Collect and classify
Bring reports from campus security authorities and other channels into a review process for offense type, Clery geography, and annual statistics.
For Arizona higher education
Clery work crosses campus police, student affairs, Title IX, conduct, and technology. NOW IMS starts with protected web reporting and a staff response workspace. See where it fits your program and what a university deployment would need to prove.
Built for an architecture and workflow discussion with campus technology and safety leaders.Protected web report with private follow-up
Safety, classification, geography, and response
Report, conversation, and case activity in view
Clery is an operating process, not an annual PDF. Reports, geography, warning decisions, logs, statistics, and disclosures depend on coordinated people and records.
Read federal guidance ↗01 / The campus obligations
These duties belong to the institution. A reporting platform can support the work, but campus officials still make the legal and safety decisions.
Bring reports from campus security authorities and other channels into a review process for offense type, Clery geography, and annual statistics.
Authorized officials decide when a Clery crime presents a serious or continuing threat, or a confirmed emergency calls for immediate notification.
Institutions with campus police or security departments must enter qualifying information within two business days, subject to specific exceptions.
The annual security report is due October 1. Hazing statistics and, where applicable, a campus hazing transparency report add to the process.
Program details: 2026–27 Federal Student Aid Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 6 and Appendix E disclosure requirements. Your Clery team and counsel determine how these rules apply to your institution.
02 / Explore a sample handoff
Select a fictional scenario. This preview illustrates the review questions; it does not classify crimes, send warnings, or run Neo AI.
ILLUSTRATIVE RESPONSE PATH
A report identifies a location and possible offense. A reviewer needs the original account, report time, and a safe way to ask a follow-up question.
Campus officials determine the Clery classification, geography, crime-log handling, and whether a warning review is needed.
Document who received the report, what was decided, and the next responsible step.
03 / A CTO-ready evaluation
Use one campus workflow to test the connection between intake, access, response, and the systems your institution already runs.
Who can report, which campuses and properties are in scope, and how does a reporter return without identifying themselves?
Which roles may see a report, and how are cases involving a leader, employee, or investigator kept away from conflicted staff?
Walk through receipt, human review, acknowledgement, follow-up, and restart or delivery failure with your campus team.
Identify identity, alerting, records, export, and retention requirements before deciding how NOW IMS fits the existing stack.
NOW IMS currently offers anonymous web intake, a private claim-code conversation, and a staff case view. A university deployment requires a scoped security and workflow review. Automated Clery classification, official crime-log production, emergency notification, SMS and voice intake, and live Neo case triage are not part of this demonstrated offer.
04 / Arizona university walkthrough
Bring your Clery coordinator, campus safety lead, Title IX partner, and technology team. We’ll walk through a real process and identify fit, dependencies, and gaps.
This form is for a product conversation, not for reporting an incident. For immediate danger, call 911 or your campus emergency number.