When a college or university hires an investigator, one of the first questions is often also one of the hardest to answer: How long will this take?
It is a reasonable question. An unresolved investigation can affect students, employees, administrators, and entire departments. People are waiting for interviews, decisions, and the opportunity to move forward. At the same time, promising an unrealistically fast turnaround can create a different problem. Investigations need enough time for evidence collection, interviews, follow-up questions, report preparation, and any review procedures required by institutional policy.
That is why the timeline conversation should happen before the first interview, not halfway through an investigation. A realistic timeline gives the institution an opportunity to understand how the investigator manages a case, what could cause delays, and what everyone can do to keep the process moving.
A Timeline Tells You Something About the Investigator's Process
When evaluating an external investigator, institutions understandably ask about experience, qualifications, and cost. They should also ask how the investigator manages time.
The answer can reveal quite a bit.
An investigator who can explain the steps between receiving a complaint and submitting a final report probably has an established approach to case management. The investigator should be able to discuss how evidence is requested, how interviews are scheduled, when follow-up occurs, and what happens if new information emerges.
Experienced Title IX and civil rights investigator Jeffrey Lamoureaux reports that CIXE Investigations averages approximately 30 days to complete certain cases, including investigations involving sexual assault, dating or domestic violence, and stalking. Based on his professional experience, Lamoureaux says many institutions and external investigation companies average 60 days or longer for similar investigations.
That comparison should not be interpreted as a universal 30-day deadline. Every investigation is different. Instead, it raises a useful question for institutions: What is happening during those 30, 60, or more days?
The Clock Starts Before Anyone Sits Down for an Interview
A common mistake is treating the first interview as the true beginning of an investigation. In reality, important decisions should already have been made by then.
CIXE begins by identifying the type of complaint involved and determining which policies and procedures apply. The investigator then considers what evidence and information will be needed and who should be interviewed. The investigator generally interviews the complainant first, followed by witnesses and the respondent, in the order the investigator determines is appropriate.
That early planning can significantly affect the eventual timeline.
Suppose an investigator schedules the first interview immediately but has not yet considered what records will be necessary. A week later, the investigator realizes certain communications are needed. After receiving them, the investigator identifies another witness. Scheduling that witness takes another week, and the new interview produces information requiring additional follow-up. Suddenly, a case that appeared to get off to a fast start has accumulated several avoidable delays.
A better approach is to spend some time at the beginning creating an initial evidence list, witness list, interview plan, and schedule. The plan will almost certainly change, but having one gives the investigation a starting point.
Scheduling Can Quietly Become the Biggest Delay
Interview scheduling is not particularly exciting, but it can make or break an investigation timeline.
A complicated investigation may involve a complainant, respondent, several witnesses, advisors, and people with busy academic or professional schedules. If each interview is scheduled only after the previous one has been completed, days can quickly turn into weeks.
Institutions can help by promptly sharing contact information and identifying an institutional liaison who can respond when the investigator needs records or administrative support. Investigators can help by beginning outreach early and planning several steps ahead.
The goal is not to cram every interview into the shortest possible window. Interview order can matter, and new information may change the plan. The goal is simply to avoid losing time because nobody was thinking about next Tuesday until Monday afternoon.
Evidence Has Its Own Timeline
Evidence is another reason institutions should be cautious about accepting a completion estimate without asking how it was calculated.
Some evidence can be obtained immediately. Other records may take time. An interview may reveal text messages, emails, documents, photographs, or another witness that nobody knew existed when the complaint was first received.
Investigators therefore need to begin identifying evidence early while remaining flexible enough to pursue new information later.
A practical case-management technique is to maintain a running list of requested, received, and outstanding evidence. Each item should have a request date and a follow-up date. That simple system helps prevent an investigation from sitting idle because everyone assumed someone else was obtaining a record.
Communication Prevents Timeline Surprises
Institutions should not learn that an investigation is running late on the day they expected the final report.
Regular communication helps prevent that.
Lamoureaux says CIXE maintains ongoing communication with institutional clients to keep them informed about the status of investigations and answer questions throughout the engagement.
A useful status update does not have to reveal confidential details or interfere with the investigator's independence. It can be straightforward: interviews are underway, three remain to be completed, additional records have been requested, and the expected completion date remains unchanged.
If something does change, the investigator should explain why.
For example, an investigator may initially anticipate completing a case within a month. During the fourth interview, however, a participant identifies three previously unknown witnesses with potentially relevant information. Interviewing those people may extend the timeline, but that is very different from extending the timeline because nobody scheduled interviews for two weeks.
Some Delays Are Signs of a Thorough Investigation
Institutions should be careful not to treat every extension as a failure.
Sometimes taking additional time is exactly what a responsible investigator should do. New allegations may emerge. A critical witness may be temporarily unavailable. A large amount of evidence may need review. Follow-up interviews may become necessary after conflicting information is discovered.
For applicable Title IX matters handled by CIXE, the timeline may also include party access to the draft report and relevant evidence, an opportunity to submit comments, consideration of those comments, and preparation of the final report.
Those steps take time because they are part of the process.
The useful distinction is between necessary time and inactive time. Necessary time contributes something to the investigation. Inactive time is a gap when the case simply isn't moving.
Ask Better Questions Before Hiring an Investigator
Instead of only asking, "How quickly can you finish?" institutions should ask prospective investigators to explain how they arrived at their estimated timeline.
Ask how soon they can begin. Ask how they schedule interviews and request evidence. Find out how many cases they are managing simultaneously. Ask how frequently the institution will receive updates and what circumstances commonly extend an investigation.
Most importantly, ask what happens when the original plan changes.
A strong answer will probably contain some uncertainty because no investigator can know exactly what a case will uncover before beginning the work. What matters is whether there is a clear system for managing that uncertainty.
Discussing timelines before the first interview creates realistic expectations for everyone involved. It also gives institutions a useful window into how an investigator actually works.
The goal should never be to select whoever promises the shortest investigation. The better goal is to find an investigator who can explain how the case will keep moving, recognize when additional time is genuinely necessary, and ensure efficiency never comes at the expense of thorough work.
