When a student reports harassment or sexual misconduct, there is no process that can put things back as they were.
What a provider can do, however, is determine what happens next. And that response matters. For a student, making a report can take considerable courage, and navigating what follows can require further energy, persistence and specialist support over a prolonged period.
A process that is poorly handled can add to that burden and cause further harm.
A process that is fair, clear and responsive to a student’s needs can instead provide reassurance, restore a sense of safety and help the student find a way forward.
Getting the process right in individual cases, and being seen to do so, can increase confidence in the wider system. That may lead to more students making a report and increase demand on reporting systems in the short term. Ultimately, shining a light on what students experience is necessary to tackle unacceptable behaviours that thrive in the shadows.
At the OIA, when thinking about how to resolve a student’s complaint, we usually look at whether it is possible to put a student back in the position they would have been in, had a particular set of circumstances not occurred. But that approach is not appropriate when a student has experienced some form of harassment or sexual misconduct. What has happened cannot be undone. Providers cannot respond to these reports in the same way as a complaint about poor service or a dispute over a grade. An effective response requires a provider to make deliberate choices to prioritise student wellbeing.
Our new section of the Good Practice framework: responding to reports of harassment and sexual misconduct offers guidance to providers about designing and operating fair processes that support students who report harassment and sexual misconduct, as well as students who may have engaged in those behaviours. It forms part of the wider suite of OIA good practice guidance and draws on many of the core principles and approaches outlined in other sections.
Welfare above all
Providers should recognise that a student making a report may be affected by their experience in ways that affect how they communicate, process information and engage with formal processes. A trauma-informed approach means more than offering wellbeing support alongside a formal procedure. It means taking this into account in the design and operation of the process itself.
That means listening without judgment, providing clear information about options, avoiding unnecessary repetition of a student’s account, and helping students navigate additional processes wherever possible. Providers should think proactively about how they can reduce administrative burden and avoid requiring students to expend energy navigating systems when they are already dealing with the consequences of what happened. This approach applies to all students involved, including those whose behaviour has been reported.
Prioritising student welfare can mean taking an approach that is different to what we advise in other parts of the Good Practice Framework.
It isn’t too late
A student may report an experience some time after it happened, for many different reasons. The passage of time does not make the report irrelevant, nor should it be used as the sole reason to close down consideration of a report.
Providers should always direct any student who comes forward to appropriate sources of support, and consider whether the information they have shared indicates that there is any ongoing risk to address. It may not be possible to carry out a comprehensive disciplinary investigation when the circumstances reported are not recent. But providers should always consider whether it is possible, and proportionate, to explore the report further.
No timeframe
Students and their representatives have told us how difficult it can be when a process is ongoing for a long time. We agree, and we encourage providers to act as swiftly as possible to reach a resolution.
However, rushing students through a process can itself be harmful. The effects of trauma may mean that a student needs time to understand their options, decide what they want to do and engage with the process. A rigid timetable could prioritise administrative efficiency over what is proportionate and effective in the individual circumstances.
The absence of a firm timeframe does not give providers carte blanche to take as long as they wish. Our reviews will continue to criticise delay that is excessive or cannot be justified by the facts of the case.
Satisfactory resolutions
The guidance includes extensive detail about the fair operation of a student disciplinary process. But we also recognise that the outcome a reporting student needs may not be limited to whether disciplinary action is taken or what penalty is imposed.
Alternative approaches can sometimes focus more directly on reducing the impact on a student moving forward, while encouraging reflection and changes to behaviour outside a punitive framework. The appropriate approach will depend on the circumstances of the case.
Fairness is not only about reaching “the right outcome.” It is also about ensuring that the process itself does not cause avoidable further harm.
Our new guidance helps providers think about what it takes to get that response right.
