Good Practice Framework: update summary

In our consultation response, we recommended that the OIA stop using the word ‘report’ as a catch-all term to better distinguish between informal and formal disclosures. We felt distinction was important to ensure students didn’t feel intimidated by the process, and we’re pleased that the new section now clearly differentiates between a disclosure and a report. A disclosure is defined as a student who informs their provider of an incident of harassment or sexual misconduct “in order to seek advice and support”. A report is defined as “the beginning of a formal process”. We believe that introducing further terminology better aligns with OIA’s expectation for providers to adopt a trauma-informed approach to reports of harassment and sexual misconduct.

The complaints body also outlines the terms it uses to distinguish between legal and regulatory requirements, good practice, and approaches providers can adapt to their circumstances. The terms are described as follows:

• ‘Must’ refers to a legal or regulatory requirement.

• ‘Should’ refers to best practice.

• ‘Can’ refers to where choice or flexibility can be exercised.

Welsh providers are already familiar with this language, as Medr already employs these terms in regulatory documents.

The framework now includes a section on partnership working when handling reports of harassment and sexual misconduct. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) recommends that providers assign clear responsibilities to the partner provider and the institution when handling reports.

In its draft form, we suggested that the proposed 90-day timeframe to respond to student complaints was unclear. The OIA has since removed the time-specific stipulation. Instead, it recommends that students are informed about their report’s progress and given clear timeframes at each stage. We also recommended that the OIA provided clearer guidance about the possibility of university staff being called to testify during a police investigation. Points 164 and 165 now clarify how police involvement may impact university processes, including the potential limits to providers’ responsibilities during a police investigation.

Before any formal investigation, the proposed guidance encouraged providers to organise informal mediation between the reporting and responding student. We advised that the suggestion failed to outline in which situations mediation wouldn’t be appropriate, e.g. a student reporting an experience of coercive control. We are therefore pleased to see that point 153 of the new section outlines specific examples where mediation is not an appropriate approach to handling reports.

Our consultation advocated for the introduction of case studies to inform how providers with partnership provision should respond to reports of harassment and/or sexual misconduct. As a resource for higher education providers, we felt examples would further strengthen the value of the Good Practice Framework. Unfortunately, case studies have not been included in the final version, so we will continue to encourage that examples are included, as we believe it would improve sector practice.