Revealed: Bristol Uni plans to cut student wellbeing services are ‘reckless’, staff warn
UPDATE: After this article was published, Bristol University told the Cable on Friday afternoon that an amended proposal had been shared with staff, with an overall reduction in roles of 14%, compared with the 40% originally proposed. More to follow.
The University of Bristol is planning a drastic restructure of its student wellbeing service from September, the Cable can reveal.
Whistleblowers fear the plans will have detrimental effects on overall student mental health provision, which also includes a counselling service and specialist team for people with higher needs. Their concerns come two years after a landmark court judgment found the university had contributed to the suicide of Natasha Abrahart, one of 12 students who took their lives between 2016 and 2018.
At present, a ‘wellbeing access’ team manages referrals, prioritising students according to their risk levels. Advisors then hold one-to-one appointments with students, signposting them to support where needed, and acting as a liaison between staff and students.
Under the proposals, the wellbeing service would be reduced by 40%, with some roles reassigned and others removed. The access team would be scrapped and replaced by an online booking system.
Staff say it’s a move towards “a reduced offer” that will render workloads unmanageable, and take capacity away from crucial outreach and prevention work.
“As we’ve seen from previous coverage of student deaths, without robust risk assessment and outreach – students will fall through the gaps,” says Tara*, one of the wellbeing team.
Natasha Abrahart was just 20 when she died in April 2018, the day before she was due to give an oral presentation. Four years later, a judgment in Bristol County Court found the University of Bristol had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her social anxiety disorder – with the High Court upholding the ruling this year.
“It is for the University of Bristol, and higher education institutions across the country, to get their houses in order,” said her dad, standing next to his wife outside the courthouse.
‘Twisting the data’
In comments to the Cable, a spokesperson for the University of Bristol said: “We are committed to a whole university approach to mental health and wellbeing and as such the University of Bristol has one of the highest levels of investment in this area of any university in the UK.”
“The mental health and wellbeing of our community is at the heart of decision-making across the university,” the spokesperson continued.
“It is important to note that no changes have yet been made and that colleagues will continue to be fully involved as this process progresses,” the spokesperson said. They added that the new proposals would see more money being put into specialist mental health support for students with more complex needs, in partnership with the University of the West of England (UWE) and Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership.
The university claims the plans aim to improve students’ user experience and deliver “value for money.” But staff question the underlying evidence – “they’re twisting data to fit their agenda,” says Chris*.
The university put massive investment into this service when it was set up six years ago, deliberately to make it sector-leading… Now this proposal is going to take us back to what we had, which didn’t work.
This week (6 June) has marked the end of the statutory consultation period required around proposed redundancies, which could see the current 44 full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing scaled back to 26.
Some say they feel undervalued, unheard and worried at the prospect of their service turning into a “production line”.
Staff, who have submitted a detailed rebuttal of the university’s plans, must now wait while their jobs hang in the balance – deeply concerned for their own livelihoods, and for what might await next year’s student cohort.
And the wider question remains – what duty of care do universities have to their students? Mr Justice Linden, the High Court judge who this year rejected the University of Bristol’s appeal against the 2022 Natasha Abrahart ruling, declined to make a verdict on that point.
‘Poor consultation’
In mid-April, senior managers first announced that changes were on the way. A week later, the introduction of the word “redundancy” triggered the beginning of the statutory consultation period.
The Cable first spoke to whistleblowers in mid-May, who were fresh from a meeting – which they said had been less than fruitful – with Steven Hall, the university’s director of student experience.
During the consultation period, staff could write rebuttals to the proposal – but note this was during exam time, a particularly busy period for the service.
“We were working until 10 or 11 in the evening – our jobs and livelihoods are at stake, you can’t just switch off from it,” says Alan*. “I’m struggling to sleep, I’m waking up in the middle of the night thinking about it.”
Already struggling with workloads, staff – represented by unions UCU, Unite and Unison – say they made multiple requests for the consultation period to be extended. These were refused.
“Extending consultation would mean delaying the implementation of service changes beyond the start of the next academic year, which we believe would not be in the best interests of staff or students,” the university’s spokesperson said.
