experience an attempted or 

completed sexual assault during their college careers (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Krebs, 

Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007; Edwards, Sylaska, Barry, Moynihan, Banyard, Cohn, 

Walsh, & Ward, 2015; Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007) and the 

vast majority of these incidents go unreported (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Sinozich & 

Langton, 2014). A recent meta-analysis found that completed rapes (i.e., forcible vaginal, anal, 

or oral intercourse using physical force or threat of force) ranged from 0.5% to 8.4% of college 

women. The rate of unwanted sexual contact (i.e., attempted or completed unwanted kissing, 

sexual touching using physical force, threat of physical force, and/or verbal coercion) ranged 

from 1.8% to 34% (Fedina, Holmes, & Backes, 2018). 

Since the year when we proposed this research (2015), hundreds of IHEs (Institutes of Higher 

Education) were investigated by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) for possible violations of federal law under Title IX in their handling of sexual violence 

and harassment complaints. At the state level, multiple legislatures passed and adopted new laws 

to address issues of sexual assault on college campuses including: mandated campus climate 

surveys: requirements regarding hearings and rights to appeal; requirements to implement sexual 

assault prevention programming; and specified definitions of sexual assault and consent. The 

Obama Administration initiated the Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, and the 

resulting “Not Alone” and “It’s On Us” campaigns (https://www.notalone.gov/ and 

www.itsonus.org). At the time this study was funded, IHEs had come under fire for taking 

inadequate steps to address the problem of sexual assault on campus (i.e., seen as providing 

inadequate support for survivors and failure to hold offenders accountable and to impose 

appropriate sanctions), which led to rapid policy change. 

In the years after these policy changes, in addition to continued criticism on behalf of victims, 

IHEs came under fire for their handling of sexual assault investigations and adjudications, this 

time on behalf of the accused. Central to these critiques were that these processes “lack the most 

basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and 

are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.” (See the September 2017, OCR issued 

Dear Colleague letter rescinding many of the provisions of current guidelines and introduced a 

rules making process. 1 

1 In a September 22, 2017, “Dear Colleague” letter from the Department of Education under Secretary DeVos, prior 

policy documents issued under the President Barack Obama administration were withdrawn. These included 

statements of policy and guidance as were reflected in the “Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence” issued by the 

Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, dated April 4, 2011 and the “Questions and Answers on 

Title IX and Sexual Violence”, issued by the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, dated 

April 29, 2014. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

At the time of this report, IHEs are awaiting the final rules to emerge from that process, as 

well as adjusting to a number of new state laws and federal appeals court decisions. It is not 

surprising that this has been a time of great change for IHEs, that there is high turnover in Title 

IX coordinators (Brown, 2019); and, where resources permit, IHEs are hiring additional staff and 

advocates, sending staff to conferences and trainings focused on the issue, and implementing 

campus climate surveys to assess and address the issue. Finally, a number of consultants, not-forprofit and for-profit companies and professional associations have positioned themselves to 

assist. 

There is a lack of high quality information on exactly what IHEs are doing in an atmosphere 

in which there is formidable advocacy for victims and considerable push-back from individuals, 

institutions and the media with the contention that the problem of sexual assault on college 

campuses is overblown (Schmidt, 2015; Will, 2014). While conversations about Title IX and 

sexual assault on college campuses have become more frequent and organizations and 

collaborators both locally and nationwide have burgeoned, the system is currently at a crossroads 

and seeks information on how peer institutions are handling these issues and if there are different 

approaches and solutions in place in different institutional settings (e.g., specifically to address 

campus sexual assault in either private or public, small or large, rural or urban, commuter or 

residential institutions). 

Colleges and universities continue to seek guidance on how to develop and implement 

investigative and adjudicative policies and practices. It is a crucial time when the stakes are high 

for the victims, the accused, and the institutions. Although Richards (2016) found that over the 

past decade the IHE response to sexual assault demonstrates increased compliance with more 

recent OCR guidance on Title IX and new directives from the Campus SaVE Act, there is a need 

to develop a better understanding of models that are employed by IHEs and the benefits and 

challenges of these models so that, even in the face of likely changes in federal guidelines, there 

is a better understanding of what is promising practice to reduce rates of victimization and 

improve investigation and adjudication of sexual assault. 

This project was designed to identify the range and scope of policies and practices related to 

the investigation and adjudication of sexual assaults on college campuses in the U.S. The 

Wellesley Centers for Women with the assistance of an expert panel of advisory board members 

has documented and classified the current landscape (the breadth and differences) of campus 

approaches to investigations and adjudication of sexual assault complaints. Advisors included 

The 2017 letter from the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Office for Civil Rights Acting Assistant Secretary 

Candice Jackson not only announced the withdrawal of the guidance established by the prior administration, but also 

published a document, Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct to be in effect until new policy is developed through a 

"rulemaking process that responds to public comment." The Department of Education noted that they would 

continue to rely on the 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance and the reaffirmation of that guidance in the 

2006 Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Harassment. In addition, the Q&A references the Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act and Amendments to the Clery Act and requirements of the Clery Act, which can be found in 

The Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting 2016 Edition. 

The issues raised by the Department of Education under Ms. DeVos related to standards of proof, the appeals 

process, use of cross- examination, collaborations with law-enforcement authorities, and raised concerns that “lack 

the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no 

way required by Title IX law or regulation.” 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6 
 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

student advocates and survivors of sexual assault, university leaders in student life, and those 

responsible for investigations and counseling. These advisors helped to guide our data collection 

protocols and assisted in developing frameworks for the typologies of responses guiding schools 

and gathering their feedback on the challenges and successes of their practices. 

Principal Aims of the Project 

1. Identify the range and scope of policies and practices related to the investigation and 

adjudication of sexual assaults on college campuses in the U.S. by documenting and 

classifying the current landscape (the breadth and differences) of campus approaches. 

2. Develop a clear understanding of the challenges and successes of the current policies. 

3. Create accessible resources for those on IHE campuses regarding current and promising 

practices to respond to sexual assault reports in a fair and equitable manner and thus 

inform their ongoing work. 

Thus, the project was conducted in three phases. Phase One: Environmental Web- scan; Phase 

Two: Title IX coordinator interviews and; Phase Three: Development and dissemination of 

reports and web resources describing models in use in responding to sexual assault at IHEs and 

the challenges and benefits of current approaches. 

Environmental Web-scan 

Background 

Campus sexual assault and the responses of institutions of higher education (IHEs) have 

received much attention in the last 10 years. Institutions of higher education are required to make 

public detailed information regarding sexual assault and the related institutional policy, 

particularly via an institution’s website (Campus SaVE Act, 2013). This is based on an 

assumption that IHE websites are a primary source students use to gather information. Other 

researchers have taken advantage of the availability of this information to conduct systematic 

studies of IHE policies. For example, Richards (2016) updated research conducted by Karjane, 

Fisher, and Cullen (2002) and found supply of information has improved over time. IHE 

websites were likely to include their Title IX and Sexual Misconduct policies on their website. 

Methods- Environmental web-scan 

Our web-scan was informed by a victim-centered focus and involved a web-based search of a 

randomly selected sample of four-year colleges and universities to document the policies and 

practices for investigation and adjudication of sexual assault reports. We conducted a systematic 

broad-based environmental scan to examine the policies and practices promulgated to the public 

and, most importantly, made available to students by IHEs. The web-scan provided a panoramic 

snapshot of how colleges publicly presented their investigation and adjudication approaches to 

reports of sexual assault. An environmental scan was undertaken because college and university 

websites are a key resource that many students use to seek information or guidance. Issues and 

concerns with investigation and adjudication of sexual assault on campus begin at the reporting 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

stage. The information to which a victim2 has access when considering if, how, or when to report 

a sexual assault may influence the decision whether to report to campus authorities at all, and 

how to connect with other resources or services. Thus, this review of information provided on 

IHE websites took the perspective of a reporting student to evaluate if what they may want to 

know is commonly available on IHE websites: “Can I get help without reporting? How do I 

report? What happens after a report? Who investigates? Who decides? What is my role?” 

Sample selection: Environmental Web-scan. Institutions of Higher Education with at least a 

baccalaureate (4 year) degree program were selected (N=1982) from the data maintained by the 

Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data Center (IPEDS) housed at the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). That data includes information on every college, university, and 

technical and vocational school that participates in federal student financial aid programs. IPEDS 

data include institutional characteristics, admissions, enrollment, and degrees conferred. We 

removed from the sample any schools with more than 90% of students enrolled only in online 

classes, schools located outside of the 50 states, and all-male theological schools or seminaries. 

This resulted in a population of 1822 schools. From these a stratified random sample of 1019 

schools was selected to assure a large enough sample representative of geographic area and 

school size in the overall population. Of the 1019 schools selected an additional 50 schools were 

eliminated from analysis for the following reasons: 25 of the school websites were found to have 

no internal search mechanism; seven schools had merged with another school or closed; nine 

schools were found to have no undergraduate students enrolled or had no 4-year program; and 

nine were found to be largely offering course-work on line. This resulted in a final sample of 969 

schools for which we collected data from the websites. Tables 1–3 provide the details of the 

sample of 969 schools surveyed. 

Data collection: Environmental Web-scan. The scan was a content analysis of each IHE’s 

website information related to reporting, investigation, and adjudication of sexual assault. The 

scan and its results were informed by the knowledge of what was required to be made public 

about campus sexual assault from key legislation and documents (e.g., Clery Act, Campus SaVE 

Act, OCR 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, OCR 2014, Title IX Q & A, DOJ Findings Letters). Data 

were collected from the IHE’s websites by trained undergraduate students, which was fitting 

since undergraduates are the target audience. Data were entered directly into a secure online 

survey platform. The 25 student researchers received human subjects training and signed a 

confidentiality pledge. In addition, they also received a mandatory training that included 

information on self-care and use of the team discussion boards; guidelines for collecting data 

from the websites, including the meaning of the questions and definitions of terms; technology 

instruction; and access to a secure server. These students collected data on 151 questions (see 

appendix A - Web-scan Data Collection Form) and reliability checks were conducted to assure 

that there was at least an 80% reliability coefficient. 

2 We use the terms victim, (alleged) perpetrator, accused, complainant, and respondent somewhat interchangeably 

depending on the individual’s status being discussed. In criminal justice system writings, one might also use alleged 

victim and alleged perpetrator and in some materials survivor may be a better substitution for the term “victim.” 

Here we use terms “complainant” and “respondent” when the official status of the individual relating to a Title IX 

complaint is discussed – the victim becomes a complainant and the (alleged) perpetrator becomes the respondent. In 

some of the quotes from Title IX coordinators, they use different terminology and the quotes reflect their words. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Findings – Environmental Web-scan3 

The final sample of 969 institutions was representative of four-year colleges and universities 

on characteristics including geographic location (region of the U.S.) (Table 1); locale 

classification (urban/suburban/rural) (Table 2); size of student body (under 1,000/1,000-

4,999/5,000-9,999/10,000-19,999/20,000 and above) and “sector” of the institution (36% were 

public institutions, 59% were private non-for-profit, 5% were private for profit institutions) 

(Table 3); religious affiliation (35% religiously affiliated), college sports division, and percent of 

students living on campus (Table 4). 

Thirty-three IHEs (3% of the websites scanned) were excluded from further analyses because 

the website had no information about sexual assault and lacked details on the definition of sexual 

assault, the reporting of a sexual assault, a Title IX office, or investigation or adjudication 

policies. As a result, data presented on the investigation and adjudication characteristics of the 

sample are based on the sample 936 IHEs with at least some information on responding to 

college sexual assault (See Table 5). 

Beyond these 33 IHEs with no discernable information on Title IX (recall that the websites of 

an additional 50 IHEs of the initial 1019 selected had no search engine), the lack of detailed 

information on many sites and the missing information as described below (Tables 5-11) 

generally raises serious concerns about the extent to which IHEs are effectively serving as a 

resource for students concerned about sexual assault. In general, the further along in the process 

(reporting → investigation → adjudication → sanctioning), the less likely student researchers 

were able to find information on the websites. Please also note that when tables do not total 100, 

that is because there could be multiple options selected. 

Tables 5 - 11 present report findings on some key questions that were a part of the 

environmental scan of the 969 websites (936 with basic information on sexual assault and Title 

IX office) and provide an overview of the information that was available on the websites. On the 

IHEs websites 75 – 94% had basic information about definitions of sexual assault, guidance in 

reporting sexual assault, or contact information for making a report of sexual assault. An 

important caveat is that these data represent what an IHE promulgated in writing on their 

website, but may (or may not) differ from what they do in actual practice. In addition, just 

because information could not be located on a website does not mean that information, service, 

or policy does not exist. For example, a victim may be required to participate in an investigation 

after reporting, even if information about that could not be located on the website (e.g., see Table 

11). 

In terms of information about adjudication and sanctioning, a substantial minority of college 

websites (17% to 23%) were missing this information entirely. The exceptions were that 

websites typically did include who was involved in determining responsibility (4% no 

information, Table 15) but usually did not provide information on whether the victim or alleged 

perpetrator were permitted to question each other at hearings (Table 16). The available 

information on the college websites reflected an equal balance of rights afforded to victims and 

alleged perpetrators in terms of being allowed to have advisors (Table 13), to question the other 

3 For additional detail on variables, analysis, and results, please contact that research team and refer to future 

published materials. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

party during hearings (Table 16), and to file an appeal (Table 19). An exception our finding on 

an equal balance of information on the victim’s and accused’s rights was in the detail provided 

on provision of interim measures. The possible changes to academic, housing, dining and work 

arrangements were mentioned as available options more often for victims than for alleged 

perpetrators (Table 12). The information available on websites was largely consistent with what 

was recommended or required under Title IX for handling of sexual assault cases at the time of 

data collection: interim measures were available to students (information found on 77% of 

websites, Table 12), students were allowed advisors (74% of websites, Table 13), and the 

standard of proof for a finding of responsibility was preponderance of the evidence (72% of 

websites, Table 14). 

There was no evidence of a dominant model for what type of board adjudicated or who the 

members were who determined the responsibility or sanctions. Adjudicatory and sanctioning 

responsibilities were spread across general panels, sexual misconduct specific panels, 

administrative panels, and sole campus administrators, with some determinations of 

responsibility made by an investigator (Tables 15 & 17). Once there was a finding of 

responsibility, possible sanctions ranged from low level and infrequently mentioned sanctions, 

such as community service or issuance of a no contact order, to serious sanctions frequently 

mentioned on the websites, such as expulsion and suspension (Table 18). 

In terms of prevention and education (Tables 20-22), most IHE websites provided sexual 

assault statistics on their websites (86%, Table 20), with the majority being part of the annual 

security report required by the Clery Act (78%, Table 20). Information on mandatory student 

education (Table 21) and bystander programs was found less often, but a substantial number of 

websites reflected that schools had these two things (61% required education on sexual assault, 

Table 21; 46% of campuses had a bystander program, Table 22). 

Overall, we found that most IHE websites provided answers to basic questions students with a 

complaint about a sexual assault may ask. Different approaches to investigation, adjudication, 

and sanctioning were evidenced. Information varied considerably on who is involved in these 

aspects of the IHE response. We found that, generally, the websites of public IHEs provided 

information that is more detailed and websites of very small IHEs (less than 1,000 students) were 

less likely to do so. Additional research is needed, however, to explore how different approaches 

are actually implemented, including fidelity to the written policies 

Models of Investigation and Adjudication. While there were no easily discernable models 

for investigation or adjudication found in the review of the IHE public websites, we explored the 

extent to which we could utilize some statistical methodologies to identify models of approaches 

to investigation and adjudication. While recognizing that these data are based only on what was 

gleaned from the websites and that much information was missing, we conducted an exploratory 

cluster analysis4

 to determine what, if any, clear investigation policy and adjudication policy 

models emerged in the information available to inform students about these processes from the 

web-scan data. 

4 We used a latent cluster analysis methodology and Latent Gold software to estimate the cluster models. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Investigation model variables included: 

1. Is there information on who is involved in the investigation of sexual assault complaints? 

2. Who is involved in the investigation of sexual assault complaints? (We included five 

variables as multiple choices could be indicated): Title IX coordinator; Campus law 

enforcement; Local law enforcement; Other administrator; and Independent investigator 

3. Is there training for the investigative unit or office? 

4. How are concurrent investigations with law enforcement handled? 

5. Is there a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with local law enforcement? 

6. Are there time frames associated with making a report and when an accused student is 

notified? 

7. Are student victim reporters, third party reporters, and witnesses protected from 

retaliation for participating in proceedings? (3 variables) 

8. Are victims and accused students entitled to lawyers/advisors in proceedings? (4 

variables) 

9. Are there interim measures available to victims during the investigation? 

10. Is the victim required to participate in the investigation after a report? 

11. Is there information on a time frame for completing the investigation after a report? 

12. Does the website offer guidance on how to obtain interim measures? 

13. Are there interim measures available for victims not wishing to participate in 

investigation? 

