For years, GBV prevention strategies in workplaces and educational settings often revolved around policies, compliance checklists, and top-down initiatives. While necessary, these approaches can unintentionally sideline the voices of the very people they’re meant to support.
Survivors and communities bring crucial perspectives that data alone can’t capture. Listening to them:
- Reveals system blind spots, how policies actually function (or fail) in real life.
- Builds trust between institutions and communities.
- Humanises the issue, shifting it from abstract compliance to lived experience.
- Drives innovation, as survivor-informed ideas often lead to more practical, compassionate, and effective solutions.
The shift toward survivor-informed, community-engaged practice is not about replacing legal frameworks or governance, it’s about grounding them in reality.
RMIT and the National Code
In August 2025, RMIT University highlighted its work to align with the Proposed National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence. But what stood out wasn’t just compliance, it was how RMIT centred the voices of students and survivors in shaping its programs.
The university launched a series of student forums, survivor roundtables, and community consultations to inform its prevention and response strategy. These weren’t token exercises. The feedback directly shaped:
- The language used in policies and reporting materials (moving away from bureaucratic jargon to plain language).
- The structure of reporting pathways, making them simpler, more confidential, and survivor-led.
- The training content for staff, which now includes survivor narratives and scenarios co-designed with student representatives.
- The governance structure, adding student-survivor advisory roles to key decision-making bodies.
By embedding survivor voices, RMIT was able to identify gaps that weren’t visible through policy audits alone. For example, many students felt unsure about what counted as reportable behaviour, or feared losing control once they disclosed. This insight led to new “guided disclosure” options, where survivors can explore their options without committing to a formal process.
This approach exemplifies what the National Code calls for: genuine, sustained engagement with affected communities to shape prevention and response strategies.
Survivor-informed practice: what it really means
“Survivor-informed” isn’t just a buzzword. In practice, it involves designing policies, programs, and systems that are shaped by the lived experiences of survivors, and giving survivors a meaningful role in governance, training, and communication.
Key principles include:
1. Agency and choice
Survivors should have control over their information, their reporting pathway, and the type of support they receive. Systems that strip agency (for example, mandatory reporting without survivor consent) can cause further harm.
2. Trauma-informed approaches
Policies and training should recognise the psychological and emotional impacts of trauma. This includes creating safe spaces, using appropriate language, avoiding re-traumatisation, and ensuring confidentiality.
3. Diverse representation
Survivors are not a monolithic group. Effective engagement includes diverse voices (across gender identities, cultural backgrounds, disability status, and more) to ensure policies are inclusive and equitable.
4. Ongoing engagement, not one-off consultation
Survivor engagement must be continuous. It’s not enough to consult once and move on. Regular feedback loops ensure that systems evolve alongside community needs.
How organisations can embed survivor-informed practice
Whether you’re a university, business, or government agency, you can embed survivor-informed approaches in practical, structured ways. Here’s a step-by-step framework:
1. Create safe mechanisms to hear survivor voices
Start by establishing trusted, confidential avenues for survivors and community members to share feedback.
Practical options:
- Survivor advisory groups or panels.
- Regular listening sessions facilitated by trauma-informed professionals.
- Anonymous feedback forms that go directly to governance bodies.
- Partnering with specialist services to facilitate consultation safely.
Why it matters:
Survivors need to feel safe and supported to share their perspectives without fear of retaliation or re-traumatisation.
2. Ensure survivor input shapes real decisions
Avoid tokenism by embedding survivor voices into decision-making structures.
Practical options:
- Include survivor or student representatives on steering committees.
- Establish co-design processes for policies, training, and communications.
- Use survivor feedback to revise governance frameworks, not just front-line programs.
Why it matters:
True influence builds trust and leads to more effective, relevant solutions.
3. Train staff in trauma-informed responses
Many staff and managers want to support survivors but don’t know how. Training can build confidence and consistency.
Practical content includes:
- Understanding trauma impacts.
- Responding empathetically to disclosures.
- Respecting confidentiality and legal obligations.
- Using plain language and culturally appropriate communication.
Why it matters:
Survivor-informed systems are only as good as the people implementing them.
4. Build feedback loops
After survivors share input, organisations must close the loop by showing how their contributions shaped change.
Practical steps:
- Publish summaries of consultation outcomes (while protecting anonymity).
- Communicate what actions have been taken as a result.
- Continue engaging survivors in evaluation and refinement.
Why it matters:
Closing the loop prevents consultation fatigue and demonstrates respect.
Community engagement beyond campus
Survivor-informed practice isn’t limited to students or university staff. Effective GBV prevention often involves engaging the broader community, including:
- Local health and legal services who support survivors.
- Student unions and advocacy groups who bring grassroots perspectives.
- Community cultural organisations, ensuring inclusivity for migrant and refugee communities.
- Industry partners for workplaces embedded in broader ecosystems.
For example, one university in Queensland partnered with a local women’s health centre to co-deliver trauma-informed response training, ensuring staff received both institutional and community perspectives.
Another university collaborated with LGBTIQA+ groups to ensure their reporting pathways were inclusive and addressed the unique barriers faced by queer students.
Barriers to survivor-informed practice, and how to overcome them
Many organisations want to engage survivors but encounter practical challenges. Here are common barriers and ways to address them:
“We’re worried about causing harm or retraumatising survivors.”
Response: Partner with specialist services who can facilitate consultations safely and provide support to participants. Create trauma-informed guidelines for engagement.
“We don’t know where to start.”
Response: Begin small — set up one advisory group or hold a single listening session. Focus on building trust before scaling up.
“We’re concerned about confidentiality and legal implications.”
Response: Establish clear protocols and informed consent processes. Survivors should understand how their input will be used and protected.
“This will slow down our policy development.”
Response: It may take longer initially, but survivor-informed policies are more robust, effective, and trusted, saving time and resources in the long run.
Why this matters: the human and cultural impact
When survivors are heard and respected, something powerful happens: culture shifts. Policies become more than words on paper. People start to trust systems. Leadership becomes more accountable.
As one student survivor put it at a forum:
“For the first time, I felt like my story didn’t disappear into a void. It helped change something.”
Survivor-informed practice is also strategically smart. It aligns with the National Code’s expectations for meaningful engagement, strengthens compliance, and builds reputational trust. But more than that, it makes prevention and response real.
Listening is leadership
In the rush to meet compliance deadlines or roll out programs, it’s easy for organisations to skip the “listening” step. But as Mia’s story at RMIT shows, listening is often the most transformative act an organisation can take.
Survivor-informed and community-engaged approaches are not soft add-ons. They are the backbone of effective GBV prevention and response. They bring humanity, trust, and innovation to systems that too often feel impersonal.
As one senior leader reflected after attending a survivor forum:
“I thought I understood this issue. Then I listened. Now, I lead differently.”
The path to safer workplaces and campuses doesn’t start with a policy document.
It starts with a microphone, a listening ear, and a commitment to act.
