The Foundation of Credible Investigations
An investigation is only as good as its procedures. Proper procedures ensure:
- Fair treatment of all parties
- Accurate findings based on evidence
- Protection of witnesses
- Credible conclusions
- Defensible outcomes
Poor procedures lead to wrong conclusions, unfair treatment, and invalid findings.
OCC investigations are designed to be rigorous, fair, and credible.
Core Investigation Principles
Impartiality
Investigators must be impartial and unbiased. Investigators can’t have personal interest in the outcome. Investigators must follow evidence, not predisposition.
Confidentiality
Investigation information must be kept confidential to protect:
- Witnesses who might face retaliation
- Subjects whose reputation might be harmed
- Evidence that might be compromised
- The investigation process itself
Due Process
Subjects of investigation must be:
- Informed of allegations
- Given opportunity to respond
- Allowed to present their side
- Protected from unfair procedures
- Treated with respect
Evidence-Based
Conclusions must be based on evidence:
- Admissible evidence
- Credible evidence
- Sufficient evidence
- Corroborated evidence
- Physical evidence preferred over statements
Thoroughness
Investigations must:
- Examine all relevant facts
- Interview all relevant witnesses
- Obtain all relevant documents
- Follow leads to conclusion
- Not stop prematurely
Timeliness
Investigations must:
- Begin promptly
- Proceed diligently
- Be completed reasonably quickly
- Not delay findings indefinitely
- Respect parties’ need for resolution
Investigation Procedures
Phase 1: Intake and Assessment
Initial Complaint:
- Complaint is received from any source
- Complaint is documented in detail
- Preliminary information is gathered
- Initial assessment of credibility occurs
Threshold Assessment:
- Is the complaint within OCC jurisdiction?
- Does the complaint allege a violation OCC investigates?
- Is there sufficient information to proceed?
- Is the complaint credible on its face?
Decision to Investigate:
- Case manager reviews preliminary information
- Determination is made whether to open investigation
- Timeline for investigation is established
- Investigator is assigned
Phase 2: Preparation
Evidence Planning:
- Investigator identifies what evidence is needed
- Investigator identifies potential witnesses
- Investigator identifies relevant documents
- Investigation plan is created
Information Gathering:
- Public records are obtained
- Document requests are made
- Initial interviews are scheduled
- Background information is compiled
Phase 3: Initial Investigation
Witness Identification:
- All potential witnesses are identified
- Victims are interviewed
- Witnesses are interviewed
- Subjects are identified
Preliminary Interviews:
- Initial interviews are conducted
- Witness credibility is assessed
- Information is cross-checked
- Inconsistencies are noted
Document Collection:
- All relevant documents are obtained
- Documents are organized and reviewed
- Key documents are highlighted
- Chronology is established
Phase 4: Core Investigation
Subject Interview:
- Subject is formally notified of allegations
- Subject is given opportunity to respond
- Subject is interviewed formally
- Subject’s explanation is documented
- Subject’s evidence is obtained
Witness Interviews:
- Detailed interviews are conducted
- Witnesses are asked specific questions
- Prior statements are verified
- Contradictions are explored
- Additional information is developed
Evidence Analysis:
- Physical evidence is analyzed
- Documentary evidence is reviewed
- Timeline is established
- Inconsistencies are examined
- Evidence is corroborated
Expert Review:
- Specialists review complex issues
- Technical experts analyze technical evidence
- Medical experts review medical issues
- Legal experts address legal questions
Phase 5: Follow-Up Investigation
Inconsistency Resolution:
- Contradictions between witnesses are explored
- Explanations are sought
- Evidence is reexamined
- Questions are clarified
Gap Filling:
- Additional witnesses are interviewed
- Missing evidence is located
- Incomplete information is completed
- Timeline gaps are filled
Verification:
- Key facts are independently verified
- Claims are checked
- Documentary evidence is validated
- Witness accounts are corroborated
Phase 6: Analysis and Findings
Evidence Assessment:
- Evidence is evaluated for credibility
- Evidence is assessed for reliability
- Contradictions are analyzed
- Weight is assigned to evidence
Finding Determination:
- Sufficient evidence for a finding is required
- Standard is “preponderance of evidence” or higher
- Finding must be supported by evidence
- Alternative explanations are ruled out
Conclusion Development:
- Conclusions are drawn from evidence
- Findings are documented
- Reasoning is explained
- Recommendations are developed
Phase 7: Due Process
Subject Notification:
- Subject is informed of findings
- Subject is given opportunity to respond
- Subject can provide additional evidence
- Subject can appeal findings
Credibility Assessment:
- All parties’ credibility is assessed
- Bias is considered
- Incentives are examined
- Corroboration is required
Final Determination:
- All responses are considered
- Final determination is made
- If subject appeal is valid, finding is revised
- Final decision is documented
Phase 8: Reporting and Resolution
Investigation Report:
- Comprehensive report is prepared
- Facts are documented
- Evidence is summarized
- Findings are stated
- Recommendations are made
Notice to Parties:
- Findings are communicated
- Next steps are explained
- Appeal rights are described
- Implementation timeline is provided
Implementation:
- Corrective actions are ordered
- Timeline for compliance is set
- Follow-up is scheduled
- Compliance is monitored
Investigation Standards
Witness Interview Standards
Preparation:
- Investigator is prepared for interview
- Investigator knows relevant facts
- Questions are prepared
- Interview location is appropriate
Conduct:
- Interview is conducted respectfully
- Witness is made comfortable
- Witness is allowed to tell their story
- Investigator listens without interruption
- Follow-up questions are asked
- Credibility indicators are noted
Documentation:
- Interview is documented in writing
- Direct quotes are used when possible
- Interview is recorded when possible
- Witness confirms accuracy
- Interview is signed by witness when appropriate
Evidence Standards
Collection:
- Evidence is collected properly
- Evidence is not contaminated
- Chain of custody is maintained
- Evidence is preserved
- Evidence is appropriately stored
Handling:
- Investigators wear gloves for physical evidence
- Evidence is handled minimally
- Evidence is protected from contamination
- Evidence is logged immediately
- Evidence location is documented
Storage:
- Evidence is stored securely
- Evidence is protected from degradation
- Evidence is accessible for review
- Evidence is maintained throughout investigation
- Evidence is preserved for outside review
Document Standards
Authenticity:
- Documents are verified as authentic
- Original documents are obtained when possible
- Photocopies are certified as accurate
- Electronic documents are verified
- Document origin is established
Completeness:
- Full documents are obtained
- Pages aren’t missing
- Content isn’t altered
- Documents are legible
- Complete records are obtained
Organization:
- Documents are organized chronologically
- Documents are organized by topic
- Documents are indexed
- Documents are easily retrievable
- Key documents are highlighted
Common Investigation Errors to Avoid
Tunnel Vision
- Investigator becomes convinced too early
- Investigator ignores contradicting evidence
- Investigator doesn’t explore alternatives
- Investigation becomes one-sided
Prevention: Actively seek disconfirming evidence. Consider alternative explanations.