Adjudication model variables included: 

1. Who is involved in the responsible decision and sanctioning decisions? (2 variables) 

2. Does the policy mention that prior sexual behavior of victim and alleged perpetrator will 

not be considered in the adjudication proceedings? (2 variables) 

3. Does the policy mention if victims and alleged perpetrators are allowed to question each 

other? (2 variables) 

4. Does the policy mention if victims and alleged perpetrators are allowed to present 

witnesses at hearings, meetings, or conferences? (2 variables) 

5. Is there an appeals process? 

6. Is there a restorative justice/reintegration option for alleged perpetrators who accept 

responsibility for a violation before adjudication? 

7. Does the alleged perpetrator have an adjudication format choice? 

8. Do victims have an option not to participate in proceedings? 

9. What are the sanctioning options? 

10. What is the standard of proof in determining responsibility for a violation? 

Several parallel web-scan review questions related to complainants or respondents had very 

similar distributions. For example, the questions on advisors/lawyers for each indicated that 

policies included that complainants (28%) and respondents (28%) could have lawyers as advisors 

and 50% of policies provided that both could have advisors that could not be lawyers. Including 

both options in the cluster model estimation increased the number of parameters, but did not 

necessarily further distinguish the clusters. Therefore, we included the complainant version of 

the question in the investigation model analyses and the respondent version of the response in the 

adjudication model analyses, but they could have been interchanged. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Given the multitude of interim measures and post-adjudication sanctions reported, entering 

them individually into the cluster routine would significantly increase the number of parameters 

to be estimated without necessarily contributing context. Therefore, for each, the options were 

categorized into a single multi-category variable. For interim measures, a value of zero was 

information not located, one indicated minor level measures (e.g., mental health or medical 

services; class, work or housing changes), two indicated moderate level measures (e.g. leave of 

absence, no contact order, escort, geographic restrictions), and three indicated major level 

measures (e.g. suspension, removal from sports program, police notification or transcript 

notation). For sanctions, a value of zero was information not located, one was moderate level 

(such as warning, probation, change of residence, awareness training, class changes, no contact 

order, monetary damages, limits on program participation, apology, geographic restrictions, and 

suspension), and two was major level (including expulsion, law enforcement notice, and 

transcript notation). Schools were coded according to the highest level of sanction identified. 

Investigation Cluster Analysis Results. After preliminary analysis for model fit, eight 

nominal level variables were entered into the cluster analysis.5

 The solution with the best fit was 

the three cluster model (L^2 square, p = .23). To determine the global fit for the model, a 

measure of misclassification was obtained by cross classifying the modal classes by the actual 

probabilistic latent classes, resulting in eighty-six percent of the cases as correctly classified (or a 

misclassification of 14%). Table 23 reports the marginal conditional probabilities of how clusters 

are related to each policy variable. The columns for each policy item sum to 1 within each 

cluster. Table 24 reports covariate relationships between selected variables in each cluster. Taken 

together, these results are used to describe the three clusters. 

Investigation Cluster 1 - Single Investigator Model (42% of IHEs). While all clusters were 

likely to involve a Title IX staff in investigations, Cluster 1 was much less likely to report the 

involvement of other administrators. They were not likely to involve law enforcement (campus 

or local) or have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local law enforcement. While 

all clusters were likely to report some training for investigators, this cluster of IHEs was much 

less likely to have training. Students could have advisors, but they were not likely to be lawyers. 

The IHEs in this cluster had a varied level of interim measures, but there were also many that did 

not include information on interim measures on their websites. This cluster had higher 

probabilities for the “not located” categories of policy variables including who investigates 

reports of sexual assault, time limit for an investigation report, if the victim was required to 

participate after initial report, a time frame for an alleged perpetrator receiving notice of a 

complaint, how a concurrent investigation with law enforcement is handled, interim measures, 

5 The latent cluster analysis results reports L^2 statistics for the fit of each cluster estimation routine increasing from 

1 cluster solution to a 4 cluster solution. The desired solution is the one with the fewest number of clusters and an 

adequate fit indicated by a non-significant L^ statistic which follows a chi-square distribution. All variables were 

initially considered in the estimation but some were removed when the routine did not produce a solution with an 

adequate fit according to the L^2 statistic. This may be due to lack of sufficient variation in some of the variables. 

For example, less than 10% indicated there was a time limit for when a report has to be made, 11% for a time frame 

when accused get notified, and 13% with no policy on prohibiting retaliatory behavior against victim reporters. 

These variables were, however reintroduced as independent, inactive covariates to the final clusters to help further 

define the clusters. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

and policies on interim measures for victims. In short, the websites for the IHEs in this cluster 

were more likely to be missing important policy information. 

Investigation Cluster 2 - Quasi-Criminal Justice Investigative Model (40% of IHEs). In 

cluster 2, Title IX investigators and campus law enforcement were likely to be involved in 

investigations. Students may have lawyers as advisors. IHEs in this model were much less likely 

to involve local (off campus) law enforcement than Investigation Cluster 3. Interestingly, while 

the websites for these IHEs were not likely to reflect involvement of local law enforcement, they 

were more likely than other IHEs to indicate that they let local law enforcement take priority in 

an investigation. They have a .52 probability of having an MOU in place with local law 

enforcement. The websites of the IHEs in this cluster were likely to provide information that they 

offer protection against retaliation against those who participate in procedures. This is the most 

likely of the clusters to have detailed information on their websites on severe interim measures. 

Interim measures can be severe but are likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis. 

Investigative Cluster 3 - Collaborative Investigative Model (18% of IHEs). In this cluster, 

the IHE websites are more likely to reflect the potential to include all actors in investigations, 

including local law enforcement. This feature distinguishes this cluster from the other two 

investigative models. The websites of the IHEs in this cluster are more likely to indicate that 

investigations are handled collaboratively. IHEs in this model are most likely to report that they 

have in place an MOU with local law enforcement (.83) and to reflect that students can have 

advisors but not lawyers. The websites of these IHEs have information on varied interim 

sanctions but lean toward reporting information on severe sanctions. These websites are also 

more likely to reflect that they offer interim measures at a victim’s request. 

Adjudication Cluster Analysis Results. As with the investigations cluster analysis and after 

preliminary analysis for model fit, eight variables were included in the final analyses for the 

adjudication models reflected in the IHE websites. We generated model estimates for 1 to 4 

cluster solutions. The routine converged on an adequate fit for a three cluster solution based on 

the L square statistic (p = .87). The global model indicates that 95% of schools are correctly 

classified (or a 5% error rate). (See Tables 25 & 26) 

Adjudication Cluster 1 - Basic Due Process (57% of schools). This cluster of IHEs did not 

present with a dominant type of responsible/not-responsible decision-making body. The websites 

of these IHEs reflected a strong presence of utilizing a general conduct board or sole 

administrator in adjudication, but other forms of decision-making bodies were also reflected on 

the websites of these IHEs. This cluster was likely to include IHEs that present information on 

their websites on appeal protocols for the victim and the alleged perpetrator, on allowing alleged 

perpetrators (and victims) to have witnesses at proceedings, and to report major sanction options. 

These IHEs were much less likely than Adjudication Cluster 2 to report including information 

from confidential sources as part of the process, use victim impact statements, or employment of 

restorative justice options. Adjudication Cluster 1 IHEs were more likely to report that it is not 

necessary for victims to participate in adjudicatory proceedings. The websites for the IHEs in 

this cluster tended to reflect that investigators present evidence to administrators in determining 

responsibility. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Adjudication Cluster 2 - Criminal Justice Based Due Process (24 % of schools). This cluster 

reflects websites that have the most comprehensive policy coverage that aligns closely with a 

criminal justice-based due process model, as well as having the highest uniformity across IHEs 

of policy attributes of the adjudication clusters. This cluster represents IHEs that were most 

likely to utilize a board or panel decision format when making a “responsible” decision. They 

were most likely to use a conduct board specific to handling sexual assault cases, followed by an 

administrative panel and a general conduct board. Adjudication Cluster 2 was most likely to use 

a conduct board specific to sexual assault in determining sanctions. Most offered appeals for 

victims and accused. The websites indicated that alleged perpetrators (and victims) could provide 

witnesses at proceedings. These schools also noted in their policies the potential use of 

confidential sources in proceedings, prohibited a victim’s (and a perpetrator’s) prior sexual 

history from being considered in proceedings, and indicated major sanction options. They were 

also much more likely to provide opportunities for victim impact statements and restorative 

justice options. While preponderance of evidence was the typical standard for all clusters, this 

group includes the few IHEs that used a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. This cluster also 

includes IHEs that were more likely than other IHEs to expect the victim to participate in 

adjudicatory proceedings and allow alleged perpetrators (and victims) to question each other. 

Investigators in this cluster were more likely than others to participate directly with 

administration in determining responsible/not responsible. In this cluster, alleged perpetrators 

were also more likely than in other clusters to have an adjudication format choice. 

Adjudication Cluster 3 - Limited Information (18%). IHEs in this cluster tend to use a 

general conduct board, a board specific to handling sexual assault, or a sole administrator in 

determining responsibility. However, there was a significant group for which this information 

was not located when compared to other clusters. These schools also provided few additional 

defining details. Specifics on appeals, type of sanctions, and victim impact statements were not 

provided in the web-based policies for schools in this cluster. They were also more likely than 

other clusters to lack information related to the use of prior sexual history in adjudication or 

details on the use of witnesses or questioning of victims and perpetrators. 

We identified some themes and preliminary typologies of investigatory and adjudicative 

responses to sexual assault on college campuses. We identified preliminarily a Single 

Investigator Model (42% of IHEs), a Quasi-Criminal Justice Investigative Model (40% of IHEs) 

and a Collaborative Investigative Model (18% of IHEs) and for adjudication a Basic Due 

Process Model and a Criminal Justice Based Due Process (24 % of schools).While in the 

analyses we conducted, we did not identify distinct or mutually exclusive models nor did we find 

models that were specifically associated with IHE characteristics, further analyses are possible 

and in progress. These will be reported in scholarly papers and reports. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

14 
 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Title IX Coordinator Interviews 

Background 

We conducted interviews with Title IX coordinators to develop a clearer understanding of the 

challenges and successes of the policies in effect at their institutions. The project start date was 

in January 2016 and, as described in the introduction, as the environmental scan of the IHE 

websites was completed, there were major changes in some state laws relating to responding to 

sexual assault on college campuses. There was also the beginning of discussion of anticipated 

major changes in the federal guidelines for implementation of Title IX as it related to sexual 

assault on college campuses. Directives about responding to sexual assault were promulgated by 

the new administration following the election of a new president in November of 2016. This led 

to a dramatic change in federal policies related to college sexual assault. 

As of September 2017, the policy guidance issued in 2011 and 2014 under the President 

Barack Obama administration were withdrawn. Not only was this guidance withdrawn but also a 

newly published document, Q&A on Campus Sexual Misconduct (U.S. Dept. of Education, 

2017) went into effect and remains in effect as of the writing of this report. A new policy was 

promised following a period of public comment on a document published in the Federal Register 

(Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs Receiving Federal Financial 

Assistance, 2018) and has not yet been issued. 

The issues raised by the U.S. Department of Education, under Secretary of Education Betsy 

DeVos, include proposed changes related to standards of proof, the appeals process, use of crossexamination, collaborations with law enforcement authorities, and timeliness of the 

investigation. The document also responded to the administration’s stated concerns that “lack the 

most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the 

accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.” There were 124,196 

comments in response to the Federal Register publication (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 

in Education Programs Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Public Comments, 2019). 

Methods - Title IX Coordinator Interviews 

The Title IX coordinator interviews were planned to assist in identifying and assessing 

successes and challenges associated with the IHE responses to reporting, investigation, 

adjudication, and sanctioning of sexual assault. In 2017, we conducted a series of key informant 

pre-test interviews and our team then revised the methodology and the planned interview 

protocol to accommodate the changes in and the challenges of the Title IX guidance that was 

being rolled out by the U.S. Department of Education. In 2018-2019, we recruited participants 

and conducted interviews with 47 Title IX coordinators who were our key informants for this 

project. 

Sample selection - Title IX Coordinator interviews. We recruited interview participants 

from a listing of Title IX coordinators in the 969 IHEs that had been included in our web-scan. 

The list excluded participants from18 institutions, which had closed in the time that elapsed since 

the web-scan, 49 IHEs with ongoing OCR investigations, and 50 for-profit institutions. In 

addition, several IHEs were excluded due to possible conflict of interest with members of the 

project team or board of advisors. We found that many of the Title IX coordinators had left the 

institution or changed their positions within the IHE over the time of the study, reflecting high 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

rates of employee turnover. Some IHEs no longer provided information that permitted us to 

identify a Title IX coordinator by name, and for these we recruited participation via email to the 

generic email address provided by the institution. 

To focus our recruitment efforts in accord with the distribution of institutions in the sample 

selected for the web-scan, we calculated a target proportion of interviews to obtain from each 

type of institution (public, private not religiously affiliated, and private-religiously affiliated) and 

size of student body (from <1000 students to 20,000+ students - See table 27). We sent three or 

more email messages from our team at Wellesley Centers for Women at Wellesley College to the 

institution’s Title IX coordinator. These email had links to our website with letters of support 

from the funder, a list of advisory board members, and letters from relevant experts in the field. 

We informed the individuals that we were working on a National Institute of Justice sponsored 

research project “Responding to Sexual Assault on Campus” and that we planned to interview 

key campus stakeholders with knowledge of investigation and adjudication of campus sexual 

assault. We explained that the interviews would focus on challenges confronted and innovations 

available for responding to reports of college student-on-student sexual assault. We arranged 

confidential phone interviews stressing that their participation would make an important 

contribution to this research. 

We had been concerned that Title IX coordinators would have some trepidation about 

participation due to the high level of scrutiny these cases were receiving in the media and the 

attention focused on the policies and attempts to alter these policies by the new administration. 

Indeed, some never responded to our multiple requests to participate, but we were pleased with 

the response of many and we were able to achieve a sample of interviewees from a broad array 

of schools representative of the domains of interest (see Table 27). Many of the interviewees 

expressed strong interest in the project, support for the work, and indicated they were looking 

forward to learning the results of the project. 

Title IX coordinators from small schools (<1,000) comprised 9% of the sample, schools with 

a 1,000 - 4,999 enrollment made up 49% of the interviewees, and the next three groupings of 

larger schools (5,000 - 20,000+ enrollees) comprised 43% of the interviewees (with seven, five, 

and eight Title IX coordinators interviewed in each size grouping respectively). We also 

achieved a representative distribution of Title IX coordinators from public, private nonreligiously affiliated and private-religiously affiliated institutions. We had a wide distribution of 

locales (urban, rural, and suburban) and individuals from 23 states from all regions of the 

country were interviewed. 

Data Collection - Title IX Coordinator Interviews. Based on input from our advisory board 

we developed an interview that could be completed by telephone in 30 minutes (although if time 

permitted and the participant was willing the interview could be expanded to 60 minutes). The 

advisory board was unanimous in asserting that a request for a 30-minute confidential interview 

would assure more willingness on the part of Title IX coordinators to participate. Also stressed 

was the importance of assuring confidentiality, which we assured via the IRB protocol, and 

consenting procedure, which involved no recording of names and no audio recordings. While it 

appeared to the interviewers that some coordinators would agree to longer interviews and not 

object to audio recording, many took maximal steps to assure they were not overheard during the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

call and asked for, and were granted, additional assurances of confidentiality during the 

interview. 

To reduce the amount of time needed for the phone interview, a short Qualtrics survey 

(appendix B) was sent to the participant (along with the consent information) once they agreed to 

set up a time for the interview. The interviews were conducted via telephone and no audio 

recording was made. With the consent of the participant, however, all telephonic interviews were 

conducted by a lead interviewer (one of the study investigators) and listened in on by a second 

person (one of the study investigators or a research associate) who took detailed notes including 

some exact quotations from the interview. The interview focused on the approaches used to 

investigate and adjudicate reports of sexual assault at their institution and the successes and 

challenges associated with these cases (see IHE coordinator interview Appendix C). We 

conducted the interviews until saturation was reached, that is, we had reached a point that 

sampling more data would not lead to more information related to our study questions 

Data Analysis - Title IX Coordinator Interviews. Data from the interviews were entered 

into a spreadsheet by both the interviewer and the researcher who listened in on each phone call. 

Where entries differed, the two parties discussed the answer until they were in agreement about 

the participant’s response. Detailed text and quotations from the interview were also entered into 

the data collection spreadsheet and then utilized to illustrate themes that emerged from the 

interviews. 

Findings - Title IX Coordinator Interviews 

Characteristics of the interviewed sample. Of the 47 stakeholders interviewed, 44 

completed our requested pre-interview survey.6

 The short pre-interview survey was designed to 

gather basic background information to help guide the interview questions and to save the 

limited interview time for more substantive questions about the institution’s sexual assault 

investigation and adjudication process. From these data emerged a picture of the interview 

sample, particularly their experience related to Title IX and sexual assault case processing. 

