The Universities UK Taskforce published its report on tackling violence against women, hate crime and harassment in UK universities in 2016 (UUK, 2016). The UUK report identified seven key components for change (UUK, 2016: p59):



1. A commitment from senior leadership; 

2. Ensuring an institution-wide approach;

3. Prevention of incidents; 

4. Enabling an effective response;

5. Managing situations where students have committed an offence;

6. Sharing of good practice;

7. Assessment of support needed with regards to online harassment.



Many universities in England and Wales received HEFCE funding to tackle the violence against women (VAWG) work stream forward.

Our study investigates the future sustainability of such initiatives

Bracewell, Kelly

Chantler, Khatidja

Donovan, Catherine

Fenton, Rachel

CLoK

Professor Khatidja Chantler, Professor Catherine Donovan,Dr Rachel Fenton and Dr Kelly BracewellIntroductionWho took part?134 university staff participated in the survey*.25 staff participated in telephone interviews. Not all respondents answered all survey questions,and the 'n' ﬁgure indicates this. 90% of survey respondents were women.Most survey respondents identiﬁed themselves as non-academicstaff working in a range of professional and/or student supportservices including student unions. Most respondents indicated that they became involved with theagenda because they were asked to and/or it became part of theirprofessional role/remit .   Against this backdrop our study focuses on sexual violence and harassment with the following aims:  We enquired about how university processes are being navigated by university staff  and the current state of play at universities topromote the UUK agenda, focusing on sexual violence and harassment (henceforth SV) in universities.To establish what has been achieved since the UUK (2016) report to move the agenda forward in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs);To explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing the UUK (2016) recommendations;To identify examples of good practice;To recommend ways to further the agenda. Findings from a national study to investigate how British universitiesare challenging sexual violence and harassment on campusThe Universities UK Taskforce published its report on tackling violence against women, hate crime and harassment in UK universities in2016 (UUK, 2016).  The UUK report identiﬁed seven key components for change (UUK, 2016: p59):1. A commitment from senior leadership;                                                           5. Managing situations where students have committed an offence;2. Ensuring an institution-wide approach;                                                           6. Sharing of good practice; and3. Prevention of incidents;                                                                                             7. Assessment of support needed with regards to online harassment.4. Enabling an effective response; Many universities in England and Wales received HEFCE funding to tackle the violence against women (VAWG) work stream forward. Our study investigates the  future sustainability of such initiatives.  Aims30%78 survey respondents told us which universities theyworked at: 54 universities were named acrossEngland, Wales and Scotland: 54% were pre-1992universities and 42% were post-1992 universities.indicated that personalinterest was a reasonfor their involvement intackling this agenda*The survey invited both qualitative and quantitative responses. This included the use of multiple choice answers and so both number of responses and respondentswill be indicated where necessary. What stage are institutions at?Respondents were engaged with a range of activities to address the  sexual violence and harassment agenda: the development ofpolicies to regulate behaviour; reporting and monitoring systems; speciﬁc campaigns and interventions targeted at all students;responses and support for survivors; awareness training and disclosure training for staff; and partnership with external experts. Speciﬁc interventions included preventative work focusing on sexual consent, being an active bystander based on either the PHE/UWE(Fenton et al, 2014) model or another model. Of those providing an active bystander intervention, most had adapted the PHE/UWEmodel to make it shorter, the next largest group had adopted the PHE/UWE model substantially as published, others had adapted itusing other material. A small group had adapted it to be online. A very small proportion had used other (usually non-UK) activebystander models that exist.39 out of 72 survey respondents said that academic research staff with experience in the ﬁeld had been involvedwith the development of the agenda.  However, there was little evidence of academic research or rigorous datagathering to establish the impact or effectiveness of activities.  This is unsurprising given the stage at which mostparticipants indicated their institutions are at.   Whilst some academic research staff are involved (n=29) in research to underpin and/or to evaluate the impact ofwork being done, across the sector there is a mixed picture with student support services (n=33) and other non-academics (n=17) including student volunteers leading on data gathering for feedback.  