What Investigation Outcomes Do - and Don’t - Mean
When an investigation is closed as "unfounded," many assume that means the allegation was proven false or that nothing improper occurred. Maybe. But in most cases, "unfounded" means one thing: the investigator did not find sufficient evidence to meet the applicable evidentiary standard. That standard shifts depending on who is investigating, what tools they have, and what the inquiry is designed to accomplish.
School-Based Investigations - Preponderance of the Evidence: Based on the evidence available to the investigator, usually without the ability to compel certain witnesses and records, is it more likely than not that the accused engaged in conduct that violated school policy?
Civil Trial - Preponderance of the Evidence: Following litigation and court-monitored discovery of evidence, is it more likely than not that the defendant is liable for the unlawful conduct and resulting damages?
Criminal Indictment - Probable Cause: Based on the evidence collected by law enforcement through subpoenas and interviews, does the grand jury find that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it?
Criminal Conviction - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: After extensive evidentiary exchange and analysis and a criminal trial, did the evidence leave jurors firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt, with no other plausible explanation?
Police Inaction Should not End the School’s Response
Police and prosecutors operate under a higher burden of proof with many different considerations at play. Law enforcement’s decision to pursue criminal charges (or not) says nothing about whether the conduct violated school policy, safety concerns persist, or the school has independent obligations under Title IX, state law, or its own code of conduct. Schools have a separate mandate to provide a safe environment, and that mandate exists regardless of what happens in the criminal system.
Constraints on a School’s Investigation
Schools operate under investigative constraints that most people outside the process don't fully appreciate, and those constraints shape outcomes in ways that have nothing to do with the truth of the allegation. When a school investigation results in an "unfounded" finding, it is rarely because the evidence affirmatively showed that nothing happened. In the vast majority of cases, it is because the evidentiary record is thin: critical information is missing, incomplete, or simply not available.
When Witnesses Won't Talk
People who know what happened don't always say so. Witnesses refuse to cooperate for any number of reasons: fear of retaliation or getting in trouble, loyalty to the accused, or a simple unwillingness to get involved. Unlike law enforcement most, school investigators have no mechanism to compel a witness to participate.
When Critical Documents Are Out of Reach
Evidence doesn't always sit in the school's files. Records held by the parties and outside individuals or entities are beyond the school's authority to obtain. Think text messages and call records, private emails, Snapchat, and more. Without subpoena power, investigators work with what they're given, which is often incomplete.
When Student Witnesses Face Their Own Barriers
Student witnesses are a category unto themselves. Some are afraid to come forward. Others worry they'll face consequences for something they saw or were part of. Some are embarrassed and would rather stay quiet than walk through difficult questions with adults. Getting truthful, complete information from student witnesses requires skill, patience, and the right environment -- and even then, it isn't guaranteed.
Effective School Investigations
Schools cannot eliminate every barrier to evidence, but they can significantly reduce the impact of those barriers by investing in skilled, experienced investigators. A well-trained investigator knows how to build rapport with reluctant witnesses, ask questions that surface information rather than shut it down, and identify and preserve evidence before it disappears. They understand trauma-informed approaches that make it more likely students and staff will come forward and speak honestly. They know what to document, what to request, and how to construct a thorough record even when the picture is incomplete.
Over time, that kind of investigative practice does something else. Together with training and transparency, a robust response builds a culture where people believe that coming forward is worth it. When a school community sees that reports are taken seriously and handled with care and competence, more people are willing to participate in the process. That shift in culture may be the most important outcome of all, because the best evidence often comes from people who almost didn't say anything.