In terms of demographics, it was a heavily white (72%) and female (68%) sample with a high 

level of education (83% reported having a graduate or other professional degree). Breakdowns 

that are more specific are not provided to protect respondent identity. 

In the interviews we aimed to gather perspectives from across the various stages of the sexual 

assault case process, so it was important to include respondents who had experience including 

coordination of the overall process, initial review of cases, investigation, adjudication, 

sanctioning, appeals, and acting as advisor for victims and accused. Table 28 reflects that we 

achieved a diversity of perspectives. Please note that respondents could select all responsibilities 

that applied to their role at their institution, so the column totals more than 100%. 

The interview sample included a range of depth of experience, in terms of years in their 

current position, overall years of experience with responding to campus sexual assault cases, and 

number of cases investigated or adjudicated. The vast majority was not long serving in their 

6 Percentages provided are out of the 47 interviews even though only 44 completed the pre-interview surveys. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

current position – 72% had held their position for less than 5 years, with 21% being in their 

position less than one year. However, a number of respondents had long-term experience either 

by being in their current positions more than five years (21%) or also by having experience in 

other roles at the same or at different institutions. When that was taken into account, 36% had 

more than 5 years’ experience. A significant minority had also been involved in the investigation 

or adjudication of a large number of campus sexual assault cases – 39% of the sample had been 

involved with at least 20 cases (26% had more than 50 cases). However, a significant percent had 

also handled very few cases – 13% had handled none and an additional 15% had only handled 

between one and ten cases. This may be because the roles they have held have never required 

them to conduct the investigation or to adjudicate the case, they were too new to their role to 

have yet handled many cases, their institution has had very few cases, or other reasons. 

Within the last two years, all interviewees had received training related to handling campus 

sexual assault cases. They indicated having received training via a number of different avenues 

(Table 29). Note that respondents could select all ways they had received training, so the column 

totals more than 100%. This also indicates that many of the interviewees received multiple forms 

of training in the past two years. Interviewees received training provided by a variety of sources: 

in-house staff (21%), membership organizations such as the Association of Title IX 

Administrators (ATIXA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 

NASPA (62%), private consulting companies (32%), and other sources (36%). 

Our interviews revealed important information about the role of the Title IX coordinators and 

the approaches to investigation and adjudication. Only 25% reported that coordinating Title IX 

responses to sexual assault was their primary responsibility. Many of those interviewed also (or 

primarily) served in leadership roles across a variety of domains: human resources, student 

affairs, academic affairs, equal opportunity, student development, and student safety. The titles 

of those interviewed included provost, vice chancellor, vice president, and dean, among others. 

Many reported to an individual one level below the president and many (but not all) commented 

that they had a direct line to the president of the IHE. 

Investigation and Adjudication Models and Approaches 

The plan for our interviews was to focus on the approaches used in investigation and 

adjudication of sexual assault and to discern models that may be associated with the institutional 

size and structure. We conducted an exploratory cluster analysis to determine if any clear 

investigation policy and adjudication policy models emerged from the web-scan data and wanted 

to see if the interviews could contribute to these. Finally, we wished to learn about the challenges 

and benefits of the approaches they took to these tasks. 

In regard to models for investigation and adjudication, our initial meetings with advisors and 

some preliminary interviews led us to the plan to collect specific answers to mutually exclusive 

categories such as: the approach to investigation that involves a solo investigator OR a team of 

investigators (either comprised of internal or external staff or contractors), OR the investigation 

includes fact finding hearings, etc. Interestingly, we found that the protocol within many IHEs 

involved more of a “smorgasbord” approach and included “all of the above” as possibilities. The 

pathways to different approaches at times depended on details of the complaint and the wishes of 

the involved parties. We also found that some included administrative review panels for purposes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

of investigation and not only for adjudication. In addition, we found that sanctioning was 

administered by individuals (including the Title IX coordinator) or by boards of various 

compositions, and often (especially in cases which resulted in suspension or expulsion) with final 

decision-making or affirmation of the boards’ recommendations by the president of the 

institution. 

Investigative Approaches. 

Who investigates? Concerning the IHE investigation, while most Title IX coordinators 

interviewed reported that they do not themselves actually conduct the investigations (e.g., they 

do not interview parties and witnesses), for many others their role included conducting 

investigations of all complaints (or a proportion of the complaints) that require an investigation. 

Most coordinators reported that they rely on trained internal staff (singly or in teams of two or 

three) to conduct the investigations and these are generally non-attorneys and often receive no 

compensation from the IHE for the additional time required for this work. In some IHEs, the 

investigators included persons designated as “deputy” Title IX coordinators. Some of these were 

individuals selected from other departments (e.g., athletics, schools located within the IHE such 

as nursing). 

Most of those interviewed reported that in their IHE the investigations under Title IX are 

handled concurrently with police (if a report to the police has been made by the complainant). 

The interviewees stated that the police on rare occasions might have priority, especially when 

there was a need to delay informing the accused perpetrator of a serious, possibly criminal, 

accusation. While more than one-half of Title IX coordinators reported that the IHE had an MOU 

with police, most relied on MOUs executed between their campus police and local law 

enforcement and most stated there were only rare instances when they would report a case to the 

police. 

Again, there appears to be a “multiple choice menu” in effect regarding differing approaches 

as complaints proceed to investigation and beyond in many IHEs. Findings from the interviews, 

however, do not strictly parallel the findings of the cluster analyses derived from the web-scan. 

At many institutions, the police (campus police or local law enforcement) had little or no role in 

investigation of the Title IX case. Some IHEs, however, did have MOUs with the police and 

worked very closely with in-house (i.e., campus) police. In some IHEs, the campus police served 

either as lead investigators or on the investigation team. In one institution, where campus police 

led the investigation team, the chief of the campus police reported administratively to the 

individual who was also the Title IX coordinator. Finally, campus police also may become 

involved with these complaints as co-recipients of students’ on-line reports of sexual assaults. 

The model of law enforcement involvement was not associated with one type of institution as 

the following example reveals. The coordinator from a small to medium sized IHE said, 

“The (campus police chief) leads a team of investigators. Typically, a male and female will 

together interview the complainant and then the respondent. Witnesses will typically be 

interviewed by only one of the investigators (typically from the pair but sometimes another 

investigator entirely based on availability). The campus police chief then pulls together the 

investigative report, which is shared with both parties.” 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

On the other hand, a large private university in the Northeast had a three-person investigatory 

team in place and the Title IX coordinator noted that they: 

“Always include someone from public safety, as well as at least one female and one male 

member. So there is always someone the same gender as the complainant. There is a pool of 

24 trained investigators. They also come from faculty, student affairs, (and other 

administrators and VPs)”. 

Often the Title IX coordinators remarked that they wanted people on that team interested in 

campus safety, including individuals who have had trauma-informed training. 

Concerns about investigator availability and training. Often the investigators are not paid 

for this work and a common concern among Title IX coordinators who relied on such 

investigators who were not part of their Title IX office or Public Safety was that this 

investigatory work had to compete for the time of these staff that were responsible for their other 

demanding and customary faculty or administrative duties. In addition, due to the demands on 

time and the challenge of finding staff and faculty to perform these duties, the coordinators 

reported that often the same few individuals were over-burdened and called upon many times. 

On the other hand, when the staff or faculty were only occasionally tapped to serve as 

investigators, they would need more time to get current with the most recent guidelines. These 

challenges were reportedly minimized in IHEs with more well-resourced offices with dedicated 

and paid staff, including investigators and paid departmental liaisons who met regularly to ensure 

nothing- and in the words of one Title IX coordinator, “no one slipped through the cracks.” 

While a few Title IX coordinators we interviewed reported that their IHEs have tapped 

lawyers within their institution to assist with this work or have sought outside attorneys as 

investigators and adjudicators, when asked about this practice the following roadblocks and 

concerns were mentioned: 1) not having adequate resources to afford such expertise; 2) difficulty 

posed when an attempt is made to secure outside assistance in a timely fashion; and 3) problems 

posed when external investigators are not steadily involved with these cases (e.g., rotating pro 

bono attorneys) and/or are not familiar with the culture of the institution. 

Other concerns about the IHE approach to investigations stressed the need for more 

investigators and for training. One participant reported s/he “feels good about the decision the 

institution made to train additional people, as originally they only had one to two trained 

investigators.” The quandary that arises when only a small number of individuals are trained 

investigators was described by one coordinator from a private, midwestern college: “what do you 

do when someone is busy or leaves?” However, when resources and institutional support exist, 

IHEs have implemented an expanded team approach. In contrast, some Title IX coordinators 

indicated a preference for using funds to support professionally trained investigators hired for 

that one purpose (or perhaps for handling investigations as well as conducting sexual assault 

prevention training). This preference arose based on the concern that having too many 

individuals trained means that “Mary from X department gets called on once per year or two and 

really has not retained much of the training.” 

Assembling teams of investigators is a challenge that was mentioned often in the interviews. 

One tip (though not without cognizance of some liabilities as well) was mentioned in one IHE 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

where they started audiotaping interviews recently. The Title IX coordinator stated, “This 

(taping) is something that the investigators really like. They feel less pressured to get everything 

right when taking notes in the interview.” The Title IX coordinator also said that audiotaping 

seems to make the investigation faster. 

Finally, to underscore the finding based on the interviews that there is not one model that 

emerges for handling investigations but rather a more fluid process, the variations described by 

one Title IX coordinator are illustrative: 

“There will also be consideration of if the case can be handled informally. First, the school 

would need to be comfortable with an informal resolution. If so, that possibility is first 

presented to the complainant and if it is something they want, then also the respondent.” 

The Title IX coordinator went on to point out, however, that after an initial investigation, 95% of 

the time informal process is declined or is not an option. If the complaint goes forward, an 

adjudicatory hearing is scheduled and in this institution as in some others, the formal 

investigation is actually conducted by the adjudicatory body. 

Adjudicatory decision-making. The Title IX coordinators described a very wide variety of 

adjudicatory approaches, more varied than our cluster analysis of web-scan data revealed. Some 

approaches employed a very expeditious manner of handling cases with a small number of 

persons adjudicating the responsibility of the respondent. Others involved more elaborate 

adjudicatory proceedings or blended investigations and adjudications. 

About one-fourth of the interviewees reported that the adjudication decision (which was 

almost always reported to be made based on the preponderance of evidence) could be made by 

the investigators, or by the investigators in consultation with the Title IX coordinator or other 

senior administrator. This approach, generally, could be referred to as a sole investigator and sole 

adjudicator model. 

In one example, in a small, private university in the northeast, “A team makes a finding and 

recommendations which are reviewed” by the coordinator in consultation with a deputy. In this 

case, the Title IX coordinator never serves on the investigatory team. There also are no students 

on investigation teams for sexual misconduct. In the three years of this model, this coordinator 

reports that s/he “has only sent back a team recommendation for further review once...” 

Furthermore, in this approach it was stated that there are no lawyers on the investigatory team 

but they have an “outside attorney who advises when there is something the committee is not real 

sure of.” In this institution, as in others, it was also mentioned, “external investigators may be 

used in rare instances when there is a conflict of interest, or a special issue arises.” 

In about one-third of the interviews, the Title IX coordinator reported that rather than a sole 

adjudicator the IHE uses an adjudicatory body (specific to sexual misconduct violations) which 

reviews evidence gathered in the investigation and decides on the responsibility of the 

respondent. (A small number of interviewees reported that the IHE instead has a non-sexual 

assault specific adjudicatory body that reviews the evidence and makes a decision.) Generally, 

the adjudicatory board approach does not involve a hearing or further investigation. For example, 

in these cases, a panel of adjudicators will read the investigatory reports and may have access to 

the investigators themselves but there is no hearing. 

In more than one-half of the interviews, however, the Title IX coordinator told the interviewer 

that the IHE generally relies on an adjudicatory hearing (as distinguished from an adjudicatory 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

panel that reviews the evidence gathered by others). This hearing board may serve an 

investigatory and an adjudicatory function. One example was in a large institution and the Title 

IX coordinator stated that: 

“...adjudication is a hearing before a three-member panel. The members are pulled from a 

pool of 35 trained adjudicators. The members are only faculty and staff (no students) and they 

try to balance the panel in terms of gender and seasoned versus new adjudicators, but who has 

the time is always a big factor.” 

As one Title IX coordinator with this more elaborate hearing model reported, “Before the 

hearing the panel members receive the final investigative report and any rebuttals from the 

complainant or respondent.” Both parties submit a list of witnesses they would like to appear 

and testify (providing further evidence) during the hearing. Character witnesses are not allowed. 

The panel meets with the lead investigator or case manager to review procedure and discuss the 

questions they would like to be answered in the hearing. The (lead investigator) attends the 

hearing to answer any questions from the panel about the investigation. The panel proceeds with 

investigation in the hearing and adjudicates responsibility. The two parties can each have their 

advisor of choice, “but the advisor has to be like a potted plant” (i.e., is an observer only). 

Also notable is the disclosure that some Title IX coordinators had no role in investigations or 

adjudications and some stated that they had never even attended any of the hearings. Their role 

was entirely one of coordination of the parties and assurance that the policies and protocol were 

made available to all. 

Sanctioning decision-making. While sanctioning may be part of the adjudication process, it 

also may be separated and the responsibility of a different panel, different panel members, or 

even a different hearing. We found a wide diversity of choices and avenues for making the 

sanctioning decisions. In a small number of Title IX interviews, it was reported that the sole 

investigator makes the sanctioning decision. In a number totaling about one-quarter of the 

interviews we found that either the sole investigator or the small team of investigators makes that 

decision. In the majority of the interviews, however, the Title IX coordinator reported that the 

adjudicators (i.e., a panel or a board separate from the investigation) decide on the sanction. 

About one-fourth of the interviewees reported that their IHE held a separate sanctioning hearing. 

In regard to such hearings, in just over one-fourth of the interviews it was reported that sanctions 

were determined by a sexual assault conduct board and in another quarter, sanctions came from 

an administrative panel. Often a sole campus administrator had a prominent role in the 

sanctioning either as part of the sanctioning panel or board or as a final decision-maker. It was 

only in a small number of interviews that it was reported that students had any role in 

sanctioning. 

We asked about the use of expulsion as a sanction and although it was reported to be rarely 

used, a majority of the Title IX coordinators reported that the IHE had used expulsion as a 

sanction (although some mentioned that expulsion had never happened during their tenure or that 

many years had passed since the last expulsion). Some interviewees mentioned current cases that 

are likely to result in expulsion. The cases that result in expulsion were reported to be those that 

involved a finding of forced sexual penetration; physically assaultive behavior (other than the 

rape itself); physical injury to the complainant; or prior adjudications in which the respondent 

had been found responsible for sexual misconduct. Separation or suspension were sometime used 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

especially in smaller schools or in situations in which the person found responsible and the 

victim were in a class or department that operated with a cohort of students working the program 

together and from which s/he could not effectively be omitted. In these cases, the respondent 

found responsible might be suspended until the complainant completed that course work or 

graduated. 

Themes Identified from Research and Interviews. 

As we compiled the interviews and the notes we had taken during the calls, several key 

themes emerged that provide insight into the approaches taken by the IHEs, the key concerns of 

the Title IX coordinators, and their specific suggestions regarding the benefits of the approaches 

they are taking and the challenges going forward. 

Response to sexual assault should be aligned with the educational mission of the 

institution as distinguished from the criminal justice system. Many interviewees from IHEs 

of different sizes and from varying locations across the U.S. stressed the role of the educational 

mission of the IHE and expressed the opinion that as an educational institution their college or 

university must serve an educational function about proper student behavior and prevention of 

sexual misconduct while they “help the student do better.” This educational mission was 

reflected in the goals of the Title IX office, e.g., both “to be fair to all parties” and to make this 

“an educational process.” In light of the educational mission, some of the coordinators stressed 

to the interviewers the ways that the fairness is achieved by “affording all due process.” One 

coordinator from a large, state school system in the Northeast stated, “Hearings are nonadversarial by design, they are meant to be educational...” suggesting a contrast to a criminal 

justice system approach or to an adversarial hearing adjudication model. 

More than one Title IX coordinator expressed sentiments in accord with this preference for a 

non-adversarial system. A coordinator from a large, public, NCAA Division 1 Football 

university would prefer “that the process could be driven by a humanistic and educational 

development philosophy rather than a legal one” and went on to state that the “(legalistic) goals 

are not always aligned (with the educational mission of the institution).” This sentiment was 

echoed in one very different IHE setting (a small, private college in a southern state) where the 

Title IX coordinator stated, “for an educational setting the ‘preponderance of evidence’ is a fair 

standard.” And many indicated a wish to retain this standard, suggesting that the standard of 

“clear and convincing evidence,” which is now allowed under the interim rules from the U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, is closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt” and is 

more suited for the legal system. 