But that reasoning doesn’t fly with staff. “We’ve asked them – do you want it done well or done quickly?” says Chris. “It really seems like speed over quality.”
Many have taken time off because of the stress of the situation. “Morale in the office is low, it’s so quiet,” says Tara. “We’re being expected to just keep the show on the road, and we’re trying to shield the students we support from it.”
Seven pregnant employees now find themselves in negotiation with HR about how redundancy could affect their maternity pay. Five staff were hired as recently as January and now face job cuts.
Despite the university’s comments about involving staff in the ongoing process, those we spoke to say feedback has not been taken on, with meetings often feeling rushed and questions not fully addressed.
“It seems very risky,” says Tara. “I’m fairly confident this model won’t work – but by the time they’ve found that out, it will be too late to backtrack on having fired half the staff.”
What’s the real motive?
The university’s stated motivations for making change include poor levels of satisfaction among students, who experience a “clunky and confusing user experience”.
But staff dispute this. “That’s just not the feedback we get,” Tara says. She says repeated references have been made to “extensive student feedback”, both in the proposal and during the consultation meetings. But despite assurances that this data would be shared, staff allege not all of it was.
“We have a feedback system, so we’ve got data that says that they are satisfied with the service,” says Tara. “We’ve sent them that too. We’ve got quotes in there about 98% student satisfaction. They just didn’t even register it.”
The other driver for change is “value for money” – with sources perplexed by this.
In its comments to the Cable, the university said: “We are committed to a whole university approach to mental health and wellbeing, and as such the University of Bristol has one of the highest levels of investment in this area of any university in the UK.”
When Natasha Abrahart took her life in April 2018, she was the 12th student to have done so in 18 months. The university subsequently poured more than £1 million into wellbeing services.
Despite this, the proposal now suggests stripping back the service to a staff team to 26 FTE. However, a university spokesperson said there will be 100 FTE staff working across the wellbeing and mental health services overall, costing the university more than £5m a year, which remains above sector benchmarks.
While this puts Bristol University above the average, wellbeing staff say the move still signals a step backwards. “It’s supposed to be better than other universities – now this proposal is going to take us back,” says Chris.
Staff speculate whether savings of wages – which they estimate to be around £400k – are the real motive. In its statement, the university insisted this is not the case.
‘It’s going to be like a production line’
Whatever the rationale, staff fear the outcome will inevitably be a service that offers less and is focused on brief, generalist advice provided within a single appointment.
One, Simon* is still impacted by working with a student who took their life some years ago. “I felt very pressured into sticking to the ‘one session model’ when working with that student and I passed them onto services that didn’t have the capacity to follow up or check in,” he recalls.
“We want more meaningful contact with students. What they propose – it’s very much a revolving door, or a production line,” adds colleague Sheila*.
Staff are currently expected to have no more than three appointments with students per day, but the proposal suggests increasing this to four, or even five in peak times. Staff say this will leave less time for important admin, such as making an action plan, sending follow-up resources or check-in emails, making referrals, meeting with senior tutors, doing workshops and working with the student union.
A Bristol University spokesperson said: “Even at peak times, the current model only expects that advisers spend 50-60% of their time in appointments with students.”
This can include making an action plan, sending follow-up resources or check-in emails, making referrals, meeting with senior tutors, doing workshops and working with the student union.
“The university has greatly undervalued our work,” says Simon. “We need some flex in our day to debrief, to have supervisions, to deal with the secondary trauma we get from difficult disclosures. The new model won’t even give us time to go to the loo.”
Such working conditions will inevitably harm employee wellbeing, sources warn – leading to situations that are unsafe for them – and therefore for students.
“I feel like saying to them, in your self interest, if people burn out, they can’t work – then the whole thing falls apart,” says Tara. “You’ll just have to close the doors.”
“People expect more from their higher education institutions in terms of mental health support, not less.”
*The names of sources have been changed to protect their anonymity
*NOTE: This article was amended to reflect the fact that the proposed staffing levels of the wellbeing service is 26 not 20, and add extra clarifications from the university.