173 survey responses from 71 respondents about the type of research or evaluation being carried out revealedthat:This may be due to student services leading on interventions and evaluation rather than academic staff. 18 out of 61 survey respondents reported that their institutions are conducting research comparing before/afterresponses to interventions and only 9 indicated that there is research looking at impacts into the longer term at 3and 6 months.  The most common form of data gathering comes from an anonymous online reporting tool for those victimisedby sexual violence (n=45);Relatively few prevalence surveys are being conducted to establish baseline data (n=31);Universities are relying on feedback from student respondents about interventions and self-reported learningobjectives (n=35);Research and EvaluationOut of 78 survey respondents: Others were more unsure: I don't even think we're at the ﬁrst stagelisted...There has been a 'task and ﬁnish' group but I'm not sure what thatachieved - probably reviewed some polices.' (Survey Respondent) Interview participants explained that institutions do not have aspeciﬁc SV policy (n=13) and some policies were cited as beinginappropriate or ineffective (n=17). 11 indicated that they were either right at the start of developingthe agenda at their institution;28 explained that they were some way along with the agenda buthad not yet had a review of their work or identiﬁed next steps;10 had a strategy and working group but were yet to launch anyinterventions.54%Only 16 survey respondents indicated that there hadbeen one review at their institution.  Key individuals were seen to drive the agenda forwardrather than institutional commitment.Said academic researchstaff were involvedWhat Activities Are Being Carried Out?'[we] spent about two years putting together the policy andprevention... took a lot of time to get that written, approved andget input and everything' (Interview Participant 22, StudentSupport Staff) 'We did have guidelines about bullying andharassment...however... we do not currently have a very clear androbust policy about staff-student relationships, about sexualviolence in particular.' (Interview Participant 18, StudentSupport Staff)Challenges Encountered in Promoting theAgendaOut of 68 survey respondents only 17 indicated that they had metno challenges at their institutions. Two key challenges were identiﬁed throughout the survey andinterviews: institutional resistance and lack of resources.  Lack of Resources37 out of 68 survey respondents indicated that their institutionwas verbally supportive but had not committed any or sufﬁcientresources (money, staff time etc) to realise it.  'We did have a team, but due to the restructure... a lot of staff did nothave the time to commit... there is a fear that we ere not going to beable to handle the sexual violence reports with that team' (InterviewParticipant 1, Student Support Staff)   Sustainability Beyond HEFCE Catalyst Funding41 (out of 60) survey respondents said their institution had received HEFCE funding.  institution. ‘it may be a challenge to keep the project sustainable without the role being in place any more.  However, having the person in post at the start of theproject meant that certain areas are now established, and this is helpful in now moving the project forward'.  (Survey Respondent)6 respondents said that the end of HEFCE Catalyst Funding would not pose a problem for sustaining the agenda at their12 reported that there would be a problem with sustainability without HEFCE funding.23 said there might be a problem and this depended on decisions being made to mainstream the funding and/or other resources initiallyprovided by HEFCE Catalyst funding. Institutional Resistance  Out of 68 survey respondents:'There is also a lack of joined up thinking at senior levels, with someDVC and other senior staff very supportive, but others appear to bemore concerned with institutional reputation and potential distressto students.' (Survey Respondent) 33 said their institution either worried about the reputationalrisks of pursuing the agenda or feared that by pursuing itstudents might be disproportionately worried;24  indicated that their institutions had either ignored theagenda, refused to believe it was a problem at theirinstitution or did not see it as a priority agenda for theirinstitution;16 said they had experienced problems getting senior-enough buy-in to promote the agenda;7 said they had experienced barriers from ethics committeesin conducting research for the agenda.Factors Supporting Development of theAgenda Senior Executive buy-in and support to promote engagement ofthe whole institution; and to address/pre-empt fears aboutreputational risk;Appropriate resources (e.g. funding and dedicated staff, stafftime);Partnership working between student services, Student'sUnion and academic staff; Partnership working with key stakeholders external to theuniversity;Academic staff involvement with research and evaluation;Training and support for key staff/ stakeholders in theuniversity. The role of champions who have promoted theagenda emerged as a key catalyst of change, whetheras