Academic Policy & Governance

1.  This review has been commissioned by Robert Partridge, Executive Director of Student and Academic Services at the University of Glasgow.

2.  The University wishes to commission an external evaluation of the implementation of its Student Wellbeing Framework, to include reference back to recommendations arising from an earlier review of student support/services at the University.

3.  The University has commissioned Dr Andrew West to carry out the review, with terms of reference to include:

• Actions taken in respect of recommendations included in an earlier review of student services/student support.
• The work of a new network of Student Support Officers.
• Best practice external benchmarks.
• Interface with the University’s new Student Experience Strategy.
• Stakeholder perspectives.

4.  The review is to cross-refer to a quality ‘model’ for student support/student wellbeing services, a summary of which can be found in Appendix 3. The contents of the model draw on the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, a benchmark for quality in student affairs within the American higher education system.

5.  The review is delivering a written report (this document) to include observations, benchmarking references and recommendations for the University to consider.

6.  Further background consultancy information can be found in Appendix 1.

1. My thanks go to those who have provided input to this review: all have engaged positively in the consultation process.
2. Various external reference points – including a quality model for student affairs - form a context for this review. Elements in the surrounding societal/political/economic environment are also relevant by way of context.
3. Glasgow has laid out a clear direction of travel for student wellbeing; the University should confirm a definitive version of its Student Wellbeing Framework.
4. There is good engagement in the student wellbeing agenda from members of the University Senior Management Group and from Court. It would be helpful to establish a routine pattern of reporting within the governance structure, including considering the interface with Senate.
5. There is expert leadership in the student wellbeing area. The surrounding management structure remains a work in progress and resourcing will need to be kept under review.
6. The University provides a wide range of high-quality student support services. In response to this review, Glasgow has the opportunity to consider the potential for various service improvements - for example in relation to service access and residential student support.
7. Glasgow has invested significantly in a new cadre of Student Support Officers. The vision for this new service would benefit from a refresh - and the delivery arrangements need reinvigorating.
8. Glasgow has a well-developed network of stakeholder connections in the student wellbeing area, making a positive contribution within the University community.
9. The University is active in promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in relation to student wellbeing. The relevant service teams would benefit from looking again at the theme of inclusion – with a strategic view and considering student demographics into the future.
10. Digital services supporting student wellbeing would benefit from development and improvement.
11. Monitoring and evaluation around student wellbeing is an area for further work at Glasgow.

1.  In introducing this report, it may be helpful for me to summarise my professional background – and the characteristics which suit me for a review of this sort. My HE professional services career, over more than thirty years, has for the most part focussed in the area of academic and student-related services, with an eleven-year period in a senior directorship role. Since 2017 I have provided consultancy services in the HE sector, working over the last six years with more than thirty different universities in all parts of the UK and across the HE mission groups, including previous projects at the University of Glasgow. See Appendix 1 for further background information.

2.  Alongside my professional insights, this report draws on the perspectives of more than 70 members of the University community who I have met in person or remotely in a series of semi-structured stakeholder interviews, 1-1 or in small groups. My thanks go to those who have provided this input: all have engaged positively in the process. Particular thanks go to Diane Gillespie who made all the practical arrangements for the review. For more information on stakeholder consultation see Appendix 2.

3.  The University indicated it wished this review to be outward-looking in approach – taking the Wellbeing Framework as a reference point and seeking to learn from best practice external benchmarks. Accordingly, the review is drawing on a quality ‘model’ for student support services, a summary of which can be found in Appendix 3. The contents of the model draw on the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, a benchmark for quality in student affairs within the American HE system. Over recent months I have co-authored a chapter on quality standards in student affairs which will appear in a forthcoming monograph on global competencies for student services (part of the New Directions series published by Wiley). I have collaborated in this work with a former president of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. Glasgow may wish to look out for this publication when it is issued later in 2023.

4.  External reference points form a context for this review. Several other contextual issues are relevant when considering the timeliness of the review in the specific circumstances of the University.

a) A less than positive national position as regards student wellbeing, with the Advance HE/HE Policy Institute academic experience survey repeatedly indicating student wellbeing at a lower level than the general UK The position has been further highlighted in a recent (February 2023) research briefing from Student Minds.

b) Wide-ranging effects arising from the pandemic continue to be felt within higher education, with impacts in areas like student wellbeing.

c) The surrounding economic conditions are significant, with a recent Office for National Statistics study indicating how the cost-of-living crisis is impacting the wellbeing of students.

d) Renewed regulatory interest in England in the area of sexual harassment and misconduct, with a recent independent review at Glasgow on this theme.

e) Sector initiatives under the banner of “Suicide Safer”, with attendant media interest - partly in response to several recently published coroner reports, and related to campaigning on the theme of duty of care in HE.

f) K-level developments towards a new ‘commitment’ for disabled students in HE, in the context of proposed legislative tightening in Scotland around disabled student transition into HE.

g) Renewed sector interest in the theme of student community/sense of belonging, in part likely to be connected to pandemic-related impacts.

h) Various sector initiatives operating at the interface between HE institutions and NHS services.

i) Statements from the UK government’s student support ‘champion’ (Professor Edward Peck) regarding the importance of data-driven services for student wellbeing.

j) Institutional trends regarding student number growth, including student accommodation issues, also noting planned investments in the student area.

