Preventing Institution Hopping: A Critical Component of National Code Implementation
The release of the national code for universities represents a watershed moment in our collective commitment to preventing gendered violence, bullying, harassment, and discrimination in higher education. Yet as institutions work to implement these standards, one critical challenge threatens to undermine our prevention efforts: institution hopping by known perpetrators.
When individuals facing serious allegations move to another university—taking their harmful behaviours with them—we fail survivor-victims, enable serial perpetration, and fundamentally compromise campus safety. Drawing on behavioural science, trauma-informed practice, and evidence-based prevention frameworks, this article outlines what universities must do to close this dangerous gap.
The Case for Completing Investigations After Departure
Trauma-informed practice demands procedural justice. When a respondent leaves an institution mid-investigation, the instinct may be to close the case as moot. This response, however, compounds harm for reporting parties who have already demonstrated courage in coming forward.
Research in trauma psychology demonstrates that survivors of gendered violence frequently cite institutional betrayal—when organisations fail to respond appropriately to disclosures—as being as damaging as the original harm. From a trauma-informed lens, seeing an investigation through to completion validates the reporting party's experience, acknowledges their truth, and provides the procedural closure essential for recovery.
Good practice requires completing investigations regardless of employment or enrolment status. Whether the respondent is a staff member or student, investigations should proceed to a determination on the balance of probabilities. While sanctions may not be enforceable once someone has left the institution, a finding that upholds or does not uphold the allegation serves multiple purposes:
Creates an accurate record for future reference checks and data sharing
Provides accountability through documentation, even in the absence of immediate consequences
Enables evidence-based decision-making about whether to re-engage the individual in future
Supports early intervention by creating a paper trail that may reveal patterns across institutions
From a behavioural science perspective, this approach also counters the perverse incentive structure where resignation becomes an escape hatch from accountability. Serial perpetrators often exploit institutional gaps, moving between organisations when allegations surface—a pattern that research on sexual violence perpetration suggests is common among those who commit these harms.
Robust Case Management Systems: The Backbone of Prevention
Primary prevention requires infrastructure. Effective response to incidents is inseparable from preventing future harm. A comprehensive case management system must log all reports, investigations, and hearings on personal files, creating an accurate, up-to-date record that follows the individual throughout their tenure.
This systematic documentation serves several critical functions:
For reference checks: When another institution requests a reference, universities should provide factual statements covering the whole person, including performance, any allegations made, the stage reached in the investigation process, and outcomes, where applicable. This isn't about pre-judging individuals; it's about sharing material information that enables receiving institutions to make informed decisions and implement appropriate risk management strategies.
For internal promotion decisions, institutions must consider the whole picture before advancing individuals into positions of greater power and responsibility. Research on power dynamics in organisational settings demonstrates that positions of authority can amplify harm when held by those with documented patterns of concerning behaviour. Due diligence protections must be embedded in promotion criteria.
For institutional learning, aggregated data from case management systems—appropriately de-identified—enable universities to identify patterns, assess risk factors, and target prevention initiatives more effectively. This aligns with public health approaches to violence prevention that emphasise surveillance and data-driven intervention.
The Privacy Question: Lessons from GDPR
Concerns about privacy and legal risk inevitably arise when discussing these practices. However, experience from jurisdictions with more stringent privacy requirements demonstrates that these protections are not only possible but also legally defensible.
During my tenure working in the United Kingdom, implementing similar practices under GDPR—which sets a considerably higher threshold than current Australian privacy legislation—these processes functioned effectively. The key lies in understanding that privacy rights are not absolute; they must be balanced against legitimate interests in safeguarding communities and preventing harm.
The principle of transparency requires that individuals understand how their information will be used. Employment contracts, student conduct policies, and investigation procedures should clearly articulate that:
Reports and investigation outcomes become part of permanent records
Information may be shared in reference checks and during promotion considerations
Data may be shared with other institutions where appropriate to prevent harm
Nevertheless, government guidance is essential. As this represents a sector-wide reform, individual institutions should not bear the legal risk of implementing these protections independently. The government must provide clear guidance on the legal framework supporting these practices and, ideally, indemnification for universities acting in good faith to implement code requirements.
Toward Sector-Wide Data Sharing Agreements
Institution hopping cannot be addressed through isolated institutional policies alone. The higher education sector needs formal agreements enabling appropriate data sharing when allegations have been made or substantiated.
Such frameworks exist in other contexts—from teacher registration boards to healthcare professional oversight bodies—demonstrating that information sharing is both possible and necessary when safeguarding is at stake. The implementation of the National Code provides an opportunity to establish similar mechanisms across universities.
Effective data sharing agreements would:
Specify what information is shared and under what circumstances
Establish secure systems for information exchange
Define clear protocols for how receiving institutions must respond to shared information
Include oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse
Balance individual privacy rights with community safety imperatives
From an early intervention perspective, this approach enables universities to identify individuals who may be accumulating concerning behaviours across institutions—patterns that might not trigger concern when viewed in isolation but that, taken together, signal escalating risk.
Behavioural Science Insights on Perpetration Patterns
Research on sexual violence perpetration reveals that a relatively small proportion of individuals commit the majority of offences, with serial perpetrators averaging multiple victims. These individuals often employ sophisticated strategies to evade accountability, including strategic mobility when facing consequences.
Moreover, evidence suggests that perpetrators who face no consequences for harmful behaviour are highly likely to reoffend. Conversely, accountability—even absent severe sanctions—can disrupt these patterns. By ensuring that records follow individuals and that information is shared appropriately, we create systemic accountability that behavioural research suggests may deter.
This aligns with situational prevention theory, which emphasises that making harmful behaviour more difficult and less rewarding reduces its occurrence. Making institution hopping a less viable escape strategy shifts the situational dynamics in favour of prevention.
The Call to Action
Universities navigating the implementation of the National Code face complex challenges, and preventing institution hopping requires coordination, courage, and expert support.
Institutions must:
Commit to completing investigations regardless of respondent departure
Develop robust case management systems that create accurate, permanent records
Implement clear policies on reference checks and promotion criteria that include relevant allegation information
Advocate collectively for government guidance and legal protections
Work toward sector-wide data sharing agreements that enable appropriate information exchange
This work is challenging—both practically and culturally. It requires us to prioritise long-term prevention and community safety over short-term administrative convenience. It demands that we centre survivor-victim experiences while also maintaining procedural fairness. And it calls us to work collectively across institutions, recognising that campus safety is a shared responsibility.
Kelsey Paske Consulting offers specialised support for universities implementing the National Code, including policy development, case management system design, staff training, and navigating the complexities of trauma-informed investigation practices. With extensive experience in higher education safeguarding, KPC can help your institution develop robust approaches to implementing prevention and response plans, including measures to prevent institution hopping, while upholding both survivor-victim rights and procedural fairness.
The National Code represents our collective commitment to creating campuses free from gendered violence, bullying, harassment, and discrimination. By closing the institution-hopping loophole, we move from aspirational statements to meaningful structural change—the kind that genuinely keeps communities safe.
For support with National Code implementation, including preventing institution hopping, contact Kelsey Paske Consulting at kelsey@kelseypaskeconsulting.com.
