Title IX case management software that holds every deadline to the rule and keeps the investigator and decision-maker apart
Every notice and deadline held to the rule; investigator and decision-maker kept apart.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Title IX case management software runs a school's or college's response to sex discrimination and harassment from the first report to the appeal: outreach and supportive measures, notices to both parties, the investigation and evidence review, the hearing and the written determination. Title IX Case Management puts seven agents on that work. They draft with the rule cited, hold every deadline as one chain, check the report against the evidence both parties saw and keep each role's view separate, and the Coordinator approves every notice with a Deputy's co-signature.
AI in education: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for colleges, universities and school districts →
Updated
Title IX case management software has to hold a process the rule fixes step by step. Once a formal complaint is signed, the Title IX Coordinator sends written notice of the allegations to both parties, an investigator gathers the evidence, both parties get at least 10 days to review all directly related evidence, the investigative report reaches them at least 10 days before a live hearing, and a decision-maker who is neither the coordinator nor the investigator writes the determination (34 CFR 106.45, the 2020 text as recodified on September 29, 2026). An appeal goes to yet another person.
Today that runs in a case tracker, shared drives, email and calendars. The dozen dependent dates live in a spreadsheet and are recomputed by hand when one moves. Evidence that arrives late gets quoted in the report but never placed in the file the parties saw. Keeping the investigator and the decision-maker apart is a matter of memory. Title IX Case Management puts seven agents on that work, so the coordinator decides and co-signs instead of reconciling.
Estimated staff hours on one formal matter that goes to a hearing, by hand and with the agents. This is our arithmetic, kept modest, not a measured result.
Seven agents draft, check, time and wall each matter; the Coordinator approves and a Deputy co-signs.
Matter TIX-2026-0147 at Halden State University: stalking and sexual harassment between two students in Corwin Hall, reported on September 1. It is Wednesday, October 21, and the investigative report is due Friday. Here is the morning, screen by screen, in the working solution.
The agents write what changed since yesterday, each line cited: three screenshots quoted in TIX-2026-0147's draft report that neither party saw, 7 new reports with 3 outreach contacts due by 5:00 p.m., and a signed determination in TIX-2026-0098 waiting for release. The 36 open formal matters sit by step underneath.
The process line runs across the top in ten steps, from the report on Sep 1 to the appeal window, with today's step and each deadline marked. Below sit three panes, for the Coordinator, the Investigator and the Decision-Maker, and each opens with what that role cannot see. A dashed wall with a lock separates them.
The Decision-Maker's pane stays sealed until the final report is issued; a request to open draft v3 was refused at 9:02 a.m.
Before the report goes out, the Evidence agent traces every quotation and citation in draft v3 to the 214-page file both parties opened on Oct 9 and 10. Three do not trace: screenshots of an Aug 29 group chat, quoted on report pages 22 and 30, kept in the investigator's working notes since Oct 14 and never shared.
Asked to make Simone Ferrante-Watts the Decision-Maker, the Wall agent checks her roles in the matter, the HR system and the student information system, then refuses: she is the investigator. Prof. Alan Okonkwo-Reyes is flagged for having taught the respondent; Hon. Patricia Wendt (ret.) is clear.
The decision-maker cannot be the coordinator or the investigator (34 CFR 106.45(b)(7)(i)). Only the administrator can override, with the General Counsel's approval.
Simone adds the screenshots as pages 215–217. The Clock agent recalculates six dates from that one change: the evidence review restarts Oct 21 to Oct 31, the final report moves from Oct 23 to Nov 2, and the hearing moves from Wed Nov 4 to Mon Nov 16 at 1:00 p.m., the first date the Decision-Maker and both advisors can make.
The 90-business-day target of Jan 20, 2027 still holds.
The restart notice to the complainant and to the respondent sits side by side, identical except for the name and the advisor, with 34 CFR 106.45(b)(5)(vi) and 106.71 cited. Renata approves at 9:58 a.m., Deputy Coordinator Desmond Achterberg co-signs at 10:05 a.m., and both parties receive it at 10:06 a.m.
The Fairness agent reads the 41-page draft and pins three notes to their pages: an entry date on page 29 that the card-access log contradicts (Aug 27, not Aug 28), a question about the complainant's earlier relationship on page 18 that the rule excludes, and a witness discounted on page 31 for being the complainant's roommate. Simone accepts all three.
For the TIX-2026-0122 hearing, the Decision-Maker's view shows only the final report (36 pages) and the shared evidence file (188 pages), with 14 advisor questions pre-screened by the Fairness agent. Question 7, about prior sexual relationships, is flagged; Dr. Elbridge rules it not relevant, and his explanation is read to the parties.
The agent flags. Only the Decision-Maker rules on relevance.
Hon. Patricia Wendt (ret.) signed her written determination in TIX-2026-0098 at 5:40 p.m. yesterday. The Hearing agent checks its six required elements and never drafts a finding. Renata approves the release, Desmond co-signs, both parties receive it at once, and the appeal window runs to Wed Oct 28.
The access log shows who opened what and on whose authority, including two refusals: the Decision-Maker's request for draft v3, and a treatment record the investigator could not open without written consent. The export pack for OCR, DOJ or a court leaves only after the General Counsel approves it.
The same matter, seen by five people with five different walls: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents draft, check, time and wall each matter; the Coordinator approves and a Deputy co-signs.
Reads every report, applies the definitions and jurisdiction tests of 34 CFR 106.30, and drafts the outreach, supportive-measure options for both parties and the notice of allegations with each element cited.
Holds every rule and policy clock in a matter as one chain, recalculates it when a date moves, checks the 90-business-day target, finds the first hearing date everyone can make and drafts one date notice for both parties.