Below I have linked to several recent publications which Glasgow might find of interest in scanning the environment and I have further references I would be pleased to share if helpful:

• Student Minds Research Briefing February 2023
• Health impacts relating to cost of living
• NUS Scotland perspectives on cost of living impacts
• Mental health issues within ‘Generation Z’
• Mental health in secondary education – the Covid generation
• Learning arising from cases of student suicide
• Campaigning website relating to HE student ‘duty of care’ issues
• Blog from Professor Edward Peck

5.  My earlier report on student services at Glasgow (December 2018) laid out a range of recommendations. I have been asked to refer back to these within the current review and the University has very helpfully summarised its perspective on actions related to the earlier recommendations, which I have been able to take into account. Considerable progress is evident across a wide spread of themes, including governance, leadership, organisation/operating models and service delivery, including some support from the University’s ‘transformation’ programme. A significant agenda remains ahead. In the following paragraphs I shall make reference to previous recommendations, where relevant, and I have included further detail in Appendix 4.

6. With the background and surrounding context in mind, various examples of good practice relating to student wellbeing form a positive foundation for this review. Points to highlight by way of introduction include:

7.  The University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy and related Student Experience Strategy set out a clear vision with direct relevance in the area of student wellbeing, including a close connection to the Student Wellbeing Framework. Alignment across these documents is evident, and good links have been made into complementary action plans – also reflected in the ‘mission and vision’ of Student and Academic Services. The Student Wellbeing Framework is a helpfully wide-ranging document, and the six ‘pillars’ make sense, with a good balance of proactive aspirations coupled with associated service The version of the Framework I have seen (January 2020) is presented as a ‘third draft for consultation’ and the paper combines strategic vision with various implementation actions set against target timescales which now look out of date. I recommend the University sets out a definitive version of the Framework.

From my perspective it would be preferable to strip out references to time-limited actions, and to focus on vision and objectives (ie largely the contents of pages 1- 3). I would also suggest reversing the order of the two key objectives, such that positive wellbeing is emphasised first. Should the University decide, in future, to engage with the University Mental Health Charter initiative, work to implement the Wellbeing Framework should prove very helpful as the basis for an application.

8.  Governance arrangements around student wellbeing are well-established, with the Student Experience Committee having a key role. Connections into the agenda of the University’s Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee are facilitated by the leadership role of the Chief Operating Officer in both groups. The University Court’s statement of primary responsibilities includes a requirement “to make provision, in consultation with the Senate, for the general welfare of students.” Court’s level of engagement on student issues looks strong and an area of good practice for Glasgow. As implementation of the Student Wellbeing Framework moves forward, with considerable progress made and a significant agenda ahead, I recommend the University should lay out a routine pattern of reporting on student wellbeing within the governance structure. By way of example, an annual baseline report to Court might include:

• Narrative reviewing the year, with key developments - to include positive achievements and response to challenges, for transparency.
• An indication of future plans/initiatives.
• Some contextual information eg sector level developments/trends.
• A reference to relevant issues relating to equality, diversity and inclusion (bearing in mind Court’s oversight for legal matters).
• An agreed set of data – probably a small number of indicators which can be presented year on year. Some examples might include support take-up including trends; user satisfaction; data demonstrating impact; benchmarking information, if possible. For more on monitoring and evaluation, see paragraph 18.

It would also make sense to consider whether such a report should also feature in the deliberations of Senate.

9.  Members of the Senior Management Group (SMG) are fully engaged in the student wellbeing agenda and it is good to see that other relevant senior managers attend SMG meetings as appropriate for discussion and updates, including recent reports on issues such as suicide prevention and inclusive learning. Cementing a routine governance reporting schedule (see above) should complement this connection into the SMG, rather than adding to a reporting burden. As already mentioned, there are clear linkages into planning and objectives within Student and Academic Services.

10.  Leadership arrangements in the student wellbeing area have developed considerably in line with the roll-out of the Student Wellbeing Framework over the last 2+ years. There is evident expertise alongside depth of professional experience and I was not surprised to hear positive feedback on student support and wellbeing leadership in my discussions with stakeholders. I recommend continued attention to the supporting management structure, which is a work in progress with various changes under consideration at the point of undertaking this review. Reporting lines into the head of wellbeing and inclusion look more extensive than I might have expected – including in a proposed revised structure – and it would be sensible if the number of direct reports could be reduced over time. At root this is not a matter of amending lines on organisational charts but the more fundamental question of whether the operational structure, as is, can support delivery of the strategic vision laid out in the Wellbeing Framework. Also the University’s appetite for further organisational change in the relevant services. Thinking of the strategic picture around student wellbeing, the linkage between teams in the wellbeing and inclusion area and the student support officers (within student engagement) looks a particularly critical interface – and this point is reinforced by the aspirational ‘model’ for student support set out in the Framework. Securing effective connections across these teams should be a key focus for the University, with coherence of student support in mind. For further observations on this point, see paragraph 12.

11.  Glasgow provides a wide range of high-quality student services, with significant recent investment in the student support area. In response to this review, the University has the opportunity to consider further service developments, and I recommend drawing together an action plan of potential improvements into the future. There are several points to bear in mind.

a) Service access arrangements (particularly for counselling) have been a recent area of development, with some good progress made and more for the University to do. The counselling team looks to be energetically led and the performance data discussed with me indicates an effective approach, with careful risk management as regards lead-time for initial support. A plan to reduce varying access points towards a single point of entry (aka triage) is in line with sector developments and should be accelerated. Service websites (see also paragraph 16) should be harnessed in support of the revised operating model and it will be necessary to streamline the existing access pathway for counselling (6 clicks from the student services landing page), which looks convoluted. Over time the team should consider formally “closing down” legacy points of entry and extending the single triage to cover a wider range of presenting issues (a plan to include the disability area is welcome).

