Published on: July 15, 2026
An ATIXA Tip of the Week by Kayleigh Baker, J.D., and Kimberly Pacelli, J.D., M.Ed.
Recently released resolution agreements from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) signal increased scrutiny under Title VI for K-12 districts and higher education institutions, underscoring the need for well-defined grievance processes to maintain compliance.
We recently explored this topic during an ATIXA + VI subscribers-only VIewpoints event. Below are key takeaways from that conversation to help turn insights into action.
Access Exclusive Insights
ATIXA + VI subscribers can watch the recording.
Not a subscriber? Join ATIXA + VI today to access this event summary and other valuable resources.
Developing Mature Title VI Procedures
Although Title VI requires institutions to have a grievance process, what that process should look like is not clearly described, and federal agencies have historically offered little additional guidance. This gap has led many to adopt the most basic processes with little procedural detail. However, recent enforcement trends suggest that educational institutions should pay closer attention and adopt more robust procedures.
OCR resolution agreements are increasingly detailed and prescriptive, reflecting what regulators expect to see in practice, even if those expectations are not yet codified in formal regulations.
Emerging State-Level Expectations
ATIXA experts note a growing trend toward more formalized oversight of Title VI compliance for federally funded educational institutions. In some states and educational systems, this includes designating a Title VI coordinator, implementing reporting and documentation requirements, centralizing complaint tracking, and adopting more structured grievance procedures. No one should be surprised as Title VI evolves in Title IX-like directions over time, both at federal and state levels (with statutes in some states covering the same protected classes as Title VI).
In practice, this means some districts and institutions must now navigate both federal and state frameworks, which adds another layer of accountability and complexity. Even in states without formal mandates, system offices, boards, and state agencies are increasing pressure on institutions to demonstrate that their Title VI processes are well-defined, consistent, and effectively operationalized. Now is the time to remove politics from this discussion and ramp up procedures for all groups who are protected under Title VI, depending on context.
To help ensure the processes we have in place promote equity for all, ATIXA offers Model Policies and Procedures to help practitioners align with national best practices. ATIXA’s One Policy, Two Procedures (1P2P) Model is designed for the resolution of all allegations of all forms of Protected Characteristic discrimination, including Title VI and Title IX. Alternatively, practitioners can use ATIXA’s Title VI Model Policy as a strong, standalone framework for addressing Title VI complaints.
Key Questions for Evaluating the Process
An effective Title VI procedure should reflect the same level of intentionality and structure as a Title IX procedure. Practitioners can ask themselves the following questions:
1. How are Title VI reports received and documented?
The process should outline multiple reporting options and clarify how reports are captured, tracked, and assessed. Informal intake processes create risk and inconsistency.
2. Who is responsible for oversight?
Even if not yet required by your state, designating a Title VI coordinator or clearly assigning responsibility is a best practice. Lack of ownership leads to gaps in response and accountability.
3. What happens after a report is received?
Spell out the initial assessment process. What criteria determine whether a report proceeds to investigation? What supportive measures and remedies are available?
4. How are investigations conducted?
Procedures should describe the investigation process in plain terms, including notice to the parties, opportunities to present information, and the evaluation of evidence.
5. How are decisions made and communicated?
Clarity around findings, standards of proof, and written outcomes is critical. Parties should understand the result and how it was reached.
6. Is there an appeal?
If appeals are offered, define the grounds and procedures. If not, be prepared to explain why the process is still equitable and reliable.
Prioritize with a Gap Analysis
Conducting a gap analysis is a practical measure to compare current procedures against recent OCR resolution agreements, emerging state laws, and ATIXA’s recommended best practices. It will help to identify areas that lack clarity, structure, or documentation. For instance, this analysis might show that reporting channels are confusing, roles are undefined, or documentation is inconsistent. It can also highlight practices that exist but aren’t written down, creating potential risks.
We’ll take a moment here to gently remind you of ATIXA’s history. We made recommendations for years for similar practices under Title IX long before 2011, and the field responded largely with assertions that these practices were not required. Then, the government required them, through a painful sequence of Dear Colleague Letters, OCR investigations, and lawsuits. We’re taking the same approach now, encouraging schools and colleges to get out ahead of the same vector that Title VI is now taking. The writing is on the wall. This is what is coming. Whether you get out ahead of it proactively or scramble to comply once it becomes a fait accompli is entirely up to you, but all schools will wind up in the same place eventually. Some will wait and take the hard way, and some will act now.
For those inclined to act, a gap analysis provides a clear roadmap for improvement, focusing on the highest-risk areas first. You won’t be able to fix every gap at once, but small, targeted improvements can significantly strengthen compliance and consistency over time.
Framing it to Your Stakeholders
To gain leadership support, frame the conversation about strengthening your Title VI compliance in terms of risk, consistency, and credibility. These three concepts resonate with institutional leaders and connect them to broader goals. We’re in unique times. See the recent decision in Gartenberg v. Cooper Union as a recent example. This is all the more reason to have your Title VI ducks in a row. As the legal and regulatory frameworks are developed, institutions would do well to plan two to three steps ahead, not just one.
From a risk perspective, OCR complaints and resolution agreements are resource-intensive. In terms of consistency, unclear or unreliable procedures can lead to perceptions of bias and may increase liability exposure. This lack of a transparent, well-structured process can erode credibility with students, employees, and the community. Framing the need for change as a matter of maintaining trust may resonate with leadership.
Title VI improvements can also be framed as a maturation of compliance programs. Most institutions have already evolved their Title IX processes from informal practices to structured systems. Applying the same rigor to Title VI is a logical next step that allows you to build on existing infrastructure.
Avoid These Common Pitfalls
As districts and institutions expand their Title VI programs, they should avoid repurposing Title IX policies and procedures. Relying too heavily on Title IX templates overlooks the unique conduct and community impacts associated with Title VI, and the broader scope of Title VI compared to Title IX, not just topically, but with respect to notice and jurisdiction. While Title IX frameworks can be a useful starting point, institutions must adapt their approach to address the distinct realities of Title VI compliance.
Another pitfall to avoid is inconsistent application. Strong policies and procedures are meaningless if they are not followed reliably. Proper Title VI training for all relevant staff members helps to ensure procedures are implemented as written.
A lack of documentation also presents challenges. Without it, institutions struggle to demonstrate they responded appropriately. Clear documentation at every stage creates a record of compliance and supports transparency, especially amid concerns about increased OCR scrutiny.
If you’re taking a “wait-and-see” approach, consider that OCR is showing no signs of slowing down on enforcing Title VI through resolution agreements. Delaying improvements increases institutional risk and potential costs. Making incremental updates now is a wiser strategy than waiting for formal regulations to be announced. We know this from Title IX’s similar trajectory 15 years ago.
If You Need Support, We’re Here
Districts and institutions that act now to shift Title VI compliance from minimal to robust will be better positioned to navigate scrutiny, respond effectively to reports, and build trust within their communities.
For more guidance, ATIXA’s parent organization, TNG Consulting, offers custom consultations. Reach out to inquiry@tngconsulting.com. And, don’t forget that ATIXA +VI subscriptions offer resources on Title VI that align with the strong support ATIXA already provides for Title IX compliance.