which sets clear behavioural expectations for students( see case study 6 in Annexe E).
62. There is a general acceptance that students are unlikely to read and recall all university policies that are relevant to them. Therefore, ensuring that students understand and conform to particular behavioural expectations requires the university and students’ union to work together to communicate and reinforce these behavioural expectations effectively and at regular intervals.
REPORTING AND RECORDING MECHANISMS
63. The evidence received from universities showed that some have taken innovative steps to enhance the reporting mechanisms available to students to report incidents. One example was the Report and Support mechanism developed at the University of Manchester which gives students a variety of reporting options including an anonymised option( see case study 7 in Annexe E).
64. However, underreporting and the absence of clear, robust reporting mechanisms was repeatedly highlighted as a problem in the feedback from wider stakeholders. This was also a prominent theme in the evidence received from individual universities.
65. Despite some good examples of innovation, it was clear from the sector input that formal recording mechanisms are not in place across all institutions. This does not necessarily mean that universities are not recording incidents, but that this recording does not necessarily take place in a systematic way. There is also evidence from institutional responses that, once disclosed, not all incidents are channelled through the same mechanisms. This can impact upon the quality and effectiveness of data collection and the institution’ s overall response.
66. The lack of formal or centralised reporting and monitoring processes appears to be partly due to the comparatively low numbers of students reporting an incident of violence against women, harassment or hate crime. However, it is important for the sector to recognise that a low number of disclosures is not necessarily proof that students are not experiencing such incidents. The evidence submitted suggests that more needs to be done to break down barriers to reporting. In particular, victims / survivors of sexual violence may fear an inappropriate or counter-productive response from their university which may result in non-reporting. Others may not know how to report or may feel unable to report due to stigma or shame. Some may try to report but fall through the gaps because staff members are unaware of how to handle such circumstances. Similarly, victims of harassment and hate crime may be reluctant to report because they do not believe the issue is serious enough. Addressing barriers to reporting, ensuring that appropriate reporting mechanisms are in place and that incidents are recorded thoroughly may lead to an initial spike in reported numbers. In the longer-term, such improvements will increase student confidence in the institutional response and provide universities and their governing bodies with a clearer sense of the scale of any issues. In turn, this will enable institutions to assess the impact of preventive measures and attempts to improve the institutional response.
28