Coordination with local law enforcement agencies – By the May 1 notification deadline, Title IX offices contacted law enforcement agencies across the state and informed them of the new requirements for improved coordination between law enforcement agencies and the handling of protocols for the transmission of sexual abuse allegations, as well as the exchange of information and simultaneous investigations. The OCR divided the published results into two categories: (1) identification letters dealing with the resolution of administrative complaints and (2) compliance review reports on whether a recipient complies with federal citizens` law on the basis of an investigation initiated by the OCR. A third result is achieved in situations where the institution requests, prior to the conclusion of an investigation, to answer in the affirmative to the OCR in accordance with Section 302 CPM. If the OCR is satisfied that the negotiated settlement agreement adequately addresses all potential compliance concerns, it then issues a settlement letter summarizing the investigation to this point, including the settlement agreement that the institution must follow and which the OCR will monitor. In the last two scenarios in which the OCR asks the institution to enter into a settlement agreement, the updated MPC allows the institution to review the draft letter of regulation in order to inform the OCR of any material errors in the corresponding draft resolution. Comparison of $1.55 million highlights the importance of the implementation of HIPAA business agreements – March 16, 2016 As a general rule, there are three basic outcomes after the OCR believes that an investigation is appropriate and mediation or other OCR tools are not feasible. The first two results, which were found in Section 303 of the MPC, include a thorough investigation by the OCR. If, as a result of an investigation, the OCR finds that the Institute has not violated any of the laws applied by the OCR, the OCR publishes a letter of resolution indicating that the allegations are unfounded or do not constitute a violation of the laws applied by the OCR. If oCR finds, following an investigation, that the institution does not agree with the federal laws that the OCR applies, it also publishes a letter of resolution in which these compliance issues are discussed, the main difference in this second result being that the letter of settlement is accompanied by a resolution agreement setting out the corrective measures that the institution must implement and a period for which the institution controls the oCR institution to control the corrective measures. (The OCR also often makes hybrid findings in which it holds one institution responsible for certain offences, but not others). The summer was a busy time for the University of Alaska Title IX offices. System-wide staff prepared training and orientation activities, recorded reports and responded, provided resources to complainants and respondents, filled staff vacancies and conducted investigations.
In addition, the team continues to meet weekly and prepare all Title IX cases, to monitor and review and conclude further compliance work under the Voluntary Resolution Agreement (VRA) with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. While the updated procedure does not give institutions the right to require changes to an OCR resolution letter, this is the first time the OCR has given institutions the opportunity to verify these letters prior to regulation and is considering amending the letters to better reflect the facts. In particular, the updated MPC also states that “the OCR will amend, if necessary, the proposed settlement agreement to reflect possible corrections” to the settlement letter. It is considered that any adjustments made to a letter of resolution and expressed in a settlement agreement would benefit the institution, since the institution provides additional information or corrections to the minutes, but there are no restrictions in this regard.