The University Financial Crisis: Weighing up the Cost of Safeguarding in Higher Education

Universities play a pivotal role in shaping the future of society by providing education, fostering research, and promoting cultural and intellectual growth. However, fulfilling these responsibilities comes with the crucial duty of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. Safeguarding obligations, which encompass measures to protect individuals from harm, abuse, and neglect, are essential to creating a secure and supportive academic environment. Unfortunately, the current economy is increasingly threatening universities' ability to meet these obligations effectively as they must prioritise meeting regulatory requirements and financial sustainability.

The impact upon these resource-saving mechanisms is fundamentally that safeguarding practice and mechanisms need to be deprioritised to meet other institutional priorities. Such priorities are inclusive of meeting the Office for Students’ relatively new B3 conditions, pressuring institutions to invest in Careers Services and forming partnerships in a challenged employments sector – a sector that universities are limited in their abilities to influence in the current economy. Earlier this week, the sector saw three institutions failing to meet the B3s and being served with improvement notices that must be met by next year.

However, prior to the shadow of the B3s being cast, institutions must first recruit students.

Recruitment will always remain a challenge for the majority of institutions. Frankly, the domestic market will never be cost-effective as long as it costs universities more to teach than tuition fees charge. This is not unique to the universities in England. In the United States, a decrease in state-supported funding pressured the College system to increase fees compounding the student debt crisis.

Since 2012, universities across England resorted to the ever-growing international market to make up for shortfalls domestically. However, changes to the Student Route Visa (previously Tier 4) have significantly limited markets.

Therefore, in order to survive, more cuts have had to be made across institutions until solutions present. Such solutions are likely to only be sustainable if led by the legislature; Government funding for domestic students (such as in Scotland), changes to Visa regulations, or increasing tuition caps.

In the meantime, we have already seen services across institutions being impacted. Academics, senior leaders, entire teaching programmes gone. Ensuring a safe environment for students at-risk is not in a safe position itself.

Financial restrictions within universities directly result in reduction in budget allocations for all areas, including safeguarding measures. When universities face budget cuts, they are often forced to make difficult decisions about where to allocate their limited resources. In many cases, funding for safeguarding initiatives, such as mental health services, campus security, and training programs, may be reduced or eliminated altogether. This week alone a number of senior leaders in the Higher Education sector, operating as Designated Safeguarding Leads, have shared that they will be leaving their institutions as a result of cost-saving mechanisms.

The continuing demand upon services such as Counselling, Disability Advice and Mental Health Advice are also continuing to be impacted by resource challenges. This can have a detrimental effect on students' mental wellbeing, increasing the risk of crises that could have been prevented with adequate staffing in place.

Effective safeguarding is delivered through sustained investment in policy, technology, training and practice. Many colleagues within the sector have already shared that their learning and development budget (if they even had one!) has been wiped out. Many Local Authorities are on-hand to deliver safeguarding training to institutions within their locality (a practice that I very much encourage), but their own resource challenges are limiting the deliverability of such support.

Properly trained staff are crucial for identifying and addressing safeguarding issues. Financial difficulties can hinder universities' ability to invest in comprehensive training programs for faculty and administrative staff. Without ongoing training and development, staff may lack the knowledge and skills needed to recognise signs of abuse, respond appropriately to disclosures, and implement safeguarding policies effectively.

Comprehensive training programs are essential for educating staff about safeguarding protocols, recognising potential risks, and knowing how to handle incidents. Budget constraints may lead to fewer training sessions, outdated materials, and limited access to expert trainers, ultimately weakening the university's safeguarding framework.

Universities are responsible for supporting students who may be at-risk due to various factors, including disabilities, financial hardship, or personal circumstances. Financial challenges can limit the availability of specialised support services and accommodations necessary to meet the needs of these students.

Students living with disabilities require tailored support to ensure their safety and inclusion. Budget cuts can result in fewer staff members to provide necessary accommodations, reduced accessibility on campus, and limited access to assistive technologies – further compounded by compounded by Year 1 of the new Disabled Students Allowance process (cue a rant for another day!).

Financial hardship can also exacerbate vulnerabilities, making students more susceptible to stress, housing insecurity, and food insecurity. When universities face financial difficulties, they may struggle to provide adequate hardship funds and support services that are crucial for safeguarding the wellbeing of financially disadvantaged students.

The aforementioned departure of safeguarding experts from institutions are also likely to impact the development, implementation, and enforcement of safeguarding policies and procedures. Effective safeguarding requires ongoing evaluation and adaptation of policies to address emerging risks and ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards, including Ofsted regulations.

Further, regular review and updating of safeguarding policies are essential to keep up with changing legal requirements and best practices. An absence of qualified members of staff may lead to delays in policy reviews, outdated procedures, and inadequate dissemination of information to staff and students.

I anticipate many would agree that no service is safe within institutions at the current moment. I also am in no way aiming to critique the leadership of institutions that have had to make such drastic changes in order to survive. Ultimately, I am keen to add to the sector cry for help to the Government to acknowledge the dire position of Higher Education financially as a result of changes that were outside of their control.  The OfS’ recent publications have encouraged institutions be more financially savvy and pursue “chimeric” income streams but the evidence is clear – there is not enough to go round as long as the goal posts remain where they are. In the absence of suitable investment in services that keep students safe, we risk cascading failure across the sector.