part of their work remit or not.The importance of a whole institution approach encompassingexternal partners, staff and the Students Union was stressed ininterviews and survey responses:'Linking with local services and charities to help promote the supportavailable for sexual violence victims such as: The local SARC Rape Crisis,Refuges, ISVA services, SAFE network for Young People, Victims First,Victims Support, the local GUM clinic. Linking with the local police andpromoting their campaigns, creating referral networks internally andexternally to support from within and outside the university. Workingclosely with the SU to promote the agenda. Educating staff on theprevalence of the SV issue and how to respond to disclosures. Setting up asupport service for students who are affected by SV, ensuring they continueto feel empowered to study here, despite previous circumstances.Promoting the ides that we do everything we can to believe and supportvictims. Raising awareness within the SMT and gaining theiracknowledgement of the need to do more in this area to support studentsand to to prevent (minimise) incidents of SV'. (Survey Respondent)A Kite Mark was the most popular device forembedding accountability (n=45 out of 99responses), followed by a measure/ indicator  in theleague tables  (n=27 out of 99 responses)Fines for universities not achieving goals was theleast favoured response (n=15 out of 99 responses)53 out of 68 respondents said either yes or maybethat mandatory obligations would assist inovercoming institutional challenges58 out of 68 survey respondents said  either yes ormaybe they would like to see a mandatory legalduty on universities to prevent and respondeffectively to SV Responsibility for UUK SV Agenda being in the role proﬁle ofsenior executives of a University was most often reported as away of demonstrating implementation of the UUK SV agenda.‘There is still a hesitation by a number of senior staff tomeaningfully respond to SV as its 'difﬁcult' or 'uncomfortable'.However, this could be worked around if there was a mandatorylegal duty, in such a way as to enforce a duty of care to ourstudents’ (Survey Respondent)Accountability and Mandatory Legal Duty to Prevent an Respond Effectively 88%Said yes - the OfS should beaccountable to the Governmentfor implementing the UUK SVagenda (n=60)94%Said yes - universities shouldbe accountable forimplementation of the UUKSV agenda (n=64)‘...if it was mandatory, that’s when it falls from almost acampaign into something that legally has to be done. I thinksaying something has to be done, it must be done; if you say thatto a senior member of staff, they know it is required, it is notsomething that is just an add-on. So, yes, I think making itmandatory is a good idea’.  (Interview Participant 17, StudentSupport Staff)Conclusions and RecommendationsThe interest in the survey and willingness to be interviewed demonstrates  a great deal of positive commitment  to addressing SV atuniversities. There are a number of examples of good practice, but overall there are signiﬁcant barriers in moving the SV agendaforward. These are:   Recommendations to address these barriers:Accountability of universities and the OfS are favoured, and may be a way to overcome institutional barriers, improve standardisation,strong leadership and governance;Legal duties may help to ensure more uniform progress across the key areas explored;Mandatory legal duties on universities to prevent and respond effectively to SV;Robust evaluations need to be carried out to ascertain the effectiveness of interventions and to develop evidence-based interventions.Institutional fears of reputational risk that preventuniversities from embedding this agenda into their core activities,including research activities.A lack of senior management buy-inA lack of adequate and sustainable resourcing (including beyondHEFCE Catalyst funding).Examples of best practice were found where universities acknowledged the extent of the problem and the gendered nature of SV andadopted a whole institution approach .  This included speciﬁc policies and strategies to address and respond to SV in multiple ways andattention beyond student-to-student SV.An institutional audit tool based on our the ﬁndings is provided as a method of promoting the development of best practice. References:Fenton, R.A., Mott, H.L., McCartan, K. and Rumney, P.N.S. (2014) The Intervention Initiative. Available at: https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/research/interventioninitiative/Universities UK Taskforce (2016) Changing the Culture. Report of the Universities UK Taskforce examining VAW, harassment and hate crime affecting university students.UUK.

Findings from a national study to investigate how British universities are challenging sexual violence and harassment on campus and Sexual Violence Self-Assessment Checklist for Universities

http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/30179/1/13.10.19%20Briefing%20Paper.pdf

Findings from a national study to investigate how British universities are challenging sexual violence and harassment on campus and Sexual Violence Self-Assessment Checklist for Universities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CLoK