Confirmation Bias
- Investigator interprets evidence to fit predetermined conclusion
- Investigator emphasizes supporting evidence
- Investigator minimizes contradicting evidence
- Investigation is biased from start
Prevention: Document all evidence without interpretation first.
Leading Questions
- Investigator suggests answers in questions
- Investigator indicates desired response
- Witness agreement is forced
- Testimony is tainted
Prevention: Ask open-ended questions. Let witness provide information.
Inadequate Documentation
- Investigation details aren’t recorded
- Decisions aren’t justified
- Reasoning isn’t documented
- Investigation can’t be reviewed
Prevention: Document everything in real time.
Inadequate Investigation
- Investigation is stopped prematurely
- Witnesses aren’t interviewed
- Evidence isn’t collected
- Investigation is incomplete
Prevention: Complete investigation plan is executed.
Improper Procedure
- Procedures aren’t followed
- Shortcuts are taken
- Due process is skipped
- Investigation is unfair
Prevention: Procedures are strictly followed.
Investigation Quality Control
Internal Review
- Completed investigations are reviewed by supervisor
- Quality is assessed
- Findings are validated
- Recommendations are evaluated
Evidentiary Standard
- Evidence is evaluated by objective standard
- Findings require sufficient evidence
- Alternative explanations are considered
- Burden of proof is met
Appeal Rights
- Subjects can appeal findings
- Appellate review is independent
- Appellate review is thorough
- Appeals are decided fairly
Transparency
- Process is documented
- Decisions are explained
- Reports are detailed
- Reasoning is clear
Investigation Timeline
Intake to Decision: 30-60 days for typical cases Complex Cases: May require 90-180 days Urgent Cases: May be expedited Follow-Up: May continue after initial resolution
Investigation Costs
Most investigations by OCC are at no cost to complainants. Investigations are funded by OCC’s mandate to investigate institutional conduct.
Some investigations may require expert analysis or specialized testing. OCC discusses costs with parties when applicable.
Confidentiality in Investigations
Information Protected
- Witness identities (except final report)
- Investigation details
- Evidence locations
- Interview notes
- Preliminary findings
Information Disclosed
- Final findings
- Supporting evidence
- Subject’s right to respond
- Public summary if appropriate
Exceptions
- Court orders for evidence
- Criminal investigations
- Law enforcement requests
- Mandatory reporting requirements
For Complainants: What to Expect
Initial Contact
- OCC acknowledges complaint
- OCC explains process
- OCC establishes timeline
- Complainant can ask questions
Investigation Process
- Complainant is interviewed
- Complainant provides evidence
- Complainant is kept informed
- Complainant receives updates
Findings
- Complainant is informed of findings
- Findings are explained
- Remedies are described
- Next steps are outlined
Appeal
- If dissatisfied, complainant can appeal
- Appeal process is explained
- Appeal is heard by different reviewer
- Appeal decision is final
For Subjects: What to Expect
Notification
- Subject is notified of complaint
- Allegations are described
- Subject is given opportunity to respond
- Timeline is provided
Investigation
- Subject is interviewed
- Subject can provide evidence
- Subject can provide witnesses
- Subject is treated fairly
Due Process
- Subject can respond to findings
- Subject can appeal findings
- Subject has right to counsel
- Subject is treated with respect
Outcome
- Findings are communicated
- Reasoning is explained
- Remedies or discipline is described
- Appeal rights are explained
The Importance of Proper Investigation
Proper investigations:
- Find the truth
- Protect the innocent
- Hold the guilty accountable
- Maintain credibility
- Build public confidence
- Enable correction
- Prevent recurrence
The Bottom Line
Investigations are the foundation of accountability. Proper investigations are rigorous, fair, and evidence-based. They find truth and enable justice.
OCC investigations follow these principles to ensure that findings are credible, fair, and just.
Because accountability depends on proper investigation.
That’s what justice demands.