The coordinators emphasized the motivation to handle these cases well and with 

empathy. In both the web-scan portion of this research and in the interviews we found a 

recurrent theme that stressed providing a fair system that recognizes the rights of the accusers 

and the accused. For example, one coordinator from a medium-sized private college stated that 

s/he approached this (task of investigating and adjudicating college sexual assault) as "a human 

with empathy” and expressed concern that “some of this empathy is lost in the ‘Title IX world’” 

and added, “What is lost is being human." The coordinator from a state university reported s/he 

is “always mindful that we need to treat people like people - be fair and consistent - there are 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

always 6 sides to one story,” suggesting also that the coordinators need to address the difficult 

job and “find the correct balance between compassion and responsibility.” 

One might question how realistic such goals are in the face of some troubling cases of sexual 

assault and pressures to provide appropriate victim services. Yet, it was clearly expressed by 

many that there is a need for the Title IX Office to be “transparent with information” and to 

“remove the opportunity of bias.” Some coordinators suggested that because this is an issue “we 

care deeply about" there is an opportunity to “do what is right.” Title IX coordinators stressed 

the need for care and concern and victim advocacy to be the role of others and the pressing need 

to have such services in place. This was different from the role of the Title IX coordinator that 

was seen as “to balance this work” and to do the right thing for the students and the community. 

The pressing need to professionalize this work. Yet, despite the humanistic concerns 

expressed, many Title IX coordinators stressed the need to professionalize the practice of 

investigation and adjudication of complaints of sexual assault. Having experienced lawsuits and 

legal challenges and after attaining many years dealing with these cases, some experienced Title 

IX coordinators strongly expressed the need to professionalize. Some coordinators argued that 

more experience handling these cases is needed and that, just as one would not give “brand new 

lawyers and cops these cases to handle (in the criminal justice system), so why (would 

inexperienced Title IX coordinators be expected to do so)?” 

The key challenge here may be balancing different assessments of what it means to “be 

professional.” While some of the interviewees were, perhaps, less definitive in their exhortation 

of the need to professionalize, there was widespread agreement on the need for quality training 

and the difficulty in finding convenient, appropriate or affordable training and time for such 

training for investigators in their institutions. In regard to the issue of training and the need to 

professionalize, one coordinator from a very large, private, university stated that “Title IX 

investigators and coordinators are the most maligned set of individuals” and went on to assert 

that the training that is being delivered by some organizations is “thin and poor” and that it is 

even “exploitative and predatory” (i.e., that some take advantage of the desperation that leads to 

the high demand for training). Indeed, to professionalize this work high quality training is 

needed. Such training, as some suggest, may require tapping into the skills of the most 

experienced individuals and may lead to revision of current training priorities. 

Resources, institutional structure, and authority. In the current climate of increased reports 

of sexual assault inspired by the #MeToo movement, concerns were raised about how Title IX 

coordinators can achieve justice in an environment of scarce resources. Large or small, if the 

institution did not have or did not devote resources to the Title IX office and its functions, there 

were considerable difficulties reported by Title IX coordinators in accomplishing the goals. For 

example, not having enough and properly trained investigators created a large workload for 

some. In addition, IHEs often did not provide sufficient resources to help change the campus 

culture and deal with the critical issues raised in these interviews. 

As one Title IX coordinator put it, “When the office is swamped with work it becomes difficult 

to have an effective response.” In addition, one coordinator asserted, it all comes down to “time, 

money, and authority.” A frequent call was for the support of senior leadership and for the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

removal of administrative siloes that kept Title IX administratively separated from other units 

and, in the opinion of many, powerless to effect change. Coordinators described the challenges 

of seeking the authority and capacity to follow through with their mandates. They also pointed 

out the difficulty encountered when they were charged with conflicting roles, such as when the 

Title IX Coordinator is also the Dean of Students. 

In schools where the Title IX coordinator does not get appropriate support (and authority), the 

concern was that the professionalism suffers and the educational mission and responsibility are 

overlooked in favor of exceptions that are made for star students or decision-making that reflects 

the preferences of donors. Without support for Title IX and an institution-wide response to 

sexual assault, the Title IX coordinators suggested that time, effort, and resources are more likely 

to be spent by the IHE’s leaders on concerns about the institution's reputation than on making the 

response to sexual assault effective. 

Title IX Coordinators’ expectations for the future. These interviews took place at a time of 

upheaval for Title IX and for guidelines on responding to sexual assault at colleges and 

universities. The laws in many states had changed and were continuing to be revised or vetted, 

mostly in accord with the principles reflected in the Obama era guidance. Yet because of some 

civil suits, challenges arose (e.g., Circuit court decisions mandated changes in procedures 

including one circuit opinion which directed the IHEs to hold adversarial hearings.) Most 

critical, the U.S. Department of Education imposed new guidelines in September 2017 and 

announced planned changes in policy, which, at the time of the interviews and of the writing of 

this report, have not been finalized. One interviewee said that what s/he has been spending much 

time on is “keeping up with what is going on as a pendulum swings.” In contrast to claims made 

by the U.S. Department of Education, many Title IX coordinators reported strong efforts to “be 

conscious of the rights of the accused in spite of what others are saying.” While recognizing 

concerns about coming changes, many reported that they continue to be guided by state law and 

institutional policies. As one Title IX coordinator from a medium-sized public university in the 

northwest bluntly put it, “We are standing behind the 2014 (Obama) policies - come hell or high 

water." 

New procedures as a result of the 6th circuit ruling (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2019), according 

to one interviewee, will result in the report going to a hearing where both parties will appear at 

the same time (but at this IHE the hearings will occur electronically so they are not in the same 

place at the same time). One Title IX coordinator reflected the concerns of many about the 

“chilling effect this change may have on reporting.” Another coordinator from a small religious 

school in the northeast said, "new rules coming in are super concerning.” Few “want to see 

colleges turn into courtrooms.” Another pointed out that these new changes do not “feel trauma 

informed.” In addition, some find the “cross‐examination piece super concerning.” One 

interviewee pointed out that the “proposed rules (from the U.S. Department of Education) are in 

direct conflict with State law.” 

The consensus from those interviewed seemed to be that there are new regulations that are or 

could be both positive and negative. The fact, however, that so much has changed makes it 

“frustrating to deal with, it is and confusing for students.” One interviewee from a large private 

university went on to say, the rumored changes are "heartbreaking" and "everything will change 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

in the next few months and the significant guidance will be criticized.” In addition, a coordinator 

from a large private university in the northwest told us "No one will trust our findings. Politics is 

playing a big part ‐ it is a political rollercoaster.” Many expressed concerns that fewer students 

will report sexual assault under the proposed new guidelines. 

Nevertheless, all are awaiting the federal guidelines while continuing to consider options for 

addressing off-campus assaults, live hearings with direct cross-examination, and changes in 

investigatory practices and evidentiary standards. As one Title IX coordinator from a large public 

university in a western state put it “The Title IX machine has shifted so much time and energy to 

responding...we just aren't growing our prevention programs as well as we are growing our Title 

IX protocol." Another said, "fear about litigation leads to more resources (given) to responding 

after the fact and there is a need for more prevention and education." Indeed, many Title IX 

coordinators commented on resources being shifted to the legal side and called for more 

resources for outreach, prevention and education. 

Dissemination, Discussion and Implications of the Research 

This research has identified numerous approaches to and challenges of responding to sexual 

assault complaints in colleges and universities in the U.S. The work of this project will be 

disseminated on our website (http://www.wcwonline.org/jgbvr) and through guidelines such as 

the prepared guidance for institutions to conduct a website self-evaluation (see appendix D). In 

addition, we are developing a digest of investigative and adjudicative approaches and a link to 

our cluster analysis and the interview findings. Finally, we will prepare web resources and 

reports detailing the wide array of models of sexual assault responses used on college campuses. 

Scholarly presentations, articles, and white papers are planned. 

Based on the environmental scan and the interviews with Title IX coordinators, one important 

finding is that we have not identified clearly distinct and mutually exclusive models for 

responding to sexual assault on college campuses. While models of investigation and 

adjudication based on the details described on the IHE websites identified some themes and 

preliminary typologies of investigatory and adjudicative responses to sexual assault on college 

campuses, we found that there is no one model associated with IHEs of a certain size, geographic 

location, or sector (public, private or religiously affiliated). Instead we found extreme variation 

in the information made available to the public (and to the students) on the IHE websites and in 

the approaches to investigation and adjudication described by the Title IX coordinators 

interviewed. 

We did find that the institution’s administrative structure and the resources allocated were a 

key part of the assessment Title IX coordinators made of the effectiveness of the approaches 

used and the challenges they faced. The number of complaints and the resources available clearly 

frame the challenges faced in the investigation and adjudication of complaints of sexual assault 

and we have found that there is no “one size fits all” model on the horizon. In addition, we 

learned how possible conflicts of interest (necessitating the appointment of different 

investigators or adjudicators) and the nature of the behavior alleged in the complaint might affect 

the approach taken in the investigation and adjudication. This was more important than any one 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

“model” for investigation or adjudication. Even in institutions with a requirement of a formal 

investigation, approval of findings by a board, an adjudicatory hearing, or a sanctioning board, 

many complaints never reach these stages. More focus on early stages of complaint processing 

(remedies available, the role of advocates, and institutional climate, for example) may be an 

important next step in future research. 

Regardless of the format of the investigation and adjudication, which we have found varied 

considerably across institutions, the challenges mentioned by the Title IX coordinators are many. 

• In regard to investigation, when reports increase there is a need for an increased 

number of well-trained investigators, whether these are from within the IHE 

community, from public safety, or from external sources. 

• There is a need to improve Title IX office connections on campus and to cultivate trust 

in the community. 

• Support from the top is critical to the success of the office of the Title IX coordinator. 

Such support includes resources, visibility of the office, and leadership that highlights 

the importance of the Title IX activities including reporting, investigation, and 

adjudication—but also including prevention 

• Much depends on the level of institutional support received, not only in terms of 

funding but also in terms of providing an administrative structure that does not silo the 

Title IX office off in a way that diminishes the Title IX coordinator’s authority or 

isolates them from the larger campus community. 

• Institutional support is needed to lower barriers to reporting by students, by faculty 

and by staff and thus providing a culture in which sexual harassment and assault are 

understood and not tolerated. 

More research is needed in a number of areas. A new review of IHE websites could be 

undertaken to examine changes and also to assess the extent to which institutions utilize the 

recommendations found in this report. A next step would be to assess the extent to which what 

IHEs represent on their websites comports with the reality within the institution. Further research 

is also needed to examine in detail the implementation of a variety of approaches to investigation 

and adjudication and to examine how different models impact all parties involved. Only then can 

recommendations be made for best practices. Assessment of models in sample of IHEs of 

differing sizes, locales, and administrative structures is needed to evaluate the success on a 

variety of levels including responding to complaints, student satisfaction, and reduction of sexual 

assault as measured via official reporting and climate surveys. 

In addition to understanding the diversity of responses, we also see emerging in the Title IX 

arena a complex interplay of old guidelines, state laws, federal circuit court rulings and guidance 

coming out of law suits, institutional mandates and the speculation about the much anticipated 

new guidelines from the current administration. It will be important to understand the current 

state of the field when designing the IHEs response to the new guidelines and to campus sexual 

assault. This is an important area for new research on the interplay of laws, policy, and practice. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

27 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

References 

Brown, Sarah. (2019, Sept.5). Life inside the Title IX pressure cooker. Chronicle of Higher 

Education. Retrieved on Sept. 6, 2019 from 

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190905-titleix-pressure-cooker? 

Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., Barry, J. E., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cohn, E. S., 

Ward, S. K. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit 

victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual 

college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580-600. 

Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review 

of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76-93. 

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990, 

20 U.S.C. §1092(f). 

Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s 

institutions of higher education respond, final report. National Institute of Justice. 

Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K. J., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. 

(2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Charleston, 

SC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The Campus 

Sexual Assault (CSA) Study final report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal 

Financial Assistance; Department of Education. 83 Fed. Reg. 25314 (November 29, 

2018) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal 

Financial Assistance; Department of Education: Public Comments. 83 Fed. Reg. 25314 

(February 15, 2019) 

https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=ED-2018-

OCR-0064&refD=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001 

Richards, T. N. (2016). An updated review of institutions of higher education’s responses to 

sexual assault results from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence: 1-30. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

28 
 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Schmidt, P. (2015, February 12). A college coach goes to the mat for a son accused of sexual 

assault. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on March 28, 2015 from 

http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Coach-Goes-to-the/189979/ 

Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age 

females, 1995-2013. (NCJ 248471). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act. (2013). Violence Against Women 

Reauthorization Act of 2013, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701. 

United States Court of Appeals 6th Circuit Board of Appeals. (2019). University of Michigan, et 

al vs. John Doe. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/19-1636/19-

1636-2019-08-23.html 

U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (April 4, 2011). Dear Colleague Letter, 

Washington, D. C. 

U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (January 8, 2014). Dear Colleague. 

Washington, D. C. 

U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (April 24, 2015). Dear Colleague Letter, 

Washington, D. C. 

U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (September, 2017). Questions and 

Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence. Washington, D.C. 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf 

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (1994). 

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (2005). 

Will, G. (2014, June 6). Colleges become the victims of progressivism. The Washington Post. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

29 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 1. Geographic distribution of schools in web scan 

Region Number % 

US Military schools 5 .5 

New England CT ME MA NH RI 

VT 87 9 

Mid-East DE DC MD NJ NY PA 177 18 

Great Lakes IL IN MI OH WI 143 15 

Plains IA KS MN MO NE ND SD 109 11 

Southeast AL AR FL GA KY LA MS 

NC SC TN VA WV 227 23 

Southwest AZ NM OK TX 78 8 

Rocky Mountains CO ID MT UT 

WY 32 3 

Far West AK CA HI NV OR WA 111 12 

Total 969 100 

Table 2. Locale classification distribution of schools 

Sample 

Number % 

City 504 52 

Suburb 221 23 

Town 190 20 

Rural 54 6 

Total 969 100.0 

Table 3. Sector of institution by size of student body 

Under 

1,000 

1,000 -

4,999 

5,000 -

9,999 

10,000 

-

19,999 

20,000 

and 

above Total 

Public, 4-year or above 12 

6% 

75 

18% 

74 

59% 

91 

68% 

97 

85% 

349 

36% 

Private not-for-profit, 4-year or 

above 

143 

77% 

317 

77% 

52 

41% 

40 

30% 

16 

14% 

568 

59% 

Private for-profit, 4-year or above 30 

16% 

18 

4% 

0 

0% 

3 

2% 

1 

1% 

52 

5% 

Total 185 

100% 

410 

100% 

126 

100% 

134 

100% 

114 

100% 

969 

100% 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

30 
NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 4. Institutional characteristics 

% Yes 

(N=969) 

With a religious affiliation 35% 

With a Title IX complaint filed (as of June 

2016) 11% 

With an NCAA Division 1 football team 10% 

Offer on-campus housing 90% 

Table 5. Locating information in websites 

Locating Basic Information on websites (N=969) % yes* 

Does the website provide a definition of sexual assault/ sexual misconduct? 93 

Does the website provide information pertaining to Title IX or Title IX affiliated 

office? 93 

Does the website provide guidance on reporting sexual assault? 94 

Does the website provide information on who investigates reports of sexual assault? 91 

*None of the above=33 schools 

Table 6. Web Provides Sexual Assault Definitional Elements 

Sexual assault definitional elements (N=936) % yes 

Q6. Does the definition mention consent in relation to sexual assault 88 

Q9. Does the definition discuss inability to consent due to incapacitation related to 

alcohol use 78 

Q10. Does the definition discuss inability to consent due to incapacitation related to 

drug use 78 

Q12. Website identifies as sexual misconduct sexual contact through coercion 83 

Table 7. Reporting information provided: contact person(s) 

Information is provided on reporting a sexual assault to... (N=936) % yes 

Title IX coordinator 90 

Campus security/law enforcement 84 

Local law enforcement 75 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

31 
 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 8. Title IX Coordinator Titles 

Does Title IX coordinator have another title? 

(N=936) % 

HR-EEO-compliance 28 

Student affairs 29 

Other 2 

No 36 

Could not locate 4 

Total 100 

Table 9. Reporting and Recommendations 

Reporting sexual assault (N=936) % yes 

Q37. Is there an option for anonymous reporting? 67 

Q50. Is there recommendation to preserve evidence? 68 

Q51. Is there recommendation to get medical services? 83 

Q52. Is there a recommendation to get counseling? 72 

Table 10. Law Enforcement Notification Information Found 

Will police be notified if sexual assault is reported to campus 

official (N=936) 

% yes 

Yes, if campus safety is a concern 20 

Yes, at victims request 49 

Yes, other circumstances 4 

Yes, no circumstances mentioned 16 

No information 31 

Table 11. Post report Victim1 Involvement 

Is the victim required to participate in the investigation after a 

report? (N=936) 

Yes 18% 

No 40% 

Could not locate 42% 

Total 100% 

1 We use the terms “victim” and “perpetrator” in these tables to refer to the complainant and the respondent or 

accused. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

32 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 12. Interim Measures Described 

% yes 

Are interim measures available? (N=936) 77 

Options 

Academic arrangements for victim 69 

Academic arrangements by perpetrator 50 

Housing or dining reassignments by victim 62 

Housing and dining arrangements by perpetrator 49 

Suspension of perpetrator 43 

Changes to work arrangements for victim 52 

Changes to work arrangements for perpetrator 43 

Removal from sports 23 

No contact order 22 

Leave of absence 2 

Does website offer guidance on how to obtain interim measures? 57 

Table 13. Advisors 

Are alleged perpetrators allowed to have 

advisors at hearings or meetings? (N=936) % 

Yes 74 

No 8 

Other 1 

Could not locate 17 

Total 100 

Are victims allowed to have advisors at 

hearings or meetings? (N=936) % 

Yes 74 

No 6 

Other 1 

Could not locate 19 

Total 100 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

33 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 14. Standard of Proof 

What is the standard of proof used to 

determine responsible vs. not responsible? 