Allowance can always be made for exceptional arrangements within a much more coherent default approach. Service marketing – and terminology - will need a re-think to reflect inter-disciplinary working. As Glasgow continues to develop its approach to service access, the following site references may be of interest:

• Student Access to Mental Health Services at the University of Sheffield
• “Student Connect” at Cardiff University
• “First Step” appointments at the University of Manchester
• “Student Life” platform at the University of Nottingham
• Wellbeing Advice at the University of South Wales

b) The University has made significant progress in the disabled student support area, with a comprehensive action plan arising from an earlier review, in which I was engaged as an external evaluator. I have seen written updates and have discussed key points with the relevant staff. The University has a strong story to tell and work to date is impressive. Where related actions fall outside the immediate responsibility of the head of wellbeing and inclusion, key dependencies are important to note. On this point I was pleased to hear of a task group being established on estates/accessibility issues; and recently initiated work in the area of inclusive assessment, which - quite properly - is being led by a senior academic not by professional services colleagues. Plans to bring operational support functions together for the whole wellbeing and inclusion area make perfect sense and will support the access-related improvements discussed above.

c) The University has a programme of work in hand related to gender-based violence, responding to an earlier independent review. In operational terms, there are plans for a very small stand-alone ‘safeguarding’ team in student wellbeing and inclusion and I can understand this organisational approach in a relatively fast-moving policy area for the sector, and as institutional protocols are being established. Into the future it would make sense for the University to look at this structure again, with a view to achieving a different mainstreaming/specialist balance. There are questions about resilience in a very small boundaried unit; efficiency of case management is likely to improve with a more inter-disciplinary approach at the front-line; and I would also expect benefits in terms of staff satisfaction and career development. While recent moves by the (English) Office for Students in the direction of formal regulation in this area have no direct impact for Glasgow, I imagine the University will find it helpful to maintain contact with these trends, with sector good practice in mind. An interesting short overview of key current issues, from the safeguarding organisation Lime Culture, can be found at https://www.ahua.ac.uk/building-the-foundations-for-tackling-sexual-misconduct-is-critical-to-success/.

d) I understand Glasgow intends for its new safeguarding function to have a role in responding to the most serious/complex student support issues, with improved risk management in mind. This sounds a sensible plan, reinforcing my suggestion (above) about mainstreaming. I hope establishing the new safeguarding roles will also enable the University to look again at its ‘crisis team’ approach, which I highlighted in my earlier review of student services, with a recommendation for priority action at that time. I continue to have questions about these arrangements, including the level of seniority of colleagues handling cases, which looks It is good to see that the counselling staff handbook now contains useful information and guidance on the topic.

e) Student support at the HE/NHS interface is a current concern in the sector and I understand Glasgow is seeking to establish a new ‘bridging’ role (probably a mental health nurse) which sounds a very welcome development. Beyond the University, multiple approaches are evident across the sector with little in the way of common practice, recognisably ‘standard’ models, or shared expectations around service provision/boundaries. From a HE sector standpoint this looks an unsatisfactory patchwork, with considerable potential for duplication of effort. I was pleased to hear that Glasgow colleagues are already in touch with several stand-out case examples in the sector, such as Manchester and Cardiff. Continued strong engagement in the UK-wide agenda makes sense for the University; the approaches adopted at the University of Kent, the University of Liverpool and the University of Warwick, might be other interesting reference points.

f) Peer wellbeing support is better developed at Glasgow than in many comparable institutions, though operational oversight (beyond training of supporters) looks under-developed and the University is not in a position to provide any sense of the ‘reach’ of the service as relevant data is not available. Improved monitoring in this area should be considered as evaluation is developed around the Wellbeing Framework. For more on this theme see paragraph 18.

g) Glasgow is engaged on the ‘suicide safer’ agenda, and connections have been made into developments in the wider HE sector. I have seen a relatively concise action plan, which focuses on the matter of ‘trusted contacts’. In due course it would makes sense to review progress in this area, being sure that actions sufficiently reflect the most recent national guidance (for example on postvention). If the University has not already taken account of it, I am sure relevant colleagues will find it helpful to review a recent report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists regarding supporting staff after the death of a patient by suicide.

h) I have noted various developments in the Chaplaincy, following the appointment of a new University Chaplain and the introduction of a revised operating model. I understand additional investment has been sought to improve multi-faith provision and I will comment further on matters relating to equality, diversity and inclusion in paragraph 15.

12.  A new cadre of student support officers (SSO) represents a significant financial investment (£500k+ if I have understood correctly) providing additional student support as a key element within the Wellbeing Framework. This development is in the grain of the sector, with numerous institutions (including in the Russell Group) investing in equivalent roles - realising the benefits of additional student support capacity, with a presence in the academic context, coupled with an explicit focus on integration of support across the institution. SSOs I have met during the review have shared numerous examples of activity (responsive and pre-emptive) in their role with a positive impact on student wellbeing. I have also heard some good stakeholder feedback on SSO postholders (‘absolutely amazing’ … ‘a roaring success’ … ‘they are great – we really value them’… ‘a really excellent resource’). Having said this, generally speaking it seems clear that implementing the new arrangements has proved challenging at Glasgow. Various issues and risks are evident, including uncertainty as to role purpose and questions around management direction/support. Sickness absence, retention and turnover have also been problematic in the new team. The difficulties are understood by the University and a range of concerns were expressed candidly and comprehensively in my conversations with members of the SSO team – I am grateful for their thoughtful engagement in the review. I have also seen notes arising from a meeting with trades union representatives indicating actions - planned and in progress – related to the various issues. This is all helpful. In the circumstances, and taking account of the strategic direction laid out in the Wellbeing Framework, I recommend the University should reaffirm its commitment to this new service, taking action to refresh the vision for the role and reinvigorate the delivery. There are various points to highlight.

a) Given the sector trend mentioned above, my recent consultancy activity has brought me into contact with similar service developments in multiple institutions - particularly in the Russell Group - and I have been able to draw together a series of ‘success factors’ contributing to effective implementation and delivery, from my perspective. I have listed these below as a frame of reference for Glasgow. The University might wish to use the list as a ‘mirror’ for its own approach: if a particular aspect looks to be working well at Glasgow, how could this be strengthened; if another element feels less satisfactory, what improvement actions could be put in place; if a point seems irrelevant for Glasgow, why might that be and what could take its place?

