#6 Preparing for the Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Code: Safe Processes

This article is the sixth 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.

When someone discloses or reports gender-based violence, the process that follows can feel confusing, slow, or even unsafe. That’s why the Safe Processes standard of the Code focuses on ensuring that every step following a report is trauma-informed, fair, transparent, and consistent, and that all parties understand their rights, responsibilities, and what happens next.

What the standard says

Institutions must ensure that:

• Responses to disclosures and formal reports are timely, consistent, and trauma-informed;

• Policies and procedures are clear, accessible, and survivor-centred;

• Procedural fairness is upheld for all parties;

• Decision-making is transparent and documented;

For leaders and decision-makers

Processes that are inconsistent or unclear erode trust and increase institutional risk. Here’s what to prioritise:

• Ensure policy clarity and accessibility: Can a student or staff member easily find and understand the reporting policy? Is it available in plain English, with translations and accessible formats? Is it clear what happens at each step, including timeframes, who’s involved, and what outcomes are possible? If the answer is no, it’s time for a rewrite.

  
  

• Separate support from process: Survivors and respondents deserve clear information about their options, access to support before, during, and after any process, and protection against retaliation. Create clear and structurally separate roles which provide support, advice, investigation, and decision-making.

  
  

• Invest in trauma-informed decision-makers: People managing GBV cases need policy knowledge, training in trauma-informed interviewing, skills in culturally safe and inclusive practice, understanding of power dynamics in student-staff relationships, and awareness of how processes can re-trigger harm.

• Establish oversight and accountability: This might include an internal review or audit function for high-risk matters, external review pathways where trust is low, regular case debriefs and process reviews and reporting to governance bodies on process timeliness and outcomes.

For practitioners leading the work

Whether you’re in wellbeing, complaints, conduct, or legal, you’re often the bridge between policy and lived experience.

• Map the journey and find the ‘pain points’: Use real (anonymised) case journeys to identify where people get confused, feel unsupported, or drop out of the process. Identify delays in communication, gaps in support between steps and instances where staff were unsure how to escalate or respond.

  
  

• Communicate options clearly and early: At the point of disclosure or report, survivors need to know what options exist (informal vs formal resolution, police, institutional pathways), what each path involves (including limitations and timeframes), and that they can take time to decide and can change their mind.

  
  

• Build consistency into every step: Standardise language used when responding to disclosures, scripts or talking points for initial conversations, and templates for communication at each stage of the process.

  
  

• Consider the needs of respondents: Respondents must be informed of allegations in a timely way, understand the process and supports available to them, have access to advice or advocacy, and be treated with respect and neutrality throughout.

Safe processes are more than policies. They’re about how people experience fairness, dignity, and care when the stakes are at their highest.

Interested to learn more? Read the rest of our series: Raising the Standard: A Practical Blog Series on Preventing GBV in Higher Education