(N=936) 

% 

Preponderance of evidence 72 

Beyond reasonable doubt 7 

Other, specify .05 

Could not locate 20 

Total 100 

Table 15. Determining Responsibility 

What campus actors are involved in determining responsibility (N=936) 

% Yes 

Are students involved? 

Yes No No info 

General conduct board 24 18% 34% 48% 

Conduct Board specific for 

sexual assault 28 9% 47% 44% 

Administrative panel 17 

Sole campus administrator 17 

Investigator 9 

Other 1 

No information 4 

Table 16. Hearing Questioning 

Are alleged perpetrators allowed to question the victim? 

(N=936) % Yes 

Yes, face to face 2 

Yes, through submitting written questions 10 

Yes, but no details on method of questioning 13 

Could not locate 60 

Yes, by other means, specify 2 

No 13 

Total 100 

Are victims allowed to question the alleged perpetrator? 

(N=936) % Yes 

Yes, face to face 2 

Yes, through submitting written questions 11 

Yes, but no details on method of questioning 14 

Could not locate 61 

No 12 

Total 100 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

34 
 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 17. Determining Sanctions 

What campus actors are involved in determining sanctions? (N=936) 

% Yes 

Are students involved? 

Yes No No info 

General conduct board 22.2 18% 35% 46% 

Conduct Board specific for 

sexual assault 18.4 10% 49% 37% 

Administrative panel 17.6 

Sole campus administrator 18.9 

Could not locate 22.8 

Other, please specify 0.1 

Total 100 

Table 18. Sanctions 

Possible sanctions when found responsible (N=936) 

% Yes 

Expulsion 78 

Suspension 74 

Probation 60 

Warning 53 

Change of residence 45 

Awareness training 36 

Monetary damages 30 

Mental health evaluation 28 

Transcript note 22 

Could not locate 18 

Local law enforcement notice 15 

Loss of privileges 7 

Community service 6 

No contact order 5 

Parental notification 1 

Schedule changes 1 

Apology 1 

Table 19. Appeals 

Is there an appeal process? (N=936) % Yes 

Yes, either victim or offender may appeal 75 

Yes, only offender may appeal 7 

No 2 

Could not locate 16 

Total 100% 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

35 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 20. Sexual Assault Statistics 

Are there sexual assault statistics available? 

(N=936) % Yes 

Yes, climate survey 22 

Clery Act -- Official statistics 78 

Other 2 

Could not locate 14 

Table 21. Mandatory Student Education 

Is there a required education course for 

students on student conduct/sexual assault 

awareness? (N=936) 

% Yes 

Yes 61 

Could not locate 39 

Total 100 

Table 22. Bystander Education Program 

Is there a bystander program on campus? 

(N=936) 

% Yes 

Yes 46 

Could not locate 54 

Total 100 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

36 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 23. Investigation Three Cluster Probability Profiles 

Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Overall 

Cluster Size (modal) 0.42 0.4 0.18 1.0 

Variables 

q59.Title IX person involved in investigation 

No 0.2671 0.024 0.0718 0.141 

Yes 0.7329 0.976 0.9282 0.859 

q59. Campus LE involved in investigation 

No 0.812 0.6598 0.0031 0.6154 

Yes 0.188 0.3402 0.9969 0.3846 

q59. Local law enforcement involved in investigation 

No 0.9066 0.896 0.166 0.7756 

Yes 0.0934 0.104 0.834 0.2244 

q59. Other Admin (Dean, HR) 

No 0.6806 0.4179 0.2169 0.5011 

Yes 0.3194 0.5821 0.7831 0.4989 

Q44. MOU with local law enforcement 

Yes 0.0957 0.5163 0.8339 0.3825 

No/could not locate 0.9043 0.4837 0.1661 0.6175 

Q70.Is there policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against witnesses in proceedings? 

Yes 0.6693 0.9735 0.5759 0.7692 

No/Could not locate 0.3307 0.0265 0.4241 0.2308 

q75.q77 Can victims have lawyers/advisors 

Yes advisors can be lawyers 0.1732 0.5208 0.0228 0.2799 

Yes advisors but not lawyers 0.5188 0.3953 0.6899 0.5011 

No advisors 0.0046 0.0673 0.044 0.0353 

Could not locate 0.3034 0.0166 0.2433 0.1838 

q80. Sanctions 

Could not locate 0.3789 0.0212 0.2976 0.2286 

Minor 0.1676 0.052 0.282 0.1432 

Moderate 0.1916 0.0747 0.0006 0.1143 

Maximum 0.262 0.852 0.4198 0.5139 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

37 
 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 24. Covariate Profiles (inactive) 

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Overall 

q58. Are there details on who investigates sexual assault complaints 

No 0.0947 0.0146 0.0695 0.0598 

Yes 0.9053 0.9854 0.9305 0.9402 

q61. Is there time limit for when report has to be made for formal investigation? 

Yes (specify time) 0.1137 0.068 0.113 0.0962 

No 0.232 0.5798 0.5864 0.4253 

Could not locate 0.6543 0.3522 0.3006 0.4786 

q62. Is victim required to participate in the investigation after a report? 

Yes 0.0515 0.343 0.1313 0.1763 

No 0.3489 0.3832 0.5873 0.4028 

Could not locate 0.5996 0.2738 0.2814 0.4209 

q64. Is there a time frame for when alleged perpetrators notified of investigation? 

Yes, specify how long 0.1442 0.0853 0.0757 0.11 

Could not locate 0.8267 0.5719 0.4405 0.6634 

No 0.029 0.3428 0.4839 0.2266 

q66. How are concurrent investigations involving sexual misconduct handled between 

investigators and local law enforcement? 

Handled collaboratively 0.1989 0.2759 0.7567 0.3238 

Law enforcement takes priority 0.0709 0.2549 0.0334 0.1346 

Unclear 0.1771 0.2076 0.0919 0.1741 

Campus takes priority 0.0161 0.043 0.0121 0.0256 

Could not locate 0.537 0.2186 0.1059 0.3418 

q68. Policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against victim reporters? 

Yes 0.8231 0.9881 0.7028 0.8654 

No/Could not locate 0.1769 0.0119 0.2972 0.1346 

q69. Policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against third party reporters? 

Yes 0.7691 0.9836 0.6729 0.8344 

No/Could not locate 0.2309 0.0164 0.3271 0.1656 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

38 
NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 24. Covariate Profiles (inactive), cont. 

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Overall 

q81. Interim measures for victim not wishing to participate in an investigation? 

Yes 0.2007 0.5507 0.5707 0.3975 

No 0.0177 0.0435 0.0564 0.0342 

Could not locate 0.7816 0.4058 0.3729 0.5683 

q82. website offers guidance on how to obtain interim measures? 

Yes 0.4371 0.7837 0.5696 0.5919 

No/Could not locate 0.5629 0.2163 0.4304 0.4081 

q84. information on time frame for completing the investigation after a report? 

Yes, specify time frame 0.5045 0.4615 0.5179 0.4904 

Could not locate 0.4492 0.194 0.2781 0.3226 

No 0.0463 0.3445 0.204 0.187 

q83. Policy on interim measures 

interim measures-at victims request 0.1326 0.1445 0.3552 0.1753 

Interim Measures on a Case by Case 0.2837 0.6252 0.2064 0.4006 

Could no locate 0.5837 0.2303 0.4384 0.4241 

q59. Other independent investigator involved in investigation? 

No 0.835 0.8638 0.5301 0.7937 

Yes 0.165 0.1362 0.4699 0.2063 

q60. Is there mention of sexual assault training for investigative unit or office? 

No 0.3316 0.0926 0.1126 0.203 

Yes 0.6684 0.9074 0.8874 0.797 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

39 
NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 25. Adjudication Three Cluster Probability Profiles 

Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Overall 

Cluster Size (modal) .57 .24 .18 1.00 

Variables 

q90. What campus actors are generally involved in determining if a person is 

responsible for violation? 

General conduct board 0.2789 0.1733 0.2123 0.2436 

Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault 0.1592 0.6015 0.2659 0.2831 

Administrative panel 0.1651 0.2157 0.0718 0.1645 

Sole campus administrator 0.2248 0.0088 0.19 0.1667 

Investigator 0.1391 0.0006 0.0605 0.094 

Could not locate 0.0329 0.0001 0.1995 0.0481 

q115. Is there an appeal process? 

Yes, either victim or offender may appeal 0.9151 0.7749 0.1951 0.7799 

Yes, only offender may appeal 0.0314 0.2035 0.0228 0.0726 

No 0.0115 0.0214 0.0495 0.0192 

Could not locate 0.042 0.0002 0.7326 0.1282 

q112.Does sanctioning process allow victim impact statements? 

Yes 0.1517 0.7542 0.0217 0.2821 

No 0.0335 0.244 0.0343 0.0855 

Could not locate 0.8148 0.0018 0.9439 0.6325 

q111. Sanctions 

Could not locate 0.0966 0.0121 0.6783 0.157 

Moderate 0.032 0.0088 0.0349 0.0267 

Major 0.8714 0.9791 0.2868 0.8162 

q95.Does the policy mention that the victim’s prior sexual behavior will not be 

considered in adjudication process? 

Could not locate 0.716 0.0025 0.8571 0.5598 

Yes 0.284 0.9975 0.1429 0.4402 

q100. Are alleged perpetrators allow to present witnesses at proceedings 

No/could not locate 0.1884 0.0097 0.7994 0.2297 

yes 0.8116 0.9903 0.2006 0.7703 

q85.Is there a restorative justice/reintegration for alleged perpetrators who accept 

responsibility for violation before adjudication proceedings begin? 

Yes 0.0449 0.6452 0.0027 0.187 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

40 
NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 25. Adjudication Three Cluster Probability 

Profiles, cont. 

Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Overall 

Could not locate 0.9551 0.3548 0.9973 0.813 

q97. Does policy mention there is possibility that information from confidential 

sources sought by victim may be admitted under legal ruling/hearing in an 

adjudication proceeding? 

Yes 0.1038 0.9305 0.1201 0.3098 

Could not locate 0.8962 0.0695 0.8799 0.6902 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

41 
 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 26. Adjudication Covariate Profiles (inactive) 

Investigation 3 Cluster Classification 

1. Single Investigator 0.5218 0.0359 0.6494 0.4199 

2. quasi-cj 0.3825 0.6164 0.1224 0.4038 

3. collaborative 0.0957 0.3477 0.2282 0.1763 

q92 Role of investigator determining alleged perpetrator responsible/not 

responsible 

Present results to board/administrators for review in 

making 0.4944 0.4177 0.2642 0.4433 

Participates directly with administration in 

determining the 0.138 0.5406 0.0918 0.2308 

Has sole responsibility for determining 

responsible/not responsible 0.1668 0.0343 0.0627 0.1196 

No role in determining responsible/not responsible 0.2007 0.0074 0.5813 0.2063 

q93. Does alleged perpetrator have adjudication format choice? 

Yes 0.0789 0.3635 0.0064 0.1389 

No 0.2201 0.591 0.1701 0.3045 

Could not locate 0.7011 0.0455 0.8235 0.5566 

q98. Mention the possibility that information from confidential sources sought 

by offender admitted under legal ruling 

Yes 0.0755 0.9028 0.0721 0.2789 

Could not locate 0.9245 0.0972 0.9279 0.7211 

q99_3 During disciplinary proceedings, victim's participation options? (Check 

all that apply)-No participation 

Particpate as complainant or witness 0.2844 0.7193 0.1659 0.375 

No participation 0.3556 0.2686 0.1201 0.3012 

Could not locate 0.3601 0.0121 0.714 0.3238 

q102. Are alleged perpetrators allowed to question the victim? 

No 0.1722 0.0975 0.0499 0.1367 

Yes 0.1216 0.8301 0.0052 0.28 

Could not locate 0.7062 0.0724 0.9449 0.5833 

q104 Are Victims allowed to present witnesses at hearings? 

No/Could not locate 0.2082 0.0435 0.7987 0.2501 

Yes 0.7918 0.9565 0.2013 0.7499 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

42 
 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 26. Adjudication Covariate Profiles (inactive), cont. 

q108. Standard of evidence used in determining responsibility 

Preponderance of evidence 0.8706 0.6915 0.3529 0.7541 

Beyond reasonable doubt 0.0052 0.2686 0.0005 0.0695 

Could not locate 0.1241 0.0399 0.6466 0.1764 

q109. What campus actors involved in determining sanctions 

General conduct board 0.2579 0.236 0.0943 0.2297 

Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault 0.1078 0.4726 0.0543 0.1902 

Administrative panel 0.1731 0.2588 0.0903 0.1827 

Sole campus administrator 0.2744 0.0233 0.1445 0.1944 

Could not locate 0.1867 0.0093 0.6166 0.2031 

Table 27: Interviewees institution size and type 

Institution Public 

Private 

Not 

Religiously 

Affiliated 

Private 

Religiously 

Affiliated 

Total 

Interviewed Target 

Size Interviewed Interviewed Interviewed n (%) % 

<1000 1 1 2 4 (9%) 18% 

1000-4999 4 10 9 23 (49%) 42% 

5000-9999 4 1 2 7 (15%) 13% 

10000-

19999 3 0 2 5 (11%) 14% 

20000+ 6 2 0 8 (17%) 13% 

Total n (%) 18 (38%) 14 (30%) 15 (32%) 47 (100%) 

Target 38% 28% 34% 100% 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

43 
 

 

 

NIJ Summary Report: 2015-IJ-CX-0009 

Table 28: Current Roles of Interview Sample (n=47) 

Role % (n) 

Coordinator of Title IX Process 92% (43) 

Initial Review 68% (32) 

Investigator 38% (18) 

Adjudicator 28% (13) 

Sanctioner 23% (11) 

Appeals Arbiter 2% (1) 

Advisor/Advocate Victim 9% (4) 

Advisor/Advocate Accused 4% (2) 

Investigator for a Criminal Justice Process 6% (3) 

Decision Maker for a Criminal Justice Process 9% (4) 

Table 29: Training Modalities 

Type of Training % (n) 

Online 47% (22) 

In Person 

On campus 30% (14) 

At a Conference 60% (28) 

Elsewhere 28% (13) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

44 
 

APPENDICES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Web Scan Data Collection Form .......................................................... A-1 

Appendix B: TIX Coordinator Pre-Interview Survey............................................... B-1 

Appendix C: IHE/TIX Coordinator Interview Protocol........................................... C-1 

Appendix D: Draft Website Checklist......................................................................... D-1 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

RSACscaninventory 

Q1 Please take note of when you start this scan, so you can enter the duration of your work on this session at the end of 

this list of questions. If you need to take a break in the middle of this scan, make sure to close your browser before you 

leave your desk. 

THIS INSTRUCTION HAS CHANGED: Enter the 8-digit code for this session, no spaces (for example, 00112244). For

instructions, see your training handout. 

Q2 SECTION 1: SEXUAL ASSAULT DEFINITION 

Q3 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide a definition of sexual assault? Instructions for search: 

From school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "sexual assault"; view results and answer options below; if 

necessary, enter recommended search term 2: "sexual misconduct"

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 1, directly on results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 1, first link from results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 2 directly on results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 2, first link from results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate definition using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond above

❍ Could not locate

Q4 In what you found above, is the sexual assault definition embedded within a sexual harassment or discrimination 

policy or context? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate definition

Q5 Does the definition cover attempted sexual assault? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate definition

Q6 Does the website provide a definition or description of consent in relation to sexual assault or misconduct? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate

Q7 Does the website provide a definition or description of affirmative consent in relation to sexual assault or misconduct? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate

Q8 Does the website define or describe sexual misconduct or sexual assault as sexual contact with someone who is 

unable to consent due to incapacitation?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate

Q9 Does the website define or describe sexual misconduct or sexual assault as sexual contact with someone who is 

unable to consent due to incapacitation or intoxication resulting from alcohol use? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-1
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q10 Does the website define or describe sexual misconduct or sexual assault as sexual contact with someone who is 

unable to consent due to incapacitation or intoxication resulting from drug use? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q11 Does the website define or describe sexual misconduct or sexual assault as sexual contact with someone who is 

unable to consent due to psychological or physical impairment (not related to substance use)? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q12 Does the website define or describe sexual misconduct or sexual assault as sexual contact through coercion (duress,

threat, force, deception)? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q13 Is there a policy stating that school code of conduct applies to sexual assault by students occurring while they are off 

campus? (hint: may be covered in a “scope of the policy” section) 

❍ Yes, policy language explicitly states that policy applies to students when off campus

❍ No, policy language explicitly states that policy refers only to students on campus

❍ No, policy language does not explicitly differentiate between students when on and off campus

❍ Decided on a case by case basis by a University representative

❍ Could not locate 

Q14 Is there information pertaining to Title IX or Title IX-affiliated office (i.e. Office of Institutional Equity)? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q15 If yes to above, does Title IX information indicate that Title IX pertains to reporting of sexual assault? 