b) My discussions with stakeholders have revealed various uncertainties as to the core SSO job purpose, in particular whether the function is largely a transactional/signposting role, or whether postholders should be involved substantively in student support activity. Looking at this with an external perspective, the latter - more rounded - emphasis looks well expressed in the job description including the expectation that post holders will “independently (resolve) issues - also referring/escalating to the appropriate services. Also act(ing) as a point of contact for students identified as at risk.” The full remit self-evidently adds value to the University community in the context of the Wellbeing Framework. It would be sensible to reaffirm this intention. As such, the role could sit reasonably at Grade 5 as a baseline.

c) Management around the SSO function looks unsatisfactory, with each of the (currently) seventeen postholders apparently reporting directly to a single manager in the ‘student engagement’ area of Student Support and Wellbeing – that manager also having other substantial responsibilities. The ‘stretch’ implied by this arrangement looks excessive and I am not surprised that it has proved problematic in practice. There are also questions about institutional risk and potential impacts on staff wellbeing to be taken into account. As part of the action planning arising from this review the University should prioritise establishing a revised SSO management structure, to include re-thinking the ‘team lead’ function which appears to be ill-defined and possibly counter- productive as things stand. Improving management arrangements looks particularly important given the relatively recent formation of a sizable team, with a wide range of professional backgrounds represented, and presumably varying requirements for support, development, performance management and the like. For a team of this sort, the people management task requires considerable skill and expertise. It needs to go well beyond a ‘pay and rations’ function.

d) In the current arrangement, SSO management reporting lines are ‘solid’ to the central student engagement team and ‘dotted’ to appropriate post-holder/s in the relevant academic area, as determined by the college/school. This makes for a relatively complex operating arrangement from the perspective of an individual SSO, albeit matrix management is long-established in many areas of large universities. It makes sense from my perspective that the key management direction (solid reporting line) comes in the first instance from a single central team as a new service development is rolled out at scale.

When the operational arrangements become more firmly established in due course, Glasgow might wish to return to the issue of reporting lines and I can see the potential for the solid/dotted arrangement to be reversed – affirming local ‘ownership’ while not sacrificing important connections into the central services, for training, support and supervision. The University’s recently launched work around ‘functional alignment’ might have a contribution to make in this thinking.

e) Considering the college/school interface there is an important question about how far the University wishes to implement invariable arrangements across the institution based on a ‘one size fits all’ methodology. The nature of Glasgow, with its very broad range of academic disciplines not to mention varying student study patterns, suggests the need for a more nuanced approach and I wonder whether the concept of “core/flex” might help to enable an operating model which is both suitably tailored at the local level and achieves an appropriately coherent system for the institution as a whole. On this basis Glasgow might lay out a defined set of core elements to be delivered in the SSO job description with considerable flexibility beyond the core to ensure that local arrangements can be moulded to suit the academic context, considering issues like the nature of the student cohort; scale/size/shape in the relevant academic unit; disciplinary characteristics like professional accreditation; particularities in the educational calendar; local academic priorities and so on.

f) A core/flex operating model might be characterised as “difference by design” in contrast to “difference by default” and Glasgow should ensure that the model facilitates cross college/school learning on what seems to work best in operational terms, thinking both of the staff experience and positive impact for students. On this basis, as the new service becomes established over time, a limited range of operational models might emerge as preferred - tried and tested - options. And of course, it is a matter for Glasgow to decide whether to apply more (or less) leadership direction towards achieving this outcome with the right commonality/divergence balance. I imagine the chief advisers of studies network could be influential in these considerations. For further observations on the University’s student advising arrangements, see paragraph

g) Flexibility in the operating model to suit the local academic context implies the need for leadership input (academic and professional services) in the relevant college/school. Clearly reinvigorated management from Student Support and Wellbeing will have a key role to play but Glasgow should not underestimate the requirement in addition for constructive college/school input to support effective working. Within the implementation to date there are some good examples of positive collaboration – and some which seem rather less positive. Moving forward from this point I hope Glasgow will find a way of sharing the developing good practice to support improvements across the University. Once again, the chief advisers’ role should be helpful.

h) Stakeholders have expressed a range of opinions on the extent to which SSOs require a depth of disciplinary understanding in order for the role to be effective in the relevant academic context. From my perspective an excessive emphasis on disciplinary details (including the specifics of programme rules, regulations and the like) could blur the boundaries into those professional services roles responsible for educational or research administration. It makes sense to me that student support and wellbeing should remain the primary SSO focus, with good connections into local teaching & learning/research support roles when that specialist knowledge is required.

i) Glasgow also has work to do in establishing an effective SSO interface with the central teams in Student Support and Wellbeing. Settled referral pathways (in both directions) look to be at an early stage of development and these will need time to be properly designed and to bed in. Escalation routes in cases of significant concern need to be particularly clear, and regularly rehearsed (I have already commented on the ‘crisis team’ function in paragraph 11). SSO procedural documents, as they are developed and collated, should be drawn together into something akin to a team handbook, with resilience and risk management in mind. I note that the SSO team has been established in the ‘student engagement’ area rather than within the wellbeing and inclusion function. Given the nature of the job description (already discussed above) I think it would be sensible for Glasgow to look at this again – considering the benefits of a more integrated student wellbeing model at the centre. The current arrangement, when coupled with matrix management, potentially adds an additional unhelpful layer of organisational complexity. For the time being it will be vital for the key student support and wellbeing managers to keep in very close touch with the developing SSO service, with an aspiration towards seamless case referrals and to avoid any mismatch or ‘parallel tracks’ effect. Resourcing levels in the central wellbeing and inclusion teams are obviously relevant in the question of effective referral pathways. For more on resourcing, see paragraph 17.

j) Taking account of actions in respect of the job role, management arrangements and operating protocols, it would make sense for Glasgow to lay out an SSO training and development plan. Boundary management will be an important issue, linked to the operating model and agreed referral pathways. The risk of over-delivery is likely to be another useful theme to explore, alongside the important matter of self-care. There will be an ongoing need for training and development which should be built into resourcing plans - and with career development in mind. Shared learning will be important, thinking of the opportunity to build good practice across the institution.

