When a college or university decides to bring in an external investigator, it usually does so for a reason. The institution may be dealing with a complicated complaint, an internal staffing shortage, a need for specialized expertise, or a situation where bringing in someone from outside the organization can help provide greater independence. Whatever the circumstances, choosing an external investigator should involve more than comparing hourly rates and checking availability.
Jeffrey Lamoureaux is an experienced Title IX and civil rights investigator, hearing officer, advisor, and trainer whose work includes investigations involving sex-based harassment, discrimination, employee misconduct, retaliation, workplace violence, pay equity, and other civil rights and workplace concerns. Through CIXE Investigations, Lamoureaux works with institutions throughout the investigative process, from identifying applicable policies and evidence through conducting interviews and preparing the final report.
According to Lamoureaux, institutions should expect an external investigator to bring expertise to the assignment while also providing communication, organization, neutrality, and a clear plan for moving the investigation forward.
The Investigator Should Understand the Process Before Asking Questions
An external investigation should not begin with someone simply scheduling interviews and hoping the important information emerges along the way. Important work must be completed first.
Once CIXE receives a matter, Lamoureaux begins by understanding the type of complaint involved and determining which institutional policies and procedures apply. From there, the investigator identifies the information and evidence needed and determines who should be interviewed.
“You need to understand what you’re investigating before you start asking people questions,” Lamoureaux explains. “If I know the policy, understand the allegations, and have identified the information I need, I can go into those interviews with a purpose instead of trying to build the investigation as I go.”
That preparation also helps determine interview order. CIXE typically interviews the complainant first, followed by witnesses and the respondent in the order the investigator determines is appropriate for the particular matter.
The lesson for institutions is simple: ask prospective external investigators what happens before the first interview. Their answer can reveal a great deal about how they approach the work.
Communication Should Continue Throughout the Investigation
Hiring an external investigator should not mean handing over a complaint and hearing nothing until a report arrives weeks later.
Lamoureaux considers communication with the institutional client an important part of the engagement. He keeps clients informed about the status of the investigation and remains available to answer questions as the matter progresses.
That communication can be especially valuable when an institution is managing other responsibilities surrounding a complaint. Administrators may need to coordinate schedules, respond to participant questions, manage supportive measures, or prepare for later stages of the resolution process.
“There is a difference between keeping an institution informed and allowing an institution to influence an investigation,” Lamoureaux says. “The client should know where the process stands, but the investigator still has to independently gather the facts and follow the evidence.”
Clear communication helps everyone understand what is happening without compromising the investigator’s responsibility to remain neutral.
Thorough Does Not Automatically Mean Slow
Investigations require time. Interviews need to be scheduled, evidence must be reviewed, and reports need to be carefully prepared. However, institutions should still ask prospective investigators about realistic completion timelines.
Lamoureaux reports that CIXE averages approximately 30 days to complete investigations involving matters such as sexual assault, dating, domestic violence, and stalking. Based on his professional experience, he says many institutions and external investigation providers take 60 days or longer to complete comparable matters.
The goal should never be speed for speed’s sake. A rushed investigation can create problems of its own. The better question is whether an investigator has a process that allows the work to move efficiently without sacrificing necessary interviews, evidence review, or careful reporting.
“A reasonable timeline comes from staying organized and keeping the investigation moving,” Lamoureaux says. “You don’t save time by skipping important steps. You save time by knowing what needs to happen next and not allowing unnecessary gaps to develop between those steps.”
Institutions should discuss timelines at the beginning of an engagement and understand what circumstances could reasonably extend them.
A Strong Report Reflects the Work Behind It
The final report is one of the most visible products of an investigation, but its quality depends on everything that happened before the writing began.
CIXE’s process includes incorporating summaries of relevant information obtained through interviews into the investigative report. For matters governed by Title IX regulations, the parties are provided access to review the draft report and associated relevant evidence and may submit comments for the investigator to consider before the report is finalized. Other types of matters may have different review procedures depending on the institution’s policies.
Lamoureaux says CIXE places particular emphasis on report quality and thoroughness. As a smaller investigation company, CIXE’s approach is to take the time to ask the necessary questions, gather relevant information, and produce detailed reports.
“A report shouldn’t leave the reader wondering how the investigator got from the interviews to the information presented in the report,” Lamoureaux says. “The work needs to be organized and detailed enough that someone reviewing it can understand what information was gathered and why it matters.”
Expertise Should Match the Investigation
Not every external investigator has experience with every type of complaint, which is why institutions should ask specific questions about previous work.
CIXE handles Title IX and civil rights investigations, but its experience also extends to matters involving pay equity, workplace violence, bullying, retaliation, whistleblower concerns, theft, and general employee misconduct or professionalism.
That breadth matters because workplace and campus complaints do not always fit neatly into one category. An allegation may involve several policies or require an investigator to understand overlapping institutional concerns.
Institutions should therefore ask more than, “Have you conducted investigations before?” They should ask whether the investigator has handled the type of matter at issue, how they approach evidence collection, how they plan interviews, and what their reports typically include.
Neutrality Has to Be Visible in the Work
Perhaps the most important expectation is also one of the simplest: an external investigator must be neutral.
Neutrality is not achieved by simply describing oneself as impartial. It has to show up in the investigator’s questions, evidence gathering, communication, and reporting. The investigator must remain willing to follow information wherever it leads rather than trying to confirm an early assumption.
The same principle applies later in the resolution process. In CIXE’s hearing officer work, for example, annual training includes bias, impartiality, and neutrality, and decisions must be supported by facts and clearly written findings.
For institutions considering an external investigator, this provides a useful standard. Look beyond credentials and ask how the person actually works.
The strongest external investigator should be able to explain how a complaint moves from intake to evidence collection, interviews, reporting, and completion. They should communicate without compromising independence, work efficiently without rushing, and demonstrate expertise relevant to the matter they have been asked to investigate.
As Lamoureaux puts it, “An institution isn’t just hiring someone to conduct interviews. They’re trusting that person to manage an entire investigative process carefully, fairly, and professionally. That responsibility should be reflected in every step of the work.”
→ For deeper coverage, head to our full archive.
There is no ads to display, Please add some
