Response to sexual harassment should be trauma-focused, says OIA

Universities should prioritise “trauma-informed” responses to sexual harassment complaints, the student ombudsman has said, even if that slows down internal processes.

In a report published on 15 September, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which reviews student complaints against universities in England and Wales, outlines that centring student well-being is more important than “sticking rigidly to a set of process steps” when it comes to sexual harassment, because of the emotional turmoil involved.

The framework follows a major consultation by the organisation into university sexual harassment procedures, including with consulting practitioners, sexual violence liaison officers and student advocates.

It follows the introduction of new requirements from the Office for Students for institutions in England to take steps to prevent sexual misconduct, in an attempt to crack down on the prevalence of sexual harassment violence in the sector.

The guidance says that universities should “recognise that students involved in an incident of harassment and/or sexual misconduct may experience trauma, because of that incident or connected to other life experiences. Providers should support staff in developing their knowledge and understanding of a trauma-informed approach, proportionate to the role they undertake”. 

As a “baseline” providers should also ensure that staff who are designated to receive disclosures and reports and those investigating reports “understand that trauma may affect how students engage with its processes”. 

The report defines trauma-informed responses not as attempting to “treat trauma-related difficulties” but “addressing the barriers that people affected by trauma can experience when accessing health and care services” and preventing students being “re-traumatised” by the reporting process.

It stresses that universities should “minimise the need for students to give their account of events multiple times”, which in some cases could see institutions consider waiving the requirement for unnecessary forms or allowing a person who is supporting them to make a submission on their behalf. 

The need for a well-being-focused approach means that universities might consider “taking a slower pace” towards such complaints and investigations. Well-being support should also be provided to all responding students and witnesses.

Students should be “believed” when first reporting incidents of sexual harassment, the report adds. It is “not usually appropriate to take immediate steps to test the veracity, accuracy or reliability of the student’s account of what has happened when they first make a disclosure”.

It says: “When a student tells a provider about experiencing or witnessing harassment or sexual misconduct, the person receiving the student’s initial disclosure should accept the report at face value and provide support to the reporting student on this basis. It is important that reporting students feel heard.”

However, the report acknowledges there is an “inherent tension” in “believing what a reporting student says, but not beginning a disciplinary process with any presumption that unacceptable behaviour has taken place”. 

To counter this, it recommends that universities ensure that there is a clear separation of staff involved in the case. Any staff members who have provided well-being support to students upon disclosure should not carry out decision-making roles in any subsequent investigation. 

Jo Nuckley, head of outreach and insight at the OIA, said it was “essential” for universities to take action in this area, despite any financial challenges they may be facing. 

“Universities can do that in a variety of different ways. It doesn’t all have to be in-house. It would be really interesting to see some providers approaching this in a collaborative way, particularly geographically similar providers or institutions that are already working in various partnerships. But it’s not optional at this point to provide support to students who are experiencing these kinds of things,” she told Times Higher Education.

The framework forms the seventh installation of the OIA’s good practice guidance, which provides support on issues ranging from academic appeals to disciplinary procedures. But Nuckley said this had been the hardest instalment to produce because of the nuance required for every sexual harassment case.

“In these cases, the process is secondary – very much secondary – to the student’s welfare that is completely front and centre throughout this good practice framework,” she said.