Recent meetings of the SSO ‘network’ look helpful. One stakeholder raised a question about the need for criminal records checks among this staff group.

Glasgow’s position on this will need to be informed by the University’s broader HR approach to the matter.

k) The various points laid out above are brought into particular relief in the context of the student residences, where a single SSO is operating without a surrounding professionally-staffed ‘residence life’ function, as is now common in universities like Glasgow. The risks inherent in this arrangement suggest the need for priority action, following on from this review, not to mention the potential future impact of planned increases in the residential estate. Further observations on residential student support can be found in paragraph

l) Moving forward from this point I am sure Glasgow will wish to take account of sector exemplars and the ways in which the ‘success factors’ highlighted above might inform decision making. Relevant UK benchmarks could include the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter, Kent, Leeds, Manchester Metropolitan, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and UCL. The American HE system offers another interesting point of reference for Glasgow – in particular the existence of student ‘advising’ as a professional services function delivered in the academic context. Given the long-established nature of this provision in US higher education, there is a corpus of quasi- academic research demonstrating the positive impact of advising on student learning, progression, retention, and successful qualification. There are obvious connections to be made into the proactive elements of student support discussed above; established advisory teams in the US system might typically involve a focus on specific student cohorts and/or an emphasis on equality and inclusion issues. Should Glasgow wish to explore the applicability of this approach further, a good starting point is the global student services best practices guide published by the International Association for Student Affairs and Services. The most recent (third) edition of this publication includes two chapters on student advising, including a useful bibliography. External professional networks might also prove helpful and Glasgow may wish to consider membership of NACADA – a long-established and highly regarded US association for student advisers with a wide array of research/development resources available from its online ‘clearing house’. The main NACADA website is at https://nacada.ksu.edu and there is information on a UK ‘chapter’ at https://www.ukat.ac.uk/.

m) As the University addresses the various stakeholder management issues surrounding the SSO team, tools and frameworks could be useful as a reference point. I have found the “3 C’s” (cooperation – coordination - collaboration) continuum put forward by Keast in the International Public Management Journal to be a helpful (and stretching) framework to guide stakeholder management and colleagues may wish to investigate the utility of this model in the Glasgow context. I have included a summary of the continuum in Appendix 3; more details can be found at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10967490601185716. Themed projects (eg referrals/escalation; training) might be helpful to test any such model in practice.

13.  The University’s approach to residential student support is in need of overhaul, with scoping at an early stage of development within the context of a plan for considerable growth in bed space in the coming years. The existing ‘legacy’ arrangements lack coherence and there is a significant change agenda ahead. I have worked with several universities recently on student accommodation issues, including residence life/support arrangements. Drawing on this experience, alongside international benchmarking based on several North American institutions with a strong reputation in student affairs, I have identified a set of good practice characteristics - summarised In any action plan for residence life arising from this review, I recommend Glasgow considers incorporating a benchmarking strand – for example using the summary list of key features as a way of calibrating future plans, to sense-check prioritisation and as a reference in forward planning.

Moving into the future, there will be questions for Glasgow about resourcing levels for the residence life function. The University will also need to consider the extent to which support provision should be consistent (or quality assured consistently) across the various agreements with private providers. Financial benchmarking information from CUBO, the association for HE commercial and campus services professionals, should be a helpful point of reference on resourcing. Considering best practices, ACUHO-I – an international professional organisation for campus housing and residence life - could also be a useful network for Glasgow. Looking towards a revised approach to residential student support, I also imagine the University will want to consider the benefits/drawbacks of the existing organisational model, and whether residential support might be better located alongside the operational functions in the residences structure rather than within Student Support and Wellbeing. Given the relatively broad scope of this review with reference to the Student Wellbeing Framework, I have not been able to explore residential issues in any detail. I would be pleased to assist the University further as helpful.

14.  Effective student support in universities is dependent on well-developed working relationships involving a range of stakeholders. Glasgow has a positive story to tell on stakeholder connections in the student wellbeing area and I recommend continued efforts to embed and deepen the various interfaces. There are several points to highlight.