Indexes interviews, messages, statements and records to the page, and before a report goes out traces each quotation and citation to a page of the file both parties saw.
Reads draft reports for conclusions without evidence, status-based credibility, demeanor judgments and questions the rule excludes; pre-screens advisors' hearing questions; checks that notices are identical for both parties.
Keeps each role's view separate, checks conflicts in the HR system and the student information system, refuses to give one person two roles in a matter, and logs every view.
Schedules hearings, rooms and recording, drafts hearing notices, assembles the Decision-Maker's binder and checks the written determination's six required elements.
Keeps the seven-year record, builds the redacted export pack and drafts the annual report from the matters, with each count linked to the matters behind it.
Approves; the Deputy co-signs. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers with the evidence page and the rule cited, and opens the screen where the work is.
What moves if the evidence review restarts on TIX-2026-0147?
Six dates. The review runs Oct 21 to Oct 31, the final report moves from Oct 23 to Nov 2, the earliest hearing becomes Nov 12 (10 days after the report), and the hearing moves from Nov 4 to Nov 16, the first date everyone can make. The 90-business-day target still holds.
Who can be the decision-maker on TIX-2026-0147?
Not Renata Ollis or Simone Ferrante-Watts: the decision-maker cannot be the Coordinator or the investigator. Prof. Alan Okonkwo-Reyes taught the respondent last spring. Dr. Marcus Elbridge (assigned) and Hon. Patricia Wendt have no conflict.
What can the Decision-Maker see today?
Only the hearing date and the conflict check. He sees nothing of the file until the final report is issued, then only the shared evidence file and the report, never working notes or drafts. A request to open draft v3 was refused at 9:02 a.m.
Build the export pack for TIX-2026-0147 for OCR
Building it from the audit trail: timeline, notices with receipts, the evidence file as each party saw it, the access log and the agent versions, with other students' names redacted. The General Counsel approves the release.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The clocks, seals and retention every matter runs on are settings. Every change is saved as a new version, and changes to roles, clocks or notice templates need the Coordinator's approval.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Outreach after a report | Within 1 business day | Within 2 business days |
| Notice of allegations | Within 5 business days of a formal complaint | Within 3 business days |
| Evidence review | 10 calendar days, restarted when evidence is added | 14 calendar days |
| Report before the hearing | 10 calendar days | 14 calendar days |
| Formal process target | 90 business days | 60 or 120 business days; delays only for good cause, with notice to both parties |
| Escalation ladder | Owner, then the Coordinator after 1 day, then the Vice President for Equity and Compliance after 3 | Editable |
| Retention | 7 years after closure | 10 years after closure |
| Override reason codes | Agent misread the source · New information · Investigator judgment · Rule interpretation by counsel | Editable |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
Sources: 34 CFR Part 106, the 2020 text as recodified by the Department of Education on September 29, 2026 (§§ 106.30, 106.44, 106.45, 106.71) · Office for Civil Rights complaint counts, FY 2023 (19,201, 42% sex discrimination) and FY 2024 (22,687) · published university Title IX grievance policies (60–120 business days for a formal process) · "target" = design goal, measured in the live solution · "demo" = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · "typical" = published figures · "estimated" = our arithmetic, kept modest. Halden State University and the people named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Title IX case management software runs a school's or college's response to sex discrimination and harassment from the first report to the appeal: outreach and supportive measures, notices to both parties, the investigation and evidence review, the hearing and the written determination. Title IX Case Management puts seven agents on that work. They draft with the rule cited, hold every deadline as one chain, check the report against the evidence both parties saw and keep each role's view separate, and the Coordinator approves every notice with a Deputy's co-signature.
Under 34 CFR 106.45, the 2020 text as recodified on September 29, 2026: written notice of the allegations to both parties, an investigation, at least 10 days for both parties to review all directly related evidence, an investigative report at least 10 days before a live hearing, a written determination by a decision-maker who is not the coordinator or the investigator, and an appeal heard by another person. The Clock agent holds each of these periods as one chain and never shortens a period the rule sets.
No. The decision-maker cannot be the Title IX Coordinator or the investigator (34 CFR 106.45(b)(7)(i)), and each must be free of conflicts and bias. The Wall agent refuses any assignment that would give one person two roles in a matter, citing the rule, and checks the HR system and the student information system for conflicts such as having taught the respondent.
In the working solution's sample matters: a mutual no-contact directive, moving a student's lab section, a different grader, a campus safety escort on request, counseling referrals and academic advising. The Intake agent drafts the options for both parties from the university's measures menu, the Coordinator approves, and a Deputy co-signs any measure that changes a student record.
Published university grievance policies set 60 to 120 business days for a formal process. In Title IX Case Management the target is a setting, 90 business days by default, and the Clock agent checks it each time a date moves; in the sample matter, a restarted evidence review moved the hearing by 12 days and the target still held.
34 CFR 106.45(b)(10) requires each matter's records, including training materials, to be kept for seven years. The Records agent keeps that record, builds a redacted export pack for OCR, DOJ or a court, and drafts the annual report with each count linked to its matters; nothing is released without the General Counsel's approval.
Yes. The agents draft, check and refuse; they never send a notice, dismiss a complaint, add evidence, rule on relevance or draft a finding. The Coordinator approves and a Deputy co-signs every notice, the investigator alone adds evidence, and the Decision-Maker alone rules and writes the determination.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your grievance policy, notice templates and a sample of closed matters, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own matters first.
Every sanction checked against three years of like cases, with a complete hearing record.
1-min demoClery Act ComplianceEvery published number tied to its source reports, ready for a program review.
1-min demoBehavioral Intervention Team Case ManagementEvery report scored the same way within a day, with a trail of what the team knew and did.
1-min demoWe'll run Title IX Case Management on a sample of your own closed matters and your grievance policy.