❑ Yes

❑ No

❑ Not applicable 

Q16 If yes to above, is the language provided in gender neutral terms? (i.e. uses language that indicates a person can be

male, female, or transgender; or generally uses the generic word "they.") 

❑ Yes

❑ No

❑ Not applicable 

Q17 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers.

Q18 SECTION 2: SEXUAL ASSAULT REPORTING 

Q19 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide any guidance on reporting sexual assault? Instructions

for search: From school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "report sexual assault;" view results and answer 

options below; enter recommended search term 2, if necessary: "reporting a sexual assault" 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond above 

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-2
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q20 Is there information on how to make a sexual assault report to the Title IX Coordinator or Liaison or Office?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q21 If yes to above, is contact information provided? (check all that apply) 

❑ Yes, by email

❑ Yes, by phone 

❑ Yes, by campus location 

❑ Yes, by name (person) 

❑ Not applicable 

Q22 Does the Title IX Coordinator have another administrative title within the university?

❍ Yes, Provost 

❍ Yes, Dean of Students 

❍ Yes, Other, specify ____________________

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q23 Is there information on how to report sexual assault to campus security / law enforcement? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q24 If yes to above, is contact information provided? (check all that apply) 

❑ Yes, by email

❑ Yes, by phone 

❑ Yes, by campus location 

❑ Yes, by name

❑ Not applicable 

Q25 Is there information on how to report a sexual assault to local law enforcement? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q26 If yes to above, is contact information provided for reporting a sexual assault ? (check all that apply) 

❑ Yes, by email

❑ Yes, by phone 

❑ Yes, by street address 

❑ Yes, by name (person) 

❑ Not applicable 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-3
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________

Q27 Is there guidance on reporting sexual assault to other campus personnel, and if yes, is contact information provided? 

(Select an answer for each given campus personnel.)

Faculty 

No Yes, by email Yes, by phone Yes, campus 

location 

❑

Yes, by name 

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Coaches/athletic 

personnel ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Student work 

supervisors ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Residential life ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Dean of 

Students ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Health services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Counseling 

services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Disability 

services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Diversity offices ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Women's 

resource center ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Victim services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Ombudsman ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Other staff; 

specify ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Q28 Does the website indicate if any of the following campus personnel are designated as mandatory reporters or

responsible employees (meaning they must divulge the name of the person who reports) and required to officially report to 

the college once they are made aware of an assault? Check all that apply. 

❑ Yes, faculty 

❑ Yes, administrators (i.e. Dean of Students) 

❑ Yes, student supervisors (i.e. coaches, residential life) 

❑ Yes Ombudsmen 

❑ Yes, but policy is not specific about which employee categories 

❑ Yes, other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q29 If yes to previous question, to whom must a responsible employee/mandated reporter report the incident? Check all 

that apply. 

❑ Title IX Officer or Liaison 

❑ Campus security / law enforcement 

❑ Local Police 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

❑ Not applicable 

Q30 Is a sexual assault reported to college counseling services confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, but conditional (enter "not if minor involved" and / or "not if campus safety is a concern" as applicable)

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-4
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

Q31 Is a sexual assault reported to college health services confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, but conditional (enter "not if minor involved" and / or "not if campus safety is a concern" as applicable)

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q32 Is a sexual assault reported to college religious services confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, but conditional (enter "not if minor involved" and / or "not if campus safety is a concern" as applicable)

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q33 Is a sexual assault reported to university administrators (e.g. Ombudsmen) confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, but conditional (enter "not if minor involved" and / or "not if campus safety is a concern" as applicable)

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q34 If yes to above, specify which university administrators sexual assault confidentiality is discussed for.

Q35 Is a sexual assault reported to other college victim services confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, but conditional (enter "not if minor involved" and / or "not if campus safety is a concern" as applicable)

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q36 If yes to above, specify which other college victim services sexual assault confidentiality is discussed for.

Q37 Is there an option provided for anonymous victim or student reporting of a sexual assault? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q38 Will campus security / law enforcement be notified if a sexual assault is first reported to campus officials (i.e. Title IX 

coordinator or liaison)? Check all that apply. 

❑ Yes, if campus safety is a concern 

❑ Yes, at victim's request 

❑ Yes, under other circumstances, specify ____________________

❑ Yes, but no special circumstances specified 

❑ Could not locate 

Q39 Will campus officials be notified if a report is first made to campus security / law enforcement? Check all that apply. 

❑ Yes, if campus safety is a concern 

❑ Yes, at victim's request 

❑ Yes, under other circumstances, specify ____________________

❑ Yes, but no special circumstances specified 

❑ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-5
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q40 Will campus officials be notified if the on-campus incident is first reported by the victim to local law enforcement? 

Check all that apply. 

❑ Yes, if campus safety is a concern 

❑ Yes, at victim's discretion 

❑ Yes, under other circumstances, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q41 Is there any indication that campus staff have training on responding to reports of sexual assault?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q42 Does the website provide information about state laws about the crime of rape and sexual assault?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q43 Which of the following are listed as general responsibilities of campus security / law enforcement. Check all that 

apply. 

❑ Answer emergency calls

❑ Answer routine calls 

❑ Monitor security cameras

❑ Investigate reported crimes 

❑ Authority to make arrests 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q44 Is there a memorandum of understanding between the University (including campus security / law enforcement) and 

local law enforcement? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q45 Will local law enforcement be notified when a sexual assault is reported to campus officials? (check all that apply) 

❑ Yes, if University personnel decide campus safety is a concern

❑ Yes, at victim's request 

❑ Yes, under other circumstances, specify ____________________

❑ Yes, but no circumstances mentioned 

❑ Could not locate 

Q46 Is reporting to local law prosecutors required?

❍ Yes, if University personnel decide campus safety is a concern

❍ Yes, at victim's request 

❍ Yes, under other circumstances, specify ____________________

❍ Yes, no circumstances mentioned 

❍ Could not locate 

Q47 Is there a policy describing any (amnesty, Good Samaritan) protection for reporting students from alcohol use 

consequences? 

❍ Yes, policy states that no students will be disciplined

❍ Yes, policy states that amnesty or other protection will be at the discretion of the school 

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-6
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q48 Is there an amnesty or Good Samaritan policy describing any protection for reporting students from drug use 

consequences? 

❍ Yes, policy states that no students will be disciplined

❍ Yes, policy states that amnesty or other protection will be at the discretion of the school 

❍ Could not locate 

Q49 Is there an amnesty or Good Samaritan policy describing any protection for reporting students from other infractions?

❍ Yes, policy states that no students will be disciplined

❍ Yes, policy states that amnesty or other protection will be at the discretion of the school 

❍ Could not locate 

Q50 Is there information about preserving evidence in the aftermath of sexual assault? (check all that apply) 

❑ Yes, Not washing or showering 

❑ Yes, Preserve clothing and bedding 

❑ Yes, Preserve electronic evidence (texts, emails) 

❑ Yes, Other (specify) ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q51 Is there a recommendation to seek a medical exam after an assault?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q52 Is there a recommendation for victims to seek counseling services after an assault? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q53 Is the cost for a medical exam provided by on-campus medical services covered by the university?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, unless a minor 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q54 Are medical services sought at off-campus health service providers confidential?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, unless a minor 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q55 Is the cost for a medical exam provided by off-campus medical services covered by the university?

❍ Yes

❍ Yes, unless a minor 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q56 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers.

Q57 SECTION 3: SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATION 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-7
Q58 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide any information on who ON CAMPUS conducts sexual

assault investigations after a sexual assault on campus is reported to campus officials? Instructions for search: From 

school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "sexual assault investigation"; view results and answer options

below. 2. WHAT IS SEARCH TERM 2, IF ANY? 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond above 

❍ Could not locate 

Q59 Who is responsible for the investigation of sexual assault reported to campus authorities? Select an answer for each 

option. If yes, also select whether this party has primary responsibility. 

Is responsible for investigation

Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, and primary 

responsibility 

Yes, but not 

primary 

Yes, but role 

unclear Could not locate 

Title IX 

coordinator/liaison ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Dean of Students ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Campus law

enforcement ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Other campus

employee/office, ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

specify: 

Independent 

investigator ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Local law 

enforcement ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Other off-campus, 

specify ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Q60 Is there mention of sexual assault training for investigative unit or office? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q61 Is there a time limit for when the report has to be made in order for there to be a formal investigation?

❍ Yes (specify time) ____________________

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q62 Is the victim required to participate in the investigation after a report to campus authorities? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q63 How are alleged perpetrators notified of an on-campus investigation?

❍ Notified in writing (email or letter) 

❍ Notified at a meeting with campus officials 

❍ Phone call or text 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-8
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q64 Is there a time frame for when alleged perpetrators will be notified of an investigation?

❍ Yes, specify how long ____________________

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q65 In relation to a criminal investigation, a misconduct investigation may take place when?

❍ Before a criminal investigation begins 

❍ During a criminal investigation 

❍ After a criminal investigation concludes 

❍ Unclear or not specified

❍ Could not locate 

Q66 How are concurrent investigations involving sexual misconduct and criminal behavior handled between campus

investigators and local law enforcement?

❍ They may be handled collaboratively 

❍ Criminal investigation by local law enforcement will take priority 

❍ Sexual misconduct / campus investigation will take priority 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Unclear

❍ Could not locate 

Q67 How are concurrent investigations handled between authorized campus investigators and campus security / law 

enforcement?

❍ They may be handled collaboratively 

❍ Investigations by authorized campus investigators take priority 

❍ Investigations by campus security / law enforcement take priority 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Unclear

❍ Could not locate 

Q68 Is there a policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against victim reporters?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q69 Is there a policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against third party (or witness) reporters ?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q70 Is there a policy prohibiting retaliatory behavior against witnesses in proceedings?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q71 Are alleged perpetrators allowed to have advisors at hearings or meetings?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q72 Re: Advisors for alleged perpetrators: Does the school choose advisors? 

❍ Yes

❍ No, students choose advisors 

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-9
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q73 Re: Advisors for alleged perpetrators: Are lawyers allowed to serve as advisors? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q74 Re: Advisors for alleged perpetrators: If yes, does the school provide lawyers?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q75 Are victims allowed to have advisors at hearings or meetings? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q76 Re: Advisors for victims: Does the school choose advisors?

❍ Yes

❍ No, students choose advisors 

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q77 Re: Advisors for victims: Are lawyers allowed to serve as advisors?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q78 Re: Advisors for victims: If yes, does the school provide lawyers? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q79 Are there interim measures that consider threat to victim safety (class changes, housing assignments)? Check all 

that apply. 

❑ Yes, interim measures are possible without a formal investigation 

❑ Yes, interim measures may apply before an investigation 

❑ Yes, measures are possible during an investigation 

❑ Yes, but policy does not distinguish at what stage they may apply 

❑ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-10
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q80 What interim measures are possible? Check all that apply. 

❑ Class changes or other academic arrangements by victim 

❑ Class changes or other academic arrangements by alleged perpetrator

❑ Housing or dining reassignments by victim 

❑ Housing or dining reassignments by alleged perpetrator 

❑ Suspension of alleged perpetrator 

❑ Changes to work arrangements by victim

❑ Changes to work arrangements by alleged perpetrator 

❑ Mental health counseling 

❑ The identification of alleged perpetrator to local law enforcement if alleged assailant is a serious or ongoing threat 

❑ Removal from sports team or other university club or organization 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q81 Are interim measures possible when victim does not wish to participate in an investigation?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q82 Does the website offer guidance on how to obtain interim measures? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q83 If yes above, what is the policy? 

❍ The victim's request will be honored 

❍ On a case by case basis, at the discretion of university personnel 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Not applicable 

Q84 Does the website provide a time frame for completing the investigation after a report?

❍ Yes, specify time frame ____________________

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q85 Is there a restorative justice/reintegration program for alleged perpetrators who accept responsibility for violation 

before adjudication proceedings begin?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q86 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers.

Q87 SECTION 4: ADJUDICATION

Q88 Does the website provide information about state laws or university policies regarding victim rights in the adjudication 

of sexual assault complaints?

❍ Yes, reference to state laws

❍ Yes, reference to university policies 

❍ Yes, both state law and university policies are referenced 

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-11
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q89 Does the website provide information about state laws or university policies regarding alleged perpetrator rights in 

the adjudication of sexual assault complaints?

❍ Yes, reference to state laws

❍ Yes, reference to university policies 

❍ Yes, both state law and university policies are referenced 

❍ Could not locate 

Q90 What campus actors are generally involved in determining if a person is responsible vs. not responsible for violation? 

❍ General conduct board 

❍ Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault 

❍ Administrative panel 

❍ Sole campus administrator

❍ Investigator 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q91 If a general conduct board or conduct board specific to handling sexual assault are involved in determining the 

responsible/non-responsible status, are students included as members of these boards? 

General conduct 

board 

Conduct board 

specific to 

handling sexual 

assault 

Yes

❍

❍

No 

❍

❍

Could not locate 

❍

❍

Not applicable 

❍

❍

Q92 What is the role of the investigator(s) in determining if alleged perpetrator is responsible/not responsible for a 

violation?

❍ Present results to board/administrators for review in making responsible/not responsible determination 

❍ Participates directly with administration in determining the responsible/not responsible decision 

❍ Has sole responsibility for determining responsible/not responsible 

❍ No role in determining responsible/not responsible 

❍ Could not locate 

Q93 Does the alleged perpetrator have an adjudication format choice? 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Under certain circumstances, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q94 If yes, what are the choices? Check all that apply 

❑ General conduct board with student members 

❑ General conduct board with no student members 

❑ Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault with student members 

❑ Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault with no student members 

❑ Administrative panel 

❑ Sole campus administrator

❑ Investigator 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Not applicable 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-12
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q95 Does the policy mention that the victim's prior sexual behavior will not be considered in adjudication process? 

❍ Yes, during the responsible/not responsible decision 

❍ Yes, during the sanction process 

❍ Yes, during both the adjudication and sanction procedures

❍ Yes, but extent unclear or not mentioned 

❍ Could not locate 

Q96 Does the policy mention that the alleged perpetrator's prior sexual behavior will not be considered during the 

adjudication process?

❍ Yes, during the responsible/not responsible decision 

❍ Yes, during the sanction process 

❍ Yes, during both the adjudication and sanction procedures

❍ Yes, but extent unclear or not mentioned 

❍ Could not locate 

Q97 Does the policy mention that there is a possibility that information from confidential sources (i.e. medical services, 

counseling) sought by the victim may be admitted under legal ruling/hearing in an adjudication proceeding?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q98 Does the policy mention that there is a possibility that information from confidential sources (i.e. counseling) sought 

by the alleged offender may be admitted under legal ruling/hearing in an adjudication proceeding?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q99 During disciplinary proceedings, what are the victim's participation options? (Check all that apply) 

❑ Victim may be complainant 

❑ Victim may be co-complainant along with university 

❑ Victim may participate as a witness

❑ No participation 

❑ Could not locate 

Q100 Are alleged perpetrators allowed to present witnesses at hearings, meetings, or conferences?

❍ Yes, during the investigation 

❍ Yes, during adjudication 

❍ Yes, during investigation and adjudication 

❍ Yes, but no distinction between investigation and adjudication

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q101 If yes to above, is there a time limit on when witnesses can be presented?

❍ Yes, what is the time limit/deadline for identification of witnesses? ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q102 Are alleged perpetrators allowed to question the victim? 

❍ Yes, face to face

❍ Yes, through submitting written questions 

❍ Yes, but no details provided on method of questioning 

❍ Yes, by other means, specify ____________________ 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-13
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q103 Are alleged perpetrators allowed to question the witnesses? 

❍ Yes, face to face

❍ Yes, through submitting written questions 

❍ Yes, but no details provided on method of questioning 

❍ Yes, by other means, specify ____________________ 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q104 Are victims allowed to present witnesses at hearings, meetings, or conferences?

❍ Yes, during the investigation 

❍ Yes, during adjudication 

❍ Yes, during investigation and adjudication 

❍ Yes, but no distinction between investigation and adjudication

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q105 If yes to above, is there a time limit on when witnesses can be presented?

❍ Yes, what is the time limit/deadline for identification of witnesses? ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q106 Are victims allowed to question the alleged perpetrator?