• I have already referred to the work of the SSO team in supporting academic alignment/engagement in the wellbeing agenda. Beyond the provision of roles like the SSOs, some universities deliver specialised wellbeing support (such as counselling) on a localised basis across campus and Glasgow may wish to consider this approach in the future. The operation of academic advising is also clearly relevant, and the variable models across the colleges are rather striking at Glasgow. I was interested to hear that questions are currently being asked about the existing arrangements within the College of Arts – specifically the absence of a named adviser for students. I understand the College of Social Sciences is also planning to review its advisory model. Within these considerations the University should explore the introduction of mandatory training in student support issues for staff who have a student- facing role. The ‘Supporting the Supporters’ development programme at the University of Sheffield could be a helpful point of reference for Glasgow. Further training may be of interest to/relevance for specific individuals, building on a baseline entitlement for all.
• The interface between student support services on the one hand and formal university procedures/regulations on the other can be problematic and the working relationship across the different professional services teams is not always constructive. I have been pleased to note effective connections at Glasgow, though I also gained the impression that the relationships may be over-reliant on links between individual members of staff rather than being structurally and operationally embedded. The University understands the need to review and modernise a range of student-related procedures. Actions around the Wellbeing Framework will be a dependency (and vice versa). The University’s ‘good cause’ process is helpfully already under review. Fitness to study is another area for attention: from my perspective this should be an academic (not student services)-led protocol. A transfer - at the final stage - into a conduct/disciplinary domain looks inappropriate. Policy development is also required in the area of student interruption of studies. I have already mentioned development work in the area of harassment/sexual violence in paragraph 11.
• There looks to be an effective working relationship on wellbeing issues with the student bodies at Glasgow, including with student officers. The interfaces I have observed go well beyond formalised governance mechanisms, to include regular informal communications and partnership working on key initiatives. A commitment to fostering these connections on an ongoing basis is particularly important in an institution like Glasgow where the Students’ Representative Council offers its own provision in the student support area - and there is a need to avoid any unintended service overlap/blurring/collision. In any action plan arising from this review, it would make sense to ensure the inclusion of initiative/s specifically addressing the University/student bodies interface and/or to be sure that student representation is designed into relevant projects from the start.
• UofG Sport is located in a different area of the professional services structure and the collaborations with Student Support and Wellbeing are not as developed as I might have expected in an institution like Glasgow. As part of the action plan arising from this review, it could be helpful to look again at the opportunities for cross-service partnership working – perhaps by identifying specific collaborative projects/initiatives over the coming month.
• Effective stakeholder collaboration is also important to support the broader theme of student belonging/sense of community on campus, which the University is pursuing as part of its Student Experience Strategy. Glasgow has various institutional actions in hand and I have seen good examples of helpful localised practice. Overall, I have gained little sense of planned coordination. This issue has attracted considerable recent interest in the sector – in part responding to the negative social impacts of successive pandemic lockdowns. Below I have drawn together various references, which Glasgow might find of interest in moving the agenda forward as a coherent plan.
• A major Advance HE project on the theme of building student belonging
• Research, from Pearson, on belonging and inclusion in HE
• Socialisation through campus estates development
• HEPI survey findings on student loneliness
• Positive impacts arising from extra-curricular activity
• Research findings on student confidence, contributing to belonging

15.  A commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is evident in the Wellbeing Framework and there are multiple examples of individual team initiatives to support inclusive practice. Examples include a working group focussed on support for Chinese students; an initiative relating to neurodiversity; cultural integration events in residences, etc. The multifaceted – and interconnected - challenges associated with the EDI agenda are combined for Glasgow with a growing and changing student demographic, including widening participation targets; plans for diversification in international markets and international programmes; not to mention post-pandemic effects like hybrid delivery and the impact of inflation on student life. With this broad-ranging picture in mind, I recommend Glasgow consider the merits of a more strategic approach to inclusion in the student wellbeing area - aiming to drive the agenda forward as a coherent whole, rather than as a series of individual projects. Some designated leadership in Student Support and Wellbeing would probably be sensible, alongside communications support. Depending on the issue/s arising, institutional-level advocacy might also be needed. A consistent methodology – such as equality impact assessment – could help. Approaching the issues by ‘cohort’ might also make sense (eg Glasgow International College transitional issues; WP support throughout the student journey; PGR). I have considerable experience of leading EDI in student services - in a strategic sense - with a practical rather than a theoretical emphasis. I would be pleased to share further information with Glasgow, if helpful.

16.  Digital services supporting student wellbeing - and the related communications - need attention at Glasgow. Recent improvements, including the introduction of apps and an online student newsletter, are positive developments. Good linkages are in place on student communications between Student Support and Wellbeing and the External Relations team, and it would be helpful for these to be strengthened in future. There are various points I recommend for consideration.

a) Student support websites are in need of overhaul and I was pleased to hear that conversations are beginning around an improvement project, in conjunction with External Relations. At this relatively early stage in thinking, I hope it is helpful for me to lay out a series of key principles for Glasgow to take into account as any development work moves forward.

• The existing web pages are designed for the most part with a provider- view of the relevant material. This should be reversed, with a user-centric site design based on issues and themes, rather than team designations/structures - these are essentially irrelevant to service users.
• Modern page design should be preferred, for example clear block/tile navigation, avoiding the need for extensive scrolling.
• Text should be written for the web; document download should be eliminated as far as possible.
• Material should be re-used rather than duplicated, with intelligent linking to ease content management. This is particularly important where specific areas of the University might have developed their own materials on student wellbeing, such as in the College of Social Sciences.
• Relevant job descriptions should include assigned responsibility for active management/update of the website, as a core element of service provision.
• Revised websites should incorporate digital media by default (eg engaging video clips).
• User-testing is a fundamental requirement – this should be prioritised in preference to the management/provider view.
• Equality considerations should be mainstreamed.
• The website should integrate with broader student communications activities, including the student newsletter, and also making use of appropriate social media platforms.
• A user-friendly (plain English) style should be preferred rather than lengthy/theoretical/’worthy’ content. Tone of voice needs careful thought.
• Improvements can draw from good practice elsewhere in the University – for example the website for careers/employability has a more engaging design than the student support/wellbeing pages.

b) Learning analytics is under-developed at Glasgow, with a small-scale pilot project (“MyPath”) operating in the School of Computing Science alongside some plans for wider roll-out. The University recognises its work in this area is not at the leading edge in the sector and Glasgow may wish to make reference to a new JISC publication which offers a helpful overview of the key issues. A recent ‘white paper’ from one of the software providers covers similar ground, including institutional case studies. Depending on any way forward agreed by the University, it will be important for the SSO team to be actively engaged, with a view to students - and staff- being better supported by additional data provision over time.

c) Record keeping has been an area of recent development for Glasgow with some progress evident and more to be done into the future, in the direction of a University-wide CRM. For the time being relevant service areas are extending their use of Ivanti and Target Connect and it would be good to see these developments accelerated. Without more effective records/data integration in place, the issue remains an area of risk for the institution as far as student wellbeing is concerned. On the matter of information security, it is good to note that the University privacy notice is helpfully clear around institutional (not team or sub-team) ownership as data controller.

