UCLA Title IX Process: Civil Rights Office Investigations From Intake Through Appeal

At UCLA, Title IX matters are not handled by the Office of Student Conduct. They are investigated and adjudicated by the Civil Rights Office (CRO), which sits within UCLA's Equity, Diversity and Inclusion unit. UCLA's Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH), which the CRO administers, was updated effective January 1, 2026. Students who receive a notice from the CRO — whether as a complainant, respondent, or witness — are entering a structurally distinct process from any Student Conduct Code matter they may have heard about.

This guide walks through UCLA's Title IX/CRO process from intake through appeal under the updated SVSH policy. Process information current as of April 2026.

Why CRO, Not the Office of Student Conduct

UCLA's structure separates civil rights investigations from general student conduct proceedings. Title IX-covered matters — sexual harassment, sexual violence, certain forms of sex-based discrimination, and related retaliation — run through the CRO. The same allegation might carry Code consequences, but the fact-finding and determination happens in the CRO process first.

Practically, this means:

• The policy framework is the SVSH Policy (updated January 1, 2026), not the Interim 2026 Student Conduct Code.
• The investigators are CRO staff, not Reviewers from the Office of Student Conduct.
• The evidentiary framework, hearing structure, and procedural protections are specific to the CRO process.
• The appeal pathway is internal to the CRO structure, not through the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs.

Students who treat a CRO notice as if it were a Student Conduct notice usually mis-prepare.

The Five Steps of a CRO Investigation

CRO investigations under the updated SVSH Policy follow a five-step process:

1. Intake

A report reaches the CRO — from the complainant directly, through a responsible-employee report, through a third party, or through cross-referral from another UCLA office. Intake is the CRO's initial engagement: gathering basic information, explaining the process, offering supportive measures (accommodations like housing, course, or no-contact arrangements), and beginning to determine whether the matter falls within SVSH jurisdiction.

Supportive measures are available to both complainants and respondents and do not depend on the outcome of any investigation. They are worth asking about explicitly.

2. Assessment

The CRO determines whether the reported conduct, if true, would constitute a policy violation, and whether the parties and conduct fall within SVSH coverage. Not every report leads to a formal investigation; some are resolved through informal pathways, referred out, or closed at the assessment stage.

This is also when the CRO decides, based on the information available, how to proceed — including whether an alternative resolution pathway is appropriate or available to the parties.

3. Formal Investigation

If the matter proceeds formally, a CRO investigator is assigned. The investigator interviews the parties and witnesses, collects documentary and digital evidence, and builds the investigative record. Both parties receive notice of the allegations and have the opportunity to identify witnesses, submit evidence, and respond to the evidence gathered.

Under the updated SVSH policy framework, both parties have access to the relevant evidence prior to any hearing, with an opportunity to respond in writing.

4. Fact Finding Hearing

A Fact Finding Hearing is convened as part of the SVSH process. The hearing is a structured proceeding in which the hearing officer or panel receives the investigator's report, hears from the parties and witnesses, and makes findings of fact.

Both parties may be accompanied by an advisor during the hearing. Parties may submit questions for the hearing officer to ask the other party and witnesses; direct cross-examination between parties is not a default feature of UCLA's SVSH hearing design.

5. Appeal

The party or parties have a defined right to appeal the outcome of the Fact Finding Hearing on specified grounds — typically including procedural error, new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the hearing, and disproportionate sanction. The appeal is reviewed internally within the CRO appeal structure rather than through the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs path used for Student Conduct Code matters.

What Respondents Should Do Immediately

If you have received a notice from UCLA's Civil Rights Office identifying you as a respondent:

1. Do not contact the complainant. Under the SVSH policy, communication with the complainant outside the CRO process can itself constitute retaliation and create new jurisdiction against you.
2. Preserve evidence. Texts, DMs, emails, photos, location data, and any other digital record relevant to the allegation. Preserve in place — do not delete, edit, or modify anything.
3. Ask about supportive measures. You are entitled to supportive measures as well, and the CRO can facilitate no-contact arrangements, academic accommodations, and housing arrangements regardless of the outcome.
4. Engage an Advisor immediately. The CRO process allows advisors throughout. AdvocatED advisors regularly support UCLA students through the CRO process, from intake interviews through the Fact Finding Hearing and appeal.
5. Think through disclosure obligations. Some programs, scholarships, and professional programs have disclosure obligations triggered by pending CRO matters. Handle these thoughtfully, not reactively.

What Complainants Should Know

Complainants also have process rights and protections under the SVSH policy, including access to supportive measures, participation in the investigation, the right to bring an advisor, and appeal rights. Complainants who are UCLA students have the same right to an Advisor during any meeting or hearing as respondents do.

Interaction With Student Conduct Code Matters

A CRO finding against a student respondent can result in sanctions that parallel those available under the Student Conduct Code, and in some configurations the matter may be referred for additional Student Conduct processing after the CRO process concludes. Students navigating both processes simultaneously need coordinated preparation — what's said or admitted in one process can reverberate through the other.

How AdvocatED Helps

AdvocatED advisors support UCLA students through every stage of the CRO process: intake, assessment, investigation interviews, evidence preparation, Fact Finding Hearing, and appeal. Our role is to help you prepare — drafting written statements, organizing documentary evidence, preparing for investigator and hearing questions, and advising you in real time during meetings as your Advisor under UCLA's framework.

CRO cases are procedurally distinct and substantively high-stakes. If you have received any communication from UCLA's Civil Rights Office, contact AdvocatED as soon as possible so we can align preparation with the specific stage your case is in.