#11 Preparing for the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Code: Working Across Boundaries
- Laura Burge
- May 27
- 2 min read
Updated: 7 days ago
This article is the eleventh instalment in a 12-part series supporting institutions to prepare for the proposed National Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education.
Preventing and responding to gender-based violence (GBV) is everyone’s responsibility and that means collaboration is non-negotiable. But collaboration in practice can be messy, slow, and riddled with tension regarding privacy concerns, mismatched priorities, territorial instincts, varying resource allocation and different risk appetites.
However, we must build structures that help us work with, not just alongside, each other.
The new National Code makes clear that institutions must take a whole-of-institution approach. That includes coordinated responses to disclosures, consistent messaging and language, shared understanding of roles and responsibilities and proactive prevention work that draws from all corners of the institution.
For leaders and decision-makers:
Set expectations from the top: If collaboration isn’t modelled and mandated by leadership, it won’t happen. Make it clear that preventing GBV is a shared institutional priority, teams are expected to contribute and cooperate and risk and responsibility are shared (and so is credit for progress).
You set the tone for whether this work is everyone’s business, or nobody’s priority.
Reshape reporting lines and incentives: Some of the most common blockers are structural, including teams measured on outputs that discourage collaboration, reporting lines that isolate GBV work to the ‘soft’ services or decision-making bottlenecks. Collaboration may mean redesigning how teams report, how work is resourced, and who’s in the room when strategy is set.
Resource the working group: Too often, a GBV Prevention and Response Working Group is formed and then left to figure it out on their own. Make sure it has a clear purpose and terms of reference, decision-making authority or clear escalation pathways, time, admin support, and budget, and direct reporting lines to senior leadership or governance.
For practitioners leading the work:
Map stakeholders and build bridges: Start with a simple question: who holds a piece of this puzzle? Likely stakeholders include student support / wellbeing, counselling and mental health, campus security, legal and risk, EDI, People and Culture, academic leadership, comms and marketing and student accommodation providers.
Make the working group work: Rotate chairing roles to share leadership, use a simple traffic light system to track actions, dedicate time to reflective practice and create an internal dashboard for visibility of current initiatives, risks, and upcoming campaigns.
Anticipate and navigate friction: Common tensions and workarounds include:
Privacy vs information sharing: create agreed protocols for when and how info is shared.
Proactive vs reactive approaches: set prevention KPI’s not just response metrics.
Mismatch between teams: develop shared language guides, run cross-training opportunities
Siloed systems: use a shared case management tool and keep lines of communication open.
Most importantly, nobody needs more meetings. What helps instead is shared purpose, accountability, clear action and transparent reporting.
Interested to learn more? Read the rest of our series: Raising the Standard: A Practical Blog Series on Preventing GBV in Higher Education