17.  The level of recent additional investment in student wellbeing services is evident from the resourcing data I have considered in this review, including comparisons made as part of the Cubane/UNIFORUM datasets (noting Glasgow has not participated in the most recent data collection). It is very positive to hear that further investments are being considered as part of the Student Experience Strategy roll-out. On this basis, and bearing in mind the various challenging contextual factors referenced at the start of this report, I recommend the University continues to pay close attention to resourcing in the student wellbeing area. By way of example, a revised model for residential student support will raise various resourcing questions, including the interface with a commercial operating area, and the need to move away from reliance on a volunteer delivery model. Further observations on residential life can be found in paragraph 13. Improved management in the SSO team is likely to require additional resource – particularly in the short term. International student support might be another area for consideration, considering growth in numbers. The University has invested significantly in new high-quality learning spaces for student use, such as the JMS Learning Hub. Meanwhile the student-facing service areas in the Fraser Building are showing their age and I was pleased to hear of discussions beginning around space re-purposing in that building and in the surrounding area, with the potential for a ‘student wellbeing centre’ under consideration. Self-evidently, better fit-for- purpose accommodation will significantly support the service improvement aspirations already discussed in paragraph 11.

18.  Monitoring and evaluation remains an area I recommend for further development at Glasgow. The current picture looks fragmented – and significantly under- developed in some service teams. Scottish Government expectations around student facing service reviews serve to reinforce the point. There is also a link to be made to my observations (see paragraph 8) on governance reporting, not to mention the aspirations on monitoring and measurement within the Student Wellbeing Framework which do not appear to have been realised. Benefits for the University will include the following:

• Evaluation data can be used to promote student wellbeing support and to foster user engagement and confidence.
• Service managers can draw on service monitoring and evaluation data to do their job more effectively.
• The development of coordinated monitoring arrangements presents an opportunity for shared professional learning across the staff teams involved.
• The University is investing significantly in the area of student wellbeing – it makes sense to introduce appropriate monitoring to assess the value of this investment (the new SSO service is an obvious example).
• Evaluation has the potential to drive up quality in the context of targets and objectives associated with Glasgow’s Student Experience Strategy.
• Aspirational service monitoring can be motivational for service teams – there is an important cultural element.
• Coordinated monitoring arrangements are particularly beneficial within a large complex organisation like Glasgow, with its overlapping network of stakeholder interests.
• A more holistic view in this area, based on coordinated evaluation, will enable strategic deployment of resource.
• There can be the opportunity to make supportive linkages with relevant areas of academic research.
• Well-articulated monitoring arrangements can help clarify user expectations, in turn supporting service targeting and prioritisation.
• Collaborating on monitoring and evaluation with stakeholders is a means of fostering a partnership working approach and building good professional relationships.

As mentioned in my earlier review report, I have worked with other universities to develop a monitoring and evaluation ‘dashboard’ for student support services and would be pleased to assist Glasgow further in this area if helpful. Glasgow might also follow the example of some other universities and consider introducing periodic surveying specifically focussed on student wellbeing by way of baseline measurement and to track trends over time. By using the same measures as the Office for National Statistics, as also utilised in the Higher Education Policy Institute’s annual survey of academic engagement, the University would be able to make comparisons to the wider HE sector and to the general population. To move the evaluation agenda forward, some professional development might help for relevant staff. A free MOOC on evaluation/assessment in student affairs is available at http://studentaffairsassessment.org/online-open-course. This covers the ground well from the perspective of the American HE system, serving as an interesting point of reference for the UK sector. A recent report on clinical governance in mental health services in UK HE should also be of interest.

The following points have been drawn from the main body of the report and are presented here in summary. Further information can be found in the relevant paragraphs above, as cross-referenced in brackets.

1. The University should set out a definitive version of its Student Wellbeing Framework. (7)
2. Glasgow should establish a routine pattern of reporting on student wellbeing within the University governance structure. (8)
3. The University should continue to pay attention to resourcing in the student wellbeing area, as management and organisational arrangements develop into the future. (10, 17)
4. The University should draw together an action plan for various service improvements in response to this review, and taking account of benchmarking. (11, 13)
5. The vision for Glasgow’s new SSO service should be refreshed, and the delivery arrangements should be reinvigorated. (12)
6. Glasgow should continue to develop its network of stakeholder connections in support of the student wellbeing agenda. (14)
7. Student Support and Wellbeing should look afresh at the broad theme of inclusion, particularly bearing in mind the shape of student demographics into the future. (15)
8. Glasgow should make improvements in its digital services supporting student wellbeing, including relevant student-facing websites. (16)
9. The University should develop a plan for monitoring and evaluation linked to the Student Wellbeing Framework. (18)

Dr Andrew West is former University Secretary at the University of Sheffield. In that role he provided advice and support to the University's Council and governance structure, working closely with the University Executive Board.

For eleven years Andrew led academic and student-related professional services at the University of Sheffield, with a wide remit covering student recruitment and admissions, academic services including learning and teaching support, registry and student administration, careers and employability, and a broad range of student support and wellbeing services, including disability.

Andrew West is a former Chair of AMOSSHE – The Student Services Organisation and he was national Vice-Chair of AUA. His work on leadership and management in professional services features in professional publications and journals in the UK and overseas, including a chapter in UNESCO’s guide to global best practice in HE student affairs. He is a former member of the executive of IASAS – a global organisation for student affairs professionals

Andrew’s career in Higher Education spans more than 30 years. He is a member of the Board of Governors at Leeds Beckett University, where he also chairs the Board’s Governance Committee. Formerly an Associate of Advance HE and a Halpin Consulting Fellow, he is currently a Lead Consultant with AUA Consulting.

Further information on Andrew’s consulting practice, including client testimonials, can be found at https://drandrewwest.wordpress.com.

The following have contributed to the consultation around this review. I have conducted interviews with:

Tony Anderson, student representative
Graham Andrews, Student Support Officer
Rabaha Arshad, Student Support Officer
Linda Atkinson, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Lynn Bradley, College of Social Sciences
Jane Broad, Academic Services
Liz Broe, College of Arts
Greg Burgess, College of Science & Engineering
Stephane Charrier, Student Support Officer
Amy Copsey, Student Support & Wellbeing
Tony Corrigan, College of Social Sciences
Clare Craig, Student Support & Wellbeing
Una Marie Darragh, College of Science & Engineering
Alison Devlin, College of Science & Engineering
Mara Dougal, Student Support Officer
Catriona Doyle, Student Support Officer
David Duncan, Chief Operating Officer
Matt Elliot, College of Arts
Chris Finlay, College of Science & Engineering
Katie Fish, student representative
Moira Fischbacher-Smith, Vice-Principal
Kirsteen Fraser, Student Support Officer
Rhianwen Galbraith, Student Support Officer
Robert Garnish, Commercial Services
Lewis Gibb, Student Support Officer
Gillian Gillespie, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Emma Gilmartin, External Relations
Karen Gordon-Tamang, student representative
Karen Grant, Student Support & Wellbeing
Yvonne Harkness, College of Social Sciences
Ik Siong Heng, College of Science & Engineering
Katherine Henderson, College of Science & Engineering
Martin Hendry, Clerk of Senate
Catherine Houston, College of Science & Engineering
Billy Howie, College of Science & Engineering
Mark Hunter, Student Support Officer
Jean Jackson, College of Science & Engineering
Tariq Jankiewicz, Student Support Officer
Carolyn Kelly, Student Support & Wellbeing
Tom Kowalski, Student Support & Wellbeing
Heather Lambie, College of Science & Engineering
Wendy Li, Student Support & Wellbeing
Peter Lindsayhall, Student Support & Wellbeing
Phil McAleer, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Luke McBlain, student representative
Louise McCallum, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Kirsty McConn-Palfreyman, Student Support & Wellbeing
Lauren McDougall, College of Social Sciences
Steve Marritt, College of Arts
Graeme Marshall, Student Support Officer
Hannah Mathers, College of Science & Engineering
Rachel Miller, Student Support Officer
Linda Moxey, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Clair Murray, Student Support Officer
Robert Partridge, Student & Academic Services
Beth Paschke, College of Science & Engineering
Hailie Pentleton, student representative
Michelle Playter, Student Support Officer
Pablo Moran Ruiz, student representative
Davina Smith, Student Support Officer
Morven Strong, student representative
Dougie Thomson, College of Science & Engineering
Zsuzsa Varga, College of Social Sciences
Alison Wallace, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences
Dafydd Waters, Student Support & Wellbeing
Jane Weir, Student Support & Wellbeing
Ross Whip, student representative
Lily Wilcox, Student Support Officer
Kath Williams, College of Arts
Ethan Wilson, student representative
Philippa Yam, College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences

The ‘dimensions’ of quality summarised in the graphic draw on the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (aka "CAS" standards - see https://www.cas.edu/standards), a ‘gold standard’ for quality in student affairs within the American higher education system, adapted here for the UK context.

Content in the review report related to the various dimensions is indicated by paragraph numbers in brackets.

In the main body of this report, I have referred back to recommendations arising from my 2018 review of student services. Further information can be found in the relevant paragraphs above, as cross-referenced in brackets.

1. The university should conduct a light touch review of the effectiveness of the new governance arrangements for student services at a suitable point. (8)
2. Dedicated leadership capacity is required in the area of student support. Close attention will need to be paid to matters such as service mission, strategy and planning, alongside stakeholder liaison, and management/staff development. (10, 14)
3. The Fraser Building refurbishment should be used as a springboard for improvement in student support. Service culture should be considered alongside the operational logistics and the specialist organisational model should be looked at again. (10, 12, 17)
4. Connections between central professional services and academic units should be strengthened in respect of student support. The university should consider mandatory training for all staff who have a student-facing role, and alternative organisational options should be considered. (12, 14)
5. Student communication relating to student support should be further improved and levels of resourcing kept under review. (16)
6. The university should look again at specific functions in student services such as ‘crisis’ support and peer-peer support. Relevant regulations should be reviewed. (11)
7. Future work on student mental health should be developed in line with a wide- ranging strategic intent. (7)
8. The new IT service management systems should be deployed as far as possible across all relevant areas. (16)
9. Connections into the university’s ‘transformation’ programme should be reinforced, with benefits realisation in mind. (5)
10. The student support services should adopt a service evaluation plan. (18)
11. CaPS should look again at its breadth of provision; the brief therapy model; user access arrangements; and the balance of 1-1 vs group work. Staff wellbeing support should be reconsidered in partnership with HR. (11)
12. The chaplaincy should focus on transition planning and future vision over the coming months. (11)
13. The university’s residential student support model should be reconsidered in the context of a forthcoming accommodation review. (13)
14. A fundamental overhaul is needed in the area of disabled student support. (11)
15. The university should look again at student support resourcing, taking account of the recommendations contained in this report. (17)

Integration Continuum model - the ‘3 Cs’ – Deeper integration moving from left to right:

Keast, R. et al (2007) Getting the Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies, International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9-33.