❍ Yes, face to face

❍ Yes, through submitting written questions 

❍ Yes, but no details provided on method of questioning 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q107 Are victims allowed to question the witnesses?

❍ Yes, face to face

❍ Yes, through submitting written questions 

❍ Yes, but no details provided on method of questioning 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q108 What is the standard of proof used to determine responsible vs. not responsible?

❍ Preponderance of evidence 

❍ Beyond reasonable doubt 

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q109 What campus actors are involved in determining sanctions?

❍ General conduct board 

❍ Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault 

❍ Administrative panel 

❍ Sole campus administrator

❍ Other, please specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-14
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q110 If a general conduct board or conduct board specific for handling sexual assault are involved in determining 

sanctions, are students members of these boards? 

General conduct 

board 

Conduct board 

specific to 

handling sexual 

assault 

Yes

❍

❍

No 

❍

❍

Could not locate 

❍

❍

Not applicable 

❍

❍

Q111 What university sanctions are possible when a student is found responsible? Check all that apply. 

❑ Expulsion from school 

❑ Suspension from school 

❑ Warning 

❑ Probation 

❑ Change of residence 

❑ Notation on transcript 

❑ Awareness training (reflective essays, individual plan to address behavior) 

❑ Notification of judgment to local law enforcement 

❑ Monetary damages to victim 

❑ Mental health evaluation 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

Q112 Does the sanctioning process allow victim impact statements?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q113 Does the adjudication process apply if an accused student has graduated, voluntarily withdrawn, or transferred?

❍ Policy states process only applies to currently enrolled students 

❍ Policy states that process applies to students who have graduated 

❍ Policy states that process applies to students who have transferred 

❍ Policy states that process applies to students who have voluntarily withdrawn 

❍ Decided by University representative on a case by case basis 

❍ Could not locate 

Q114 If yes, what sanctions apply if the accused student is found in violation but has transferred? (check all that apply) 

❑ Notation on transcript 

❑ Notification of institution to which student transferred 

❑ Notification of local law enforcement where student transferred 

❑ Could not locate 

❑ Not applicable 

Q115 Does the website indicate that there is an appeal process?

❍ Yes, either victim or offender may appeal 

❍ Yes, only offender may appeal 

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-15
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q116 Are the circumstances under which an appeal is possible described?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

❍ Not applicable 

Q117 If yes to above, which circumstances are mentioned? Check all that apply. 

❑ Introductory of new information 

❑ Incorrect application of policies or procedures

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Not applicable 

Q118 Are there multiple stages to the appeal process?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q119 Who is responsible for handling final appeal?

❍ General conduct board 

❍ Conduct board specific to handling sexual assault 

❍ Administrative panel 

❍ Sole campus administrator

❍ Other, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q120 If general conduct board or conduct board specific to handling sexual assault are responsible for handling final 

appeal, are students members of these boards? 

General conduct 

board 

Conduct board 

specific to 

handling sexual 

assault 

Yes

❍

❍

No 

❍

❍

Could not locate 

❍

❍

Not applicable 

❍

❍

Q121 Does the website publish the outcomes of investigations (i.e. number of arrests, expulsions)?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q122 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers.

Q123 SECTION 5: STUDENT SERVICES 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-16
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q124 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide any information on a college-based 24-hour crisis line? 

Instructions for search: From school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "hotline;" view results and answer 

options below; enter recommended search term 2, if necessary: "24 hour"

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond 

❍ Could not locate 

Q125 Is there a college-based 24-hour crisis line?

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

Q126 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide any information on mental health counseling services? 

Instructions for search: From school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "counseling services;" view results

and answer options below; enter recommended search term 2, if necessary: "mental health"

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond 

❍ Could not locate 

Q127 Is there reference / link to information on mental health counseling services for victims available on campus?

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

Q128 Is there reference/ link to mental health counseling services off campus?

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

Q129 Is there reference/ link to any state or national resources that deal with sexual assault? e.g., RAINN 

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q130 Is there a Woman's Resource Center on campus?

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-17
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q131 LOCATION EFFORT QUESTION: Does the website provide any information on an on-campus medical services 

office? Instructions for search: From school homepage enter recommended search term 1. "medical services" View 

results and answer options below; enter recommended search term 2, if necessary: "health services" 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 1, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, directly on results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate information using search term 2, first link and 1 subsequent link from results page 

❍ Yes, was able to locate, but with additional effort beyond above 

❍ Could not locate 

Q132 Is there reference to medical services offered on campus? 

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

Q133 Are medical services available on campus 24/7?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q134 Do university health services include SANE exams or sexual assault kits?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q135 Is there reference to medical/health services offered off campus? 

❍ Yes, contact info included 

❍ Yes, no contact info included

❍ Could not locate 

Q136 Does the description of health and counseling services available on campus use language inclusive of the 

LGBTQIA population?

❍ Yes, uses gender neutral language 

❍ Yes, specific reference to LGBTQIA population 

❍ No, language is not inclusive 

Q137 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers.

Q138 SECTION 6: STUDENT CLIMATE

Q139 Is there a required education course for students that addresses student conduct/sexual assault awareness?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q140 Are there sexual assault reporting statistics available from a campus safety report? Check all that apply. 

❑ Yes, climate survey results 

❑ Yes, official police statistics (UCR, Clery Act) 

❑ Yes, incident log reported by police 

❑ Other, specify ____________________

❑ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-18
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________

Q141 What is the number of sexual assault incidents reported? Enter the number of incidents in the time frame in which

number is reported. (For example if incidents are reported on a yearly basis, enter the number there.) 

❍ Yearly ____________________

❍ Monthly ____________________

❍ Other time frame, specify time frame. For example: "Semester, 3" indicating reported by semester, 3 incidents

Q142 Are there sexual assault prevention tips provided?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Could not locate 

Q143 If yes to above, which sexual assault prevention tips provided? Check all that apply. 

❑ Mention alcohol use 

❑ Mention drug use 

❑ Mention consent 

❑ Location restrictions (i.e. warnings about times and places to be avoided) 

❑ Mention bystander behavior and looking out for each other (e.g., plans to go to and leave parties with friends?) 

❑ Not applicable 

Q144 If yes to above, do they suggest that the victim must do something differently? Change behavior? Take selfdefense?

❍ Yes

❍ No

❍ Not applicable 

Q145 Are student-led resource centers or awareness campaigns to combat sexual assault mentioned?

❍ Yes, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q146 Is there a bystander program on campus?

❍ Yes, specify ____________________

❍ Could not locate 

Q147 Are there other campus security / law enforcement programs to combat sexual assault? 

❍ Yes, specify ____________________

❍ No

Q148 Is there a self defense program offered to students?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q149 Are there support services offered to alleged perpetrators (students)?

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

Q150 Does the website contain a general statement about the college's commitment to responding to sexual assault? 

❍ Yes

❍ Could not locate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-19
Q151 If yes to above, what elements included in statement? Check all that apply 

❑ Privacy in reporting 

❑ Respectful treatment of victims (no judging) 

❑ Assistance with getting medical needs met 

❑ Commitment to investigation 

❑ Option and contact information for reporting if commitment not met 

❑ Other, Specify ____________________

❑ Not applicable 

Q152 Is there instruction on making a complaint of discrimination or harassment to the Department of Higher Education or 

Office of Civil Rights? 

❍ Yes

❍ No, could not locate 

Q153 Please take the time to double check that you have answered each question. Before you press "submit" you will get 

a reminder if you skipped a question that requires an answer. Please enter the complete time you spent on this scan 

session when you are finished, excluding breaks. If you took a break, do please let us know (in the comment field below) 

approximately how long it was so we can deduct it from the timing the survey tool captures behind the scenes.

Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix A

 

 

 

Spent Hours 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0

❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

Spent Minutes

Q154 Please provide any comments or insights on the preceding questions/answers. Once you press "SUBMIT" you will 

NOT be able to re-visit this particular data form. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A-20
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix B

RSACC Interview Survey (revised 5/23/18) 

I confirm that no coercion of any kind was used in seeking my participation in this 

research project and that I have read received the consent form and fully 

understand the purpose of the research project and its risks and benefits. 

By clicking "continue" you are agreeing to participate in this on-line portion of the 

study. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-1
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix B

Q1 When we ask about “campus sexual assault” we are referring to sexual assault by and 

against students that occurs either on or off campus. 

Q2 What is your job title? 

Q3 What role do you play in your institution’s response to campus sexual assault cases? 

(select all that apply) 

 Coordinator of the Title IX response process 

 Initial reviewer or part of the initial review team for sexual assault reports 

 Investigator or part of the investigative team (for campus decision-making) 

 Decision maker or part of the decision making team for determination of responsibility 

 Sanctioner or part of the sanction determining team 

 Appeals arbiter or part of the appeals team 

 Advocate or advisor for the complainant 

 Advocate or advisor for the respondent 

 Investigator or part of the investigative team for an on or off-campus policing function 

 Decision maker or part of the decision making team related to a criminal justice system 

process 

 Other, please explain: ____________________ 

Q4 How long have you been in your current job/role related to response to campus sexual 

assault cases at this institution? 

 Less than 1 month 

 Less than 1 year 

 1-5 years 

 More than 5 years 

Q5 Have you been in another role related to response to sexual assault on campus at your 

current institution? 

 Yes 

 No 

Q6 Have you been in any role related to response to campus sexual assault at any other 

institution? 

 Yes 

 No 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-2
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix B

Display This Question: 

If Have you been in another role related to response to sexual assault on campus at your 

current institution? Yes Is Selected 

Or Have you been in any role related to response to sexual assault on campus at any other 

institution? Yes Is Selected 

Q7 In total, combining your time in this current institution and at any other institution(s), how 

long have you been involved in response to campus sexual assault? 

 Less than 1 month 

 Less than 1 year 

 1-5 years 

 More than 5 years 

Q8 As an adjudicator or investigator how many cases of campus sexual assault have you been 

involved in at your current institution? 

 None 

 1-10 

 11-20 

 More than 20 

Q9 Over your entire career as an investigator or an adjudicator in how many cases of campus 

sexual assault at higher education institutions – including at your current institution – have you 

been involved? 

 None 

 1-10 

 11-20 

 21-50 

 More than 50 

How can individuals report a sexual assault at your institution? (check all that apply) 

 Call the Title IX staff directly 

 Email the Title IX staff directly 

 Anonymous online reporting system 

 Not anonymous online reporting system 

These questions cover training you may have received since June of 2017 to the present on 

responding to campus sexual assault complaints. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-3
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix B

Q10 Have you received training since June 2017? 

 Yes 

 No 

Display This Question: 

If Have you received training since June 2017? Yes Is Selected 

Q11 Thinking of the most recent training; What type of training was it? (select all that apply) 

 Online 

 In person on campus 

 In person at a conference 

 In person at another location 

Display This Question: 

If Have you received training since June 2017? Yes Is Selected 

Q12 Who delivered the training(s)? (select all that apply) 

 Someone at your institution (in-house training) 

 Membership organization (e.g., ATIXA, NACUA, NASPA) 

 Private company or consultant 

 Other, please specify type of trainer ____________________ 

Display This Question: 

If Have you received training since June 2017? Yes Is Selected 

Q13 How would you rate the quality of the training in giving people what they need to know to 

do their job (related to investigation and adjudication)? 1 = Not at all adequate in preparing for 

responsibilities related to campus sexual assault; 10 = Completely adequate in preparing for 

responsibilities related to campus sexual assault. 

 1=not at all adequate 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10=completely adequate 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-4
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix B

Q14 From the following list, select the top 3 training topics most needed for people responding 

to sexual assault at your institution. 

 Adjudication 

 Campus Climate Surveys 

 Clery Act 

 Investigations 

 Reporting 

 Rights of the accused 

 Sanctioning 

 Victim support 

 Other, please specify: ____________________ 

Q15 Please provide some basic demographic information. This information is used to help 

ensure that we interview a broad and diverse sample of campus community members. 

Q16 Gender: 

 Man 

 Woman 

 Non-binary, non-conforming, or gender-queer 

 My gender identity is not listed here 

 I prefer not to answer 

Q17 Race/Ethnicity (select all that apply): 

 American Indian or Alaska Native 

 Asian 

 Black or African American 

 Hispanic/Latino/a 

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

 White 

 My racial/ethnic identity is not listed here 

 I prefer not to answer 

Q18 Highest level of education completed: 

 High school, GED, or less 

 Some college 

 Associate’s degree 

 Bachelor’s degree 

 Graduate or other professional degree 

 Other, please specify: ____________________ 

Thank you for your participation. We look forward to talking to you soon. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

B-5
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

   

     

                                   

                          

                             

                                    

                                   

                                    

                               

                                    

                                     

                         

                       

                                 

                                   

                                     

           

                               

                        

                                   

                              

                    

                              

                         

                              

_______________________________________________________

1

INTRODUCTION

Interview Protocol

Re: informed consent

As you know, we are talking to people on campuses across the county to better understand successes and

challenges associated with investigating and adjudicating sexual assault complaints. We are aware of

changing state and federal landscape for implementing the Title IX provisions and approaches to handling

these cases, so we know there is no perfect time for completing these interviews. However, we also know

that you who are on the front lines are going forward with your day‐to‐day work responding to complaints

of sexual assault. So your input is very important and we thank you for agreeing to participate.

As a reminder, your identity and your institutions’ identity will be confidential but your experiences and

suggestions will help others learn from you so in the future the policies and procedures can be improved.

The interview is not being recorded, although we are taking notes but those notes are identified only by a

participant ID number and do not include any names of individuals or institutions.

I have some questions but mostly want to hear your experiences and suggestions.

When discussing reports of sexual assault for purposes of this interview we are referring to reports by

students of contact sexual assault by another student (we know that there are many other cases that don’t

involve contact and that these can be very serious and also pose challenges to handle... but for now our

focus is on contact sexual assault.)

When referring to an institution we are referring to your college or university... in other words to ‐

Note to interviewer: Throughout the interview, acknowledging the changing landscape, the interviewer

should be open to discussion of the current process and ho it is impacted by changes or anticipated

changes. By the end of the interview get a sense of whether the institution is:

__ Waiting for federal guidelines before it makes many changes

__ Primarily intending to stay the course with provisions implemented under the dear colleague letter

guidelines (unless they are forbidden from following the original guidance)

__ Already made many changes in effort to comply with new provisions and changing landscape

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-1
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

           

         

          

     

         

         

      

       

   

   

         

     

       

         

   

  

           

  

             

            

     

  

       

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

     

   

2

PROBE and CHECK LIST NOTES AND COMMENTS

Q1.

Who coordinates or oversees your

institution’s response to sexual assault

(role or titles)

Q2.

To whom does s/he report?

Does your school have a

Title IX coordinator?

☐ Yes

☐ No

Does this person have

other institutional

responsibilities (For

example, are they also the

director of human

resources or dean of

students?) or is being the

Title IX coordinator their

primary responsibility?

A. REPORTING

PROBE & CHECK LIST NOTES AND COMMENTS

Q3.

What is the most common way that

reports of sexual assault come in?

(Interviewer check off)

Method

Call the Title IX

staff directly

Email the Title IX

staff directly

Anonymous online

reporting system

Not anonymous

online reporting

system

Top 3 Reporters

Other, describe

Victim

Other student

Residence life staff

Other staff

Faculty

Coaches

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-2
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

           

   

     

       

       

         

   

  

  

       

         

           

  

       

               

       

  

           

                 

           

         

     

       

     

     

       

       

  

       

       

       

         

   

           

         

3

B. INITIAL STAGES

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q4.

What happens once a report is

received?

Alternate: Please quickly

walk me through the

typical steps that are

taken prior to a more

formal investigation or

fact‐gathering process?

(Prompt)

Who receives and reviews

the report (and do they/

how do they all end up

there)?

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q5. (THIS QUESTION LIKELY TO BE

SKIPPED)

How are requests for confidentiality

handled?

What is done when a reporting

student or a victim, if not the one who

reported, requests that no action be

taken?

What is the decision process

here? Are there

circumstances in which the

institution might move

forward with an

investigation even if a

complainant does not want

to?

(Prompt: What factors are

considered in making this

decision? What steps might

be taken other than an

investigation?)

And:

If the complaining student

wants no action to be taken

do they receive any relief?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-3
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

     

       

         

         

        

              

         

     

     

       

         

   

   

   

         

   

   

   

  

       

     

    

                 

         

         

  

             

   

   

     

     

   

                     

                   

     

4

REPORTING‐POLICE PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q6.

When or under what

circumstances do you report a

case to the police?

(How common is this?)

(Don’t read this interviewer checks

boxes)

When ongoing victim

safety is concern

When safety of others

on campus is a concern

at victim’s request

always

under certain

circumstances, explain

never

If you report, do you report to: (Don’t read this interviewer checks

boxes)

Campus safety/ security

Campus police

Local police

Both

Other, specify:

C.1. INVESTIGATION (with

Police)

INVESTIGATION PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q7.

When a case is or is going to be

investigated by the police, how

do you coordinate your campus

investigation?

What are the pros and cons of

this approach?

Are investigations: (Prompt)

Concurrent

Shared

Law enforcement takes priority

Campus investigation takes priority

Other, explain

(And does it matter if it is on or off campus...

be aware of prior OCR that LE invest should not

delay school’s attention.)

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-4
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

  

     

         

       

          

     

     

   

     

              

           

   

   

     

   

  

     

           

       

         

       

  

         

   

         

         

     

     

       

        

     

         

      

       

         

         

             

       

5

INVESTIGATION‐POLICE PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q8.

Does the institution have an

MOU or formalized agreement

with local (or campus) police?

___ Yes, Local

___ Yes, Campus

___ No

___ don’t know

What are the details of the MOU(s)?

Is the MOU helpful? How?

___ Yes

___ No

___ don’t know

C.2. INVESTIGATION

(general)

INVESTIGATION PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q9.

If it has been determined that

there should be an investigation

(or process that includes further

fact gathering), then generally

what happens?

Please walk me through the

typical steps to resolution.

Who conducts the investigation or fact‐

finding process? (don’t read this

interviewer checks boxes)

☐Title IX Coordinator/ Deputy Coordinator

☐External/Contracted Investigator –

Attorney

☐External/ Contracted Investigator – Non‐

Attorney

☐Internal (i.e., staff) Investigator –

Attorney

☐Internal (i.e., staff) Investigator – Non‐

Attorney

☐Other

At the investigation stage do

you have a hearing/ hearing

board process? (describe

including who is involved)

Also note details re: interim measures and

determination to move to adjudication.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-5
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

  

     

   

              

       

      

            

     

     

         

       

     

       

     

         

   

             

   

     

         

         

         

6

INVESTIGATION PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q10.

a. What have you found to be

helpful about your institution’s

investigative model/ approach?

b. What are the challenges in

using that model?

IF NO EXTERNAL INVESTIGATOR

A number of schools have

started contracting with outside

investigators for the

investigation of campus sexual

assault cases.

Have you considered doing this

at this institution:?

☐ YES

☐ NO  ‐ Why did you decide against that

model?

Don’t know

INVESTIGATION

PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q11.

At the conclusion of the

investigation stage, what is the

final product or decision?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-6
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

       

   

  

           

   

     

             

         

  

           

     

           

           

           

   

                     

       

     

   

     

             

           

           

   

  

     

           

      

       

   

     

7

D. ADJUDICATION

PROBE & CHECKLIST COMMENTS

Q12.

Once the investigation is

complete please walk me

through the adjudication

process.

What is the format of any

hearings?

Who are the decision‐makers?

Does the investigator make a decision of

responsibility— (who makes the decision

regarding responsibility?

Check boxes for choices—more than one

may be checked

sole (or __two or more) investigator

decision

___sole (or __two or more) investigator

decision affirmed by an individual in

the institution?

Who?_____

___an adjudicatory body reviews and

makes a decision?

General body

Sexual misconduct specific

___ a hearing takes place and the

hearing board adjudicates (what is the

format of the hearing body for

adjudication (number, composition,

etc.)

___ other describe

Are students involved on boards or

otherwise as adjudicatory decision‐makers?

Same Standard of Evidence:

Yes

No

Don’t know

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-7
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

   

           

       

     

           

         

               

           

       

           

             

        

     

   

  

   

   

  

       

      

   

   

8

Q13.

What standard do you follow in

making a determination of

responsibility? (check boxes)

if not already answered in the

response to the questions above

Is this the same system used for other

types of student misconduct, such as

academic misconduct or general

student misconduct?

Does the standard of evidence differ?

Does this process differ if the respondent

accepts responsibility? If so, how?

Standard of evidence:

Preponderance of

evidence

Clear and

Convincing

evidence

Beyond reasonable

doubt

Other, specify ‐

Do you find this

challenging? In what

ways?

Same Process:

Yes

No

Don’t know

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-8
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

           

           

       

         

       

             

           

   

   

   

   

     

       

       

     

       

     

9

SANCTIONING PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q14.

If there is a finding of responsibility,

what is the sanctioning process and

who determines the sanction?

Check boxes

Sole investigator

Team of investigators

General conduct board,

comprised of? __________

Conduct board specific to

handling sexual assault comprised

of? ____________________

Administrative panel, Comprised

of?_____________________

Sole campus administrator? Role

_________________________

Other? Please specify

Are these/is this the same decision‐

makers as who determines

responsibility?

Do students (other than the parties to

the complaint) have a role in

sanctioning?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-9
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

           

         

           

   

   

     

   

       

            

           

  

       

           

     

       

     

     

           

       

   

       

   

       

       

       

     

10

SANCTIONING

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q15.

If a hearing that involves the

complainant or respondent may occur

(for the sanctioning decision) what are

the details?

The complainant role?

The respondent role?

Other witnesses?

SANCTIONING

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q16. What are the benefits and

challenges of this model of/ approach

to sanctioning?

SANCTIONING

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q17.

What are some common factors that

you consider when determining

sanctions?

Factors (don’t read list)

Other conduct violations

Other sexual misconduct

violations

Remorse on the part of the

respondent

Admission of responsibility by

the respondent

Victim input (including Victim

Impact Statement)

Seriousness of the incident

(e.g., weapon involved, force

involved)

Injury to the victim

Personal characteristics of the

respondent

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-10
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

         

         

  

           

         

     

             

  

       

                 

           

        

   

       

             

       

   

          

         

     

         

         

            

     

       

         

         

             

          

             

           

  

             

           

             

11

Q18. Under what circumstances are

the sanctions of suspension or

expulsion used?

Q19. To your knowledge has the

institution suspended or expelled a

student for sexual misconduct?

Are there factors that warrant a more

serious sanction?

A less severe one?

If you think of past cases, are there

characteristics or issues that made it

difficult to determine sanctions?

What were those?

APPEALS

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q20.

Is there an appeals process for the

determination of responsibility and/or

sanction?

What is the appeal process?

What are the required/most common

bases for appeal?

Is there an appeals process?

Yes

No

I

s there a time frame?

What rights do the accused have?

FOLLOW UP PROCESS

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q21. ((THIS QUESTION LIKELY TO BE

SKIPPED)

What type of post‐hearing or post‐

sanctioning follow up (if any) do you

do with the involved parties?

What is done with the complainant in

the event of a finding of

responsibility?

What is done for complainants in the

event of a finding of no responsibility?

What is done with the respondent?

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-11
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

             

         

       

         

       

             

           

     

         

               

       

   

           

   

       

           

         

           

       

          

     

            

           

12

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q22.

Are there any recent (new) laws that

have been passed in your

jurisdiction/STATE that have impacted

your policies and practice? Specify:

CHALLENGES PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q23.

What do you think are the biggest

challenges to having an effective and

coordinated investigative and judicial

response to campus sexual assault

cases?

Has your campus been able to try any

solutions to address those

challenges?

What has worked and what has not?

RECOMMENDATIONS PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q24.

Are there any policies or procedures

your institution has implemented that

you think are particularly effective in

the investigation and adjudication of

campus sexual assault cases?

What are they?

What do you like about them?

Why do you think they are “working?”

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-12
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix C

       

                           

                          

       

               

           

     

           

           

               

      

             

           

13

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

PROBE & CHECK LIST COMMENTS

Q25.

Is there anything else you think it is

important for us to know about

handling these cases?

Is there someone else at your

institution with whom I should talk

who knows a lot about the types of

issues we discussed?

(do not divulge with whom we have

already talked/ or who has been

approached)

End with a debriefing review‐‐‐

Ask participant if they have any questions; remind them of confidentiality; assure that they

have a copy of the consent which also provides the contact phone numbers.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

C-13
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

Website Checklist 

Sexual violence is widespread on today’s college campuses: one in 4 or 5 college women and 

one in 16 college men experiences an attempted or completed sexual assault during their college 

career.1,2

 A primary resource for support for students who experience sexual violence, as well as 

those who they may tell who can help them, is the institution’s website. 

A high quality website is a critical part of providing a transparent, fair, and equitable response to 

campus sexual violence. A high quality website provides victims, those accused, and those 

working to support them with the information they need to make important decisions about 

reporting, self-care, and participation in any investigative or adjudicatory processes. To be 

helpful, information must be accurate, complete, comprehensive, and easy to locate and 

understand. This can be particularly helpful for students, who whether they are victims or 

accused, are accessing this information at a stressful juncture in their lives. For victims, 

information has been identified as one of their critical needs.3 Finally, all institutions of higher 

education that receive federal funds (including financial aid for students) are required to have a 

public provision of information regarding the institution’s programs, policies, and procedures 

related to sexual violence. A high quality website satisfies this requirement. 

Our project, the Responding to Sexual Assault on Campus (funded by the U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice), developed this website checklist to aid institutions in 

designing and maintaining user-friendly website content related to the prevention and response to 

sexual violence. It was developed based on the project’s review of 969 college and university 

websites by undergraduate students and policy documents related to federal requirements (e.g., 

the OCR Dear Colleague Letter 20114, the Clery Act including the Campus SaVE Act, the U.S. 

Department of Education’s final rule on the Campus SaVE Act, the OCR Title IX Q & A 20145

, 

and the OCR Title IX Q & A from September 2017). Many of the items on the checklist are 

recommendations based on the fact that most institutions make their Annual Campus Security 

Report required by the Clery Act public via their website. Some items are required to be on the 

website and others are recommended, which is indicated in the table in Part Three below. 

This document is comprised of three parts. 

Part One: Website design guidelines for website information related to sexual violence and the 

institution’s prevention and response efforts. 

Part Two: Semester review guidelines for regular maintenance of the website 

Part Three: Webpage checklist to outline what information should be included on the website 

1 Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women (NCJ 182369). Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

2 Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study 

Final Report (NCJ 221153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

3 International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2007). Enhancing law enforcement response to victims: A 21st century 

approach. Alexandria, VA: IACP. 4 Although the OCR Dear Colleague Letter 2011 is no longer an active guidance document, the information in it was considered 

and incorporated into this checklist guide as appropriate regarding website content. 5 Although the OCR Title IX Q & A 2014 is no longer an active guidance document, the information in it was considered and 

incorporated into this checklist guide as appropriate regarding website content. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-1
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

 

PART ONE: Website design guidelines 

✓ Make information available on the public access webpage and within any password 

access systems, such as campus portals 

✓ Whenever possible, make information available on the webpage, not as part of a pdf 

✓ When use of pdfs is necessary, insure the pdf is searchable 

✓ When use of pdfs is necessary, if they are long or have multiple sections, insure there is a 

live table of contents included, so users can click on a section title in the table of contents 

and be taken directly to that section of the document 

✓ Use a google powered search box for searching the institution website as it better 

accommodates misspellings and non-exact search terms 

✓ Insure that the web content is viewable across different platforms (computers, tablets, and 

phones) and web browsers 

✓ Make sure resources (on and off campus) are clearly designated as confidential or not 

confidential 

✓ Make sure long documents include a live table of contents 

✓ Insure that information on the website related to prevention and response to sexual 

violence is compatible with accessibility software programs for those with visual and 

other impairments, such as a text reader program 

✓ Work with the institution’s IT and/or marketing departments to assist with these efforts 

✓ Designate someone, preferably a student, to review the website information related to 

sexual violence prevention and response efforts before the start of every semester 

PART TWO: Semester review guidelines 

✓ Check all hyperlinks, both internal and external 

✓ Confirm phone numbers, locations, and names for all on and off campus resources 

✓ Insure that the most recent policy information is linked to or included on the web page 

✓ Do a search on the website using the terms rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and 

stalking to insure that users can easily locate resources and applicable policies 

PART THREE: Webpage checklist 

The information listed on the next page is either generally required to be available on an 

institution’s website or is recommended. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-2
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Required to 

be on 

Website 

Recommended 

to be on 

Website* 

Title IX Information, Policy & Procedures 

Name of Title IX Coordinator(s) X 

Contact information of Title IX Coordinator(s), including email, 

phone number, and office address 

X 

Notice of non-discrimination stating the institution does not 

discriminate on the basis of sex in education policies 

X 

Link to Title IX information on institution home page X 

Title IX policy, including: X 

Procedures that will be followed once a report is received X 

The time frame for the investigation X 

Descriptions of the disciplinary proceedings X 

The standard of evidence for disciplinary proceedings X 

That complainant and respondent can have advisors of their choice 

present during proceedings 

X 

Procedures for appeal by the complainant and respondent X 

That complainants and respondents will be notified simultaneously 

in writing of the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings and appeals 

X 

Notice that Title IX prohibits retaliation and officials at the 

institution will take steps to prevent retaliation and strongly respond 

to it if it occurs 

X 

Definitions 

Definitions of types of violence, including sexual harassment, sexual 

assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking 

X 

Definition of what constitutes a hostile environment X 

Definition of consent X 

Definition and identification of Responsible Employees under Title 

IX 

X 

Definition and identification of Campus Security Authorities under 

the Clery Act** 

X 

Reporting 

Clear instructions on how to report an incident of sexual assault, 

dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking 

X 

Online option for anonymous reporting X 

Statement of confidentiality, including how to request 

confidentiality, who will consider the request, and how 

confidentiality will be maintained 

X 

Support Resources 

Advice to victims, including: X 

The importance of preserving evidence X 

To whom the alleged offense should be reported X 

The option to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including 

on-campus and local police, and be assisted by campus authorities in 

doing so 

X 

The option to decline to notify law enforcement X 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-3
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Required to 

be on 

Website 

Recommended 

to be on 

Website* 

Support Resources, cont. 

Their rights and the institution's responsibilities regarding orders of 

protection, no contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful 

orders issued by a criminal, civil or tribal court 

X 

Describe the range of protective measures the institution offers 

following an allegation of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual 

assault, or stalking 

X 

Information on how to request accommodations including changing 

of academic situations, changing of living situations, changing of 

transportation situations, and changing of work situations 

X 

Resources available to victims on and off campus, including if the 

resource is confidential and details such as names, phone numbers, 

office location, emails, websites, costs, and specific services 

provided 

X 

Counseling and mental health services X 

Health services 

Victim advocacy services X 

Legal assistance for victims X 

Other services (e.g., disability services, LGBT services, academic 

support, service for international students) 

X 

Adjudications & Sanctions 

Notification that interim measures are available to complaints during 

investigation and adjudication 

X 

Notification that victims do not have to be present at a hearing for 

proceedings to go forward 

X 

Notification that a complainant’s sexual history with individuals 

other than the respondent will not be considered as a part of the 

proceedings 

X 

List all possible sanctions that may be imposed after a finding of 

responsibility 

X 

Prevention & Education 

Details of campus prevention programming, including that they 

cover sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and 

stalking, and cover topics including definitions, consent, safe and 

positive bystander interventions, and risk reduction 

X 

Three years of data in the number of incidents of sexual assault, 

dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking (as reported in the 

Annual Safety Report) 

X 

Results of the Campus Climate Survey X 

*If not included on website, must be made public in some form 

** See Clery Offenses Definitions attached to this document 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-4
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

 

APPENDIX D 

Clery Offenses Definitions 

Dating Violence is defined as violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social 

relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. The existence of such a relationship 

shall be determined based on the reporting party’s statement and with consideration of the length 

of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons 

involved in the relationship. 

For the purposes of this definition: 

• Dating violence includes, but is not limited to, sexual or physical abuse or the threat of such 

abuse. 

• Dating violence does not include acts covered under the definition of domestic violence. 

Domestic Violence is defined as a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence committed: 

• By a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim; 

• By a person with whom the victim shares a child in common; 

• By a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabitated with, the victim as a spouse or 

intimate partner; 

• By a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence 

laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime of violence occurred; 

• By any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts 

under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime of violence 

occurred. 

Sexual Assault (Sex Offenses) is any sexual act directed against another person, without consent 

of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent. 

• Rape is the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus, with any body part or 

object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. 

This offense includes the rape of both males and females. Include the crime as Rape, regardless 

of the age of the victim, if the victim did not consent or if the victim was incapable of giving 

consent. If the victim consented, the offender did not force or threaten the victim, and the 

victim was under the statutory age of consent, include the crime as Statutory Rape. 

• Fondling is the touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual 

gratification, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is 

incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of his/her temporary or 

permanent mental incapacity. 

• Incest is sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees 

wherein marriage is prohibited by law. 

• Statutory Rape is sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-5
Williams NIJ 2015-IJ-CX-0009 Draft Final Summary report_Appendix D

 

 

Stalking is defined as engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would 

cause a reasonable person to: 

• Fear for the person’s safety or the safety of others; or 

• Suffer substantial emotional distress. 

For the purposes of this definition: 

• Course of conduct means two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which the 

stalker directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, 

follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about a person, or 

interferes with a person’s property. 

• Reasonable person means a reasonable person under similar circumstances and with similar 

identities to the victim. 

• Substantial emotional distress means significant mental suffering or anguish that may, but does 

not necessarily require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

D-6