Handling reports of harassment and sexual misconduct: consultation response

The consultation first sought opinions on the language that’s used in the framework.

The draft used the term ‘report’ to refer to both informal disclosures and more formal reports. Our members found that its use was problematic as it could deter students from seeking support after an incident. The framework is positioned as good practice for the sector, and university staff will potentially use it as a template for student-facing policies and information. If there isn’t a distinction between informal and formal disclosures, students who are unsure about how to proceed might feel intimidated by the process.

We also advised that the framework uses a variety of terms rather than a catch-all word such as ‘report’. The guidance would be clearer if it used terminology like ‘share’, ‘disclose’, ‘inform’ and ‘report’. A variety of terms would also support staff by providing more context about the types of reports being disclosed and clarifying the relevant steps that need to be taken by the provider. Many providers are already committed to responding to disclosures through compassionate communication, so introducing broader terminology would align with the OIA’s expectation for providers to adopt a trauma-informed approach to reports of harassment and sexual misconduct.

Services staff shouldn’t go beyond their remit. In their proposed framework, points 31 and 32 recommend that providers avoid using legalistic language when investigating a report. For our regulated members, it clearly establishes that it’s not their remit to make legal findings; their duty is to determine if the responding party has breached the provider’s student code of conduct.

Both points align with our view that Student Services staff shouldn’t take on more responsibilities when supporting their students. However, we feel they don’t neatly align with English regulation, which creates uncertainty about the boundaries of the provider’s responsibilities. Point 32 states that providers should avoid using problematic terminology like ‘alleged perpetrator’, yet point 31 acknowledges that the Office for Students has adopted legal definitions of harassment and sexual misconduct for its E6 regulation. This contradiction may confuse providers about their role in managing cases. Therefore, we recommended that the OIA work with the Office for Students to align providers’ responsibilities with regulatory language to clarify providers’ scope when handling reports.

Also, we valued that the OIA acknowledged it requires more feedback to inform guidance on how providers can effectively respond to reports from students in partnership arrangements. Our members have extensively discussed how they’re navigating and implementing the E6 condition in the context of partnership arrangements. Therefore, we recommended that roles and responsibilities in the framework cover transnational partnerships and UK further education providers.  

Lastly, we recommended that the OIA provides clearer guidance to address the possibility of university staff being called to testify during a police investigation. The guidance should clarify the intersection between police involvement and university processes so it aligns the limits of providers’ responsibilities and how staff can support students without overstepping their remit.

Throughout the framework, we felt the OIA failed to consider the workload and financial realities of the sector. For example, one of the sections discusses the use of mediation and informal resolution when dealing with reports of harassment and/or sexual misconduct. Depending on the incident, it mentions mediation may not be appropriate but doesn’t acknowledge institutional constraints. More specifically, we mentioned how small and specialist providers may not have available staff with relevant training to act as mediators when handling incidents. Mediation training for staff puts a financial burden on Student Services, which is already facing budget restrictions and reduced capacity to deliver student-facing services.  

The framework expects that providers assign new and independent staff to lead each stage of the process. It’s common practice for most institutions; however, it could strain small and specialist providers who operate with smaller teams.

Also, the framework suggests hiring an external company/investigator to investigate cases on its behalf. We agreed that the approach would relieve added pressures and increase a provider’s capacity and/or expertise to investigate a report.  However, it doesn’t acknowledge the financial implications of the approach. We welcomed the suggestion of partnerships between universities to help alleviate resource constraints for investigations, but requested examples of good practice to understand how this could work.

Overall, the guidance needed to provide more case studies and examples of good practice. We recommended that the framework include case studies covering the following:

• Approaches to handling reports in a small and/or specialist higher education provider.
• Approaches to handling reports from students located at a partner or franchised provider.
• A successful partnership approach between providers for investigations.
• Extending a trauma-informed and student-centred approach to interactions with responding students.
• Examples of reporting or responding parties hiring legal representation.