Robert Halfon’s mental health taskforce misses its targets

The promise was that the Higher education mental health implementation taskforce would set the sector strong, clear, and measurable targets on which HE providers will report – and the intention was it would conclude its work this month, making progress on a “University Student Commitment” (more sensitive comms to students getting bad news from their university) by the end of 2023.

April’s update builds on the one we saw in January to give us a sense of how progress on those promises is going.

The minutes suggest that Halfon replacement Luke Hall couldn’t make it, but was “committed” to continuing the work of his predecessor and looking forward to the Taskforce’s second stage report in June.

On that May 2024 target, chair and HE Student Support Champion Edward Peck opened the meeting by proposing the taskforce continues until to June 2025.

“Significant progress” has been made, the second stage report will include “many updates”, but some work areas need further development – particularly connecting HE providers with NHS care, which should be completed this year.

Focus areas include the University Mental Health Charter Programme target, non-specialist staff training, and the National Review of HE suicides.

Peck also suggested that there would be a benefit to adding a current HE student to the Taskforce membership. Never too late, and all that.

To be fair, there are now multiple strands to the group’s work beyond those set by Halfon. An update on the “case management” work strand included discussions with providers to be shared with UMHAN and AMOSSHE and a need for clarity in supporting students with significant mental illness who interact with multiple academic and support services.

Taskforce members raised concerns about the challenges of creating a nationally joined-up system due to funding issues. The Chair noted that this strand focuses on internal university systems to ensure effective management of student welfare through connected information.

On that Student Commitment that we were supposed to get by the end of last year, we learn that the framework has been reviewed positively by four student reviewers and an academic expert on neurodivergence, with feedback being processed.

Ongoing discussions with the Academic Registrars Council (ARC) executive committee about embedding the framework in the sector have been positive, though “some questions remain”. The Chair assured that there are contingency plans if ARC does not adopt the work. It’s not at all clear why we’ve not yet seen a public draft.

“Adoption of best practice” is code for a three-line whip for getting involved in Student Minds’ University Mental Health Charter.

Previous meetings wrestled with smaller providers that are currently ineligible for participation – current plans involve them having to have a published mental health strategy, an action plan, governing board oversight, and transparency on progress.

For those that are eligible, it seems that a report is coming on overcoming barriers and concerns from UUK members that Peck wants published sharpish. UUK has written to 29 of its members which are yet to join the programme to understand their intention and collect anonymous feedback – 12 have responded, 9 have signalled an intention to join, 2 are yet to make a decision, and 1 is not intending to join. No names yet.

One barrier raised by UUK members was the significant resource commitment required to fully engage with the programme – which might divert resources from other vital wellbeing services, especially under current financial pressures. Some had also fed back that the “clinical model” assumed by Student Minds was neither explicit in the charter nor appropriate for their institution. A taskforce member raised concern that without regulation, engagement with the University Mental Health Charter may be seen as discretionary and not prioritised by institutions.

There’s quite a detailed paper on sharing information with universities about the mental health/disability status of students – and some evaluation of what the options might be. UCAS declarations link prospective students with support services but often need supplementing with pre-enrolment surveys. It has included a new section on extenuating circumstances impacting applicants, Jisc is exploring a single student identifier (SSI) to manage transition points more effectively, with a pilot project involving a digital wallet for sharing verified credentials.

A single information-sharing process with an SSI is the most comprehensive option – but costly and complex. Other options include encouraging young people to share EHCPs with providers, exploring data protection barriers, and promoting best practice. Feedback from Taskforce members was sought on the options. Concerns were raised about applicants being hesitant to disclose mental health conditions due to fears it might affect their acceptance, and some said the impact of international students on providers’ resources should be considered in the taskforce’s next phase.

Central to the duty of care debate is the lack of standard student support training for non-clinical job roles, particularly in identifying and responding to student mental health needs. So an alternative to a legal duty of care has been a call for a clear framework for professional development, detailing core competencies required by each job family.

A Competency Framework is coming – it will set out minimum standards of knowledge, skills, and behaviours expected of these staff, and the group has identified organisational procedures related to communication, escalation, and emergency protocols to ensure safe responses to student distress. Meetings with OfS and UCU were being arranged, and conversations with Student Minds were ongoing about sharing the framework with those working towards the UMHC – but the meeting itself worried that it might end up being a bit of a tick box exercise.

Another paper on the key challenges providers face in adopting data systems to identify students at risk was shared – the idea from here will be to survey providers to understand barriers, working with “trailblazer” providers to highlight benefits to the wider sector, and collaborating with Advance HE to develop a framework of principles for effective student support design.

Taskforce members noted slow progress in some providers, the need for dedicated individuals or teams to respond to system-raised issues, and the importance of demonstrating a return on investment for these systems.

And on the links between universities and the NHS, taskforce members received updates on a project which aims to provide practical guidance and case studies on collaboration between HE providers and local GPs. Ongoing conversations with NHS and DHSC colleagues are taking place, case studies are coming, a literature review and interviews on secondary mental illness services is mooted for June, and guidance will be tested with HE and health providers over the summer.

Zoom out a bit, and the irony for me is that if there was a statutory duty of care, you can’t escape the feeling that there would be more urgency, less of a stress on “barriers” and more of a sense that every provider will be taking part. If nothing else, “strong, clear, and measurable targets on which HE providers will report” couldn